Get E-Mail Updates

A New Movement to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

The famed Chautauqua Institution devoted this entire week to the theme of nuclear disarmament. It is a sign of the times. Chautauqua has often been known for sensing the nation's pulse and what is on the cutting edge of its thinking. And after becoming a dormant public issue since the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear weapons has again created a new movement toward the goal of a world without them.

One important sign of a shifting mindset came in 2007 when four of America's preeminent Cold Warriors -- George Shultz, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and Henry Kissinger -- made headlines by co-authoring an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal saying, "The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era." One year later, they wrote another WSJ column that began with the sentence, "The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how, and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point."

Former Senator Sam Nunn, a consistent hawk who always talked about "political realism" when he represented Georgia in the U.S. Senate, was a speaker at Chautauqua on Monday and got a standing ovation when he called for a "world free of nuclear weapons." That, according to Nunn and his fellow four horsemen, is the only realistic way to security now. As the men have warned, "The likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing ... We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands."

In fact, nuclear weapons in any human hands have always been dangerous. The failure of the United States and Russia to disarm their largest nuclear arsenals after the Cold War is a principle cause of the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more countries, failed states, and even terrorist organizations.

And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament. In the spring of 2009, in his first major speech in Europe -- in Prague -- Barack Obama affirmed his commitment. He pledged that "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." I am told that this is something that keeps Obama up at night.

But for me, perhaps the most important sign of the times is a new generation of young Christian leaders who have identified nuclear weapons as an issue of faith -- much as we did as young Christian activists in the 1980s. Their commitment is best exemplified by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson and his Two Futures Project, which calls itself "a movement of American Christians for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. We believe that we face two futures and one choice: a world without nuclear weapons or a world ruined by them. We support the multilateral, global, irreversible, and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, as a biblically grounded mandate and as a contemporary security imperative."

Tyler gave an amazing speech at Chautauqua this week, and was down in front when I spoke yesterday. Sojourners was a leader in the movement to abolish nuclear weapons in the 1970s and '80s, and I described that history -- how the faith community was the animating core of that initiative for peace in the midst of the Cold War. I told the audience that when Tyler first called me about a new statement of Christian leaders that he had initiated and asked if I would sign it, I wept after putting down the phone. A new generation had decided to pick up the nuclear challenge once again, and would now be an intellectual and spiritual force for the disarmament that is now so crucial to the security of the world and of my two boys. Spending the day with Tyler and his wife Natalie was the highlight of my visit to Chautauqua.

To reverse the habits of the heart -- the assumptions and policies that have dominated U.S. national security policy for more than 60 years -- will be a monumental achievement. And the pressures against that happening will be enormous. Indeed, this is a job for faith -- and for the kind of social movements that faith at its best has always inspired. The energetic commitment of a new generation of believers in accomplishing this magnificent goal will be absolutely crucial. Perhaps after all the years of struggle on the huge theological and political issues surrounding nuclear weapons, the time for a new beginning has finally come. It's time to end the nuclear threat to our world, our humanity, and our faith.

The response of the people at Chautauqua to that call this week gave me a new sense of hope.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com.


<strong><img title="portrait-jim-wallis" src="/sites/default/files/images/portrait-jim-wallis.jpg" alt="portrait-jim-wallis" width="60" height="73" /><em>Jim Wallis</em></strong><em> is the author of </em><a href="http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.RV&amp;item=RV_order">Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy</a><em>, and CEO of </em><a href="http://www.sojo.net/">Sojourners</a><em>. He blogs at </em><a href="http://www.godspolitics.com/"><em>www.godspolitics.com</em></a><em>.</em>
<strong><a href="http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.subscribe&amp;source=web_blog_content">+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis</a></strong>

+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

+Watch Sojourners' video interview with George Schultz

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: billhabedank

07-22-2010 @ 8:26pm

The reason we have entered into a more dangerous era is largely because the United States has empahtically stated repeatedly that nothing is off the table in our dealings with certain countries. Apparently we are prepared to use even nuclear force necessary for us to control other countries; yes control. This means to me that we will use nuclear weapons if "forced" to. That is way too much power for one country or even one person. No wonder other countries want that kind of power and most likely for no other reason than the same reason why the U.S says it wants them -for security and for a way (but distorted way) of preserving the "peace". Some of you might say "well its worked hasn't it?" and I would ask you if you really do feel safer? I don't and I am 63 years old and have lived under nuclear threat my life.This is no security for anyone living on this earth with nuclear weapons in anyones hands. I would put trust in other countries saying they have disarmed and it would be a good enough reason for me to say the U.S. must disarm first. Even if we were attacked, I could not as a Christian bring it upon myself to use such a weapon on other people. Shouldn't any Christian feel the same?

by: elainemrondeau

07-22-2010 @ 9:17pm

Dear Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis,
We admire the work of Sojourner and the courage that you have Rev. Wallis, to speak the truth.
PLEASE TRY TO ENCOURAGE FOX NEWS TO STOP THE VITRIOL, THE LIES, THE RACISM THAT THEY SPEW OUT ON A DAILY BASIS.
Please encourage the Christians that call themselves so to stop the hatred and bring the United States of America back together once again.

Sincerely yours,
Elaine M. Rondeau
Executive Director,
The Renee Olubunmi Rondeau Peace Foundation
Marietta, Georgia

by: JerryFolk

07-22-2010 @ 9:16pm

This is very encouraging, especially to those of us who worked on this issue in the 70's and 80's, but equally important is the issue of arms expenditures overall. It is incredible that in the midst of all the talk about deficits, virtually no mention is made of the vast expenditures on arms. The Pentagon budget remains sacrosanct. I am convinced that reduction in this budget is essential if we are to bring the deficit under control. It is the responsibility of the church to raise this issue boldly and relentlessly.

Jerry Folk

by: dcoombs

07-22-2010 @ 9:24pm

I believe that Sojourners has something very important to say in the ongoing dialog and so it grieves me to see it constantly marginalize itself by injecting discourse designed to alienate many who need to read and internalize the message.

I am specifically referring in this article to the comment "And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." This adds nothing to the article yet casts dispersions on previous presidents all of whom I am certain felt deeply about nuclear disarmament.

Your apparent hatred for past administrations so colors your rhetoric as to make it extremely difficult to share your important messages with anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints. I would suggest you pay attention to Dr. Marty who is able to communicate these same views without resorting to constant name calling and bashing of the opposition.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-24-2010 @ 12:26pm

It seems to me that in many of our conversations on a Christian response to nuclear weapons we begin by asking the question 'what should our government/nation' do? Is that the correct starting question for Christian people? Is our first question not 'what would the living Jesus christ head of the Church have we his people do?'For me I find it hard to say that Jesus would have me as his follower or the Church as his people complicit in the maintenance, use, and in my case renewal of weapons of mass destruction. To quote from an anabaptist songwriter 'When Jesus said love your enemies he probably meant don't kill them'. Having established this answer (or whatever one we come to) it is then our responsibility to bear witness to it before the nations including our own and seek to find ways to nudge and persuade our governments/ nations in that direction. (It is here that the other discussions, arguments, and matters of persuasion come in). To claim that this is not a 'real world' approach is to claim that the proclaimed Kingdom is not the 'real' world approach, or that Jesus is not the Lord over all things - indeed a difficulty that the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus had with their wider cultures.

I observe that in other areas of moral/ethical decision making that our starting point is not normally the governments or nations dilemma or interest but what we believe the living Jesus Christ is saying to his people through the Word. Here, however, we take a different starting point - what should the government our nation do? Why is this? Is it a result of unquestioned national self intererst at this point of our ethical decision making and or a lack of faith that the way of peace of the crucified one is actually God's way of resurrection and Kingdom come and the way his people should follow and bear witness to?

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-24-2010 @ 12:26pm

It seems to me that in many of our conversations on a Christian response to nuclear weapons we begin by asking the question 'what should our government/nation' do? Is that the correct starting question for Christian people? Is our first question not 'what would the living Jesus christ head of the Church have we his people do?'For me I find it hard to say that Jesus would have me as his follower or the Church as his people complicit in the maintenance, use, and in my case renewal of weapons of mass destruction. To quote from an anabaptist songwriter 'When Jesus said love your enemies he probably meant don't kill them'. Having established this answer (or whatever one we come to) it is then our responsibility to bear witness to it before the nations including our own and seek to find ways to nudge and persuade our governments/ nations in that direction. (It is here that the other discussions, arguments, and matters of persuasion come in). To claim that this is not a 'real world' approach is to claim that the proclaimed Kingdom is not the 'real' world approach, or that Jesus is not the Lord over all things - indeed a difficulty that the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus had with their wider cultures.

I observe that in other areas of moral/ethical decision making that our starting point is not normally the governments or nations dilemma or interest but what we believe the living Jesus Christ is saying to his people through the Word. Here, however, we take a different starting point - what should the government our nation do? Why is this? Is it a result of unquestioned national self intererst at this point of our ethical decision making and or a lack of faith that the way of peace of the crucified one is actually God's way of resurrection and Kingdom come and the way his people should follow and bear witness to?

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: reynaldo753

07-24-2010 @ 2:49pm

The Russians proposed greater reductions in nuclear arms than the US was willing to accept, and we didn't follow then. Whatever happened to moral leadership?

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: reynaldo753

07-24-2010 @ 2:49pm

The Russians proposed greater reductions in nuclear arms than the US was willing to accept, and we didn't follow then. Whatever happened to moral leadership?

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 2:45pm

Dave: 1) Observing that we currently have a president who cares deeply about nuclear disarmament casts no dispersions (sic) on past presidents.
2) As a practical matter, past presidents can do relatively little about nuclear disarmament compared to the paradigm change the current administration can potentially initiate.
3) Jim Wallis does no "name-calling" or "bashing the opposition" in this piece. To paraphrase you (and imitate your ability to twist others' words): "Your apparent hatred of the current administration so colors your attitude as to make it extremely difficult to receive important messages from anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints." This, of course, is unfair of me, just as your misinterpretation of Jim Wallis' observation is unfair (and ignores the point of the piece).
4) Please put aside political partisanship for a moment. What if we all, as Christ-followers, supported political leaders based on their ideas (in this case, disarmament) instead of whether they have an R or a D beside their name?

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 2:45pm

Dave: 1) Observing that we currently have a president who cares deeply about nuclear disarmament casts no dispersions (sic) on past presidents.
2) As a practical matter, past presidents can do relatively little about nuclear disarmament compared to the paradigm change the current administration can potentially initiate.
3) Jim Wallis does no "name-calling" or "bashing the opposition" in this piece. To paraphrase you (and imitate your ability to twist others' words): "Your apparent hatred of the current administration so colors your attitude as to make it extremely difficult to receive important messages from anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints." This, of course, is unfair of me, just as your misinterpretation of Jim Wallis' observation is unfair (and ignores the point of the piece).
4) Please put aside political partisanship for a moment. What if we all, as Christ-followers, supported political leaders based on their ideas (in this case, disarmament) instead of whether they have an R or a D beside their name?

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 4:20pm

But there is nothing inflammatory in this article (at least from a partisan political perspective). The sentence you cite in your initial post is no reflection on previous administrations, merely an observation about the current one.

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 4:20pm

But there is nothing inflammatory in this article (at least from a partisan political perspective). The sentence you cite in your initial post is no reflection on previous administrations, merely an observation about the current one.

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: Dave

07-24-2010 @ 4:04pm

I think you missed my point. I'm the pastor of a conservative congregation. I would like to pass on a number of Jim's articles but usually cannot because inevitably he includes one or more inflammatory barbs that would cause the rest of his message to be rejected by this audience. I become frustrated because the rhetoric prevents dissemination of important information.

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: Dave

07-24-2010 @ 4:04pm

I think you missed my point. I'm the pastor of a conservative congregation. I would like to pass on a number of Jim's articles but usually cannot because inevitably he includes one or more inflammatory barbs that would cause the rest of his message to be rejected by this audience. I become frustrated because the rhetoric prevents dissemination of important information.

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: veryregularlistener

07-23-2010 @ 9:10am

The solution to nuclear waste might be as easy as the solution to fossil fuel waste - fire it up a long chimney stack. What do you think?

Yes, it will kill the planet. But then we also know firing fossil waste gases up long chimneys (or short car exhaust pipes) is also well along the road to killing the planet. So, the outcomes will be the same.

Store nuclear waste carefully on the surface. Pass it on to future generations to look after just as carefully. At least they will still be around to look after it, unlike with the fossil fuel situation. A much less dangerous legacy than the fossil waste legacy.

It is quite possible, of course, that a future generation will find out how to re-use this nuclear waste constructively, and will probably thank us for leaving it to them in accessible places, rather than down a sealed, deep hole.

I am an engineer who manages new fossil fuel power plant projects. I wish my career had been in managing nuclear projects, so that my conscience would be less troubled.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 12:07pm

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's new 'best special friend' supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union!) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports. Here I am not denying the presence of a Scottish Campaign for nuclear disarmament but simply that there is little sense of a 'movement' of opposition and certainly among the churches not least the evangelical ones.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. If Britain were not to renew its nuclear weapons this would be globally significant step. While not the primary argument from my perspective economic conditions give an additional 'space' for discussing non-renewal. Contact and communication, however, with Sojourners appears to have got lost in the e-mail ether, which is disappointing.

As I read this blog entry, therefore, I am encouraged by what I read but am also frustrated at the lack of active engagement with it in Britain as a moral and spiritual issue of first importance. I wish there were ways to transfer some of the energy here reported into our context.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 11:56am

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's 'new best special friend', David Cameron, supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators for an act of compassion led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. Contact and communication, however, appears to have got lost in the ether which is disappointing.

I am encouraged by what I read in this blog, therefore, but I am concerned about the lack of interest or awareness about a context where there is the potential to make a real and present difference before a new generation of weapons become part of the equation. In writing this I am yet conscious that the responsibility to do somethig about this lies with us in this country. The lack of interest or activity, however, in contrast to what is being reported here leaves me frustrated rather than hopeful as this is not simply an American issue.

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: AlanP2

07-23-2010 @ 1:40pm

Nuclear disarmament? Great! Just get the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Iranians to do it first. Then the U.S. can follow.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

by: veryregularlistener

07-23-2010 @ 9:10am

The solution to nuclear waste might be as easy as the solution to fossil fuel waste - fire it up a long chimney stack. What do you think?

Yes, it will kill the planet. But then we also know firing fossil waste gases up long chimneys (or short car exhaust pipes) is also well along the road to killing the planet. So, the outcomes will be the same.

Store nuclear waste carefully on the surface. Pass it on to future generations to look after just as carefully. At least they will still be around to look after it, unlike with the fossil fuel situation. A much less dangerous legacy than the fossil waste legacy.

It is quite possible, of course, that a future generation will find out how to re-use this nuclear waste constructively, and will probably thank us for leaving it to them in accessible places, rather than down a sealed, deep hole.

I am an engineer who manages new fossil fuel power plant projects. I wish my career had been in managing nuclear projects, so that my conscience would be less troubled.

by: hillbilly66

07-23-2010 @ 6:39pm

To think that there are still individuals in 2010 who allow themselves to contemplate the unthinkable - the actual use of these terribly destructive weapons! The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kt; modern weapons are hundreds of times that.

As a young man, I made several patrols out of Holy Loch. Now more mature, I shudder at how that beautiful landscape would be utterly destroyed by the use of these weapons. The United States led in the development of these weapons and we should also lead in their ultimate banishment.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 12:07pm

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's new 'best special friend' supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union!) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports. Here I am not denying the presence of a Scottish Campaign for nuclear disarmament but simply that there is little sense of a 'movement' of opposition and certainly among the churches not least the evangelical ones.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. If Britain were not to renew its nuclear weapons this would be globally significant step. While not the primary argument from my perspective economic conditions give an additional 'space' for discussing non-renewal. Contact and communication, however, with Sojourners appears to have got lost in the e-mail ether, which is disappointing.

As I read this blog entry, therefore, I am encouraged by what I read but am also frustrated at the lack of active engagement with it in Britain as a moral and spiritual issue of first importance. I wish there were ways to transfer some of the energy here reported into our context.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 11:56am

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's 'new best special friend', David Cameron, supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators for an act of compassion led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. Contact and communication, however, appears to have got lost in the ether which is disappointing.

I am encouraged by what I read in this blog, therefore, but I am concerned about the lack of interest or awareness about a context where there is the potential to make a real and present difference before a new generation of weapons become part of the equation. In writing this I am yet conscious that the responsibility to do somethig about this lies with us in this country. The lack of interest or activity, however, in contrast to what is being reported here leaves me frustrated rather than hopeful as this is not simply an American issue.

by: skoopsl8

07-25-2010 @ 12:00am

I'll stick by my first response. You are attributing to Jim a judgement he simply is not making. I think Jim is looking forward with this post ... Unless we can turn back time, previous administrations' attitudes are moot at this point, anyway. Jim is saying the time is ripe. Seize the day. He is not making a comment about previous presidents. He is making the point that disarmament appears to be the current president's priority.

by: skoopsl8

07-25-2010 @ 12:00am

I'll stick by my first response. You are attributing to Jim a judgement he simply is not making. I think Jim is looking forward with this post ... Unless we can turn back time, previous administrations' attitudes are moot at this point, anyway. Jim is saying the time is ripe. Seize the day. He is not making a comment about previous presidents. He is making the point that disarmament appears to be the current president's priority.

by: Dave

07-24-2010 @ 11:44pm

I would suggest you read the 5th paragraph once again which begins with the sentence, "And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." and tell me the purpose of beginning that sentence with, "And now" This can serve no purpose except to indicate that previously we did not have a president who cared. The nuclear disarmament point is made equally well without this reference to the earlier administration.

by: Dave

07-24-2010 @ 11:44pm

I would suggest you read the 5th paragraph once again which begins with the sentence, "And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." and tell me the purpose of beginning that sentence with, "And now" This can serve no purpose except to indicate that previously we did not have a president who cared. The nuclear disarmament point is made equally well without this reference to the earlier administration.

by: AlanP2

07-23-2010 @ 1:40pm

Nuclear disarmament? Great! Just get the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Iranians to do it first. Then the U.S. can follow.

by: Ekahng

07-24-2010 @ 1:24am

While I admire the vision of a nuclear-free world and the Christian perspective that emphasizes the potential cost of such deadly weapons in the needless loss of human lives, I think that it is naive for us to believe that we can somehow reverse technology. Even if the U.S. and all other willing nations were to disarm themselves completely of nuclear weapons, the technology to create them would still exist. As long as the technology exists, the threat of nuclear weapons still exists. Not to mention, that in a nuclear-free world, the incentive for rogue states like North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons would significantly increase since a nuclear weapon in an otherwise nuclear-free world would be extremely valuable. This to me, does not invoke a sense of greater safety.
The nuclear deterrent theory observes that two nuclear states have never been at war with one another. Moreover, the chances of a war breaking out between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state are far lower than the chances of a war breaking out between two non-nuclear states. While I think the level of development of the countries factors into the chances of them going to war in a way that the nuclear deterrent theory doesn't necessarily account for, I think this theory still brings up an important point about the role of nuclear weapons in actually helping to maintain peace.
Without any clear reference to scriptures, it's hard for me to see how a nuclear-free world is a "biblical mandate" as the Two Futures group claims.

I do, however, think that securing, maintaining, and reducing our current stockpile, like the Obama administration has already begun to do with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is extremely important. Currently, we have far more nuclear warheads than we would ever need even in the event of another world war. The bigger our stockpile, the harder it is to keep track of and secure our nuclear weapons. The chances of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons are extremely small, but it would be wise to take the proper precautions. I think it a far more effective non-proliferation strategy is for nuclear states stop bullying non-nuclear states because doing so creates incentive for non-nuclear states to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And I think it is far more realistic to aim for the goal of maintaining peace and security in a world with nuclear weapons.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

by: mwalimu

07-31-2010 @ 6:21pm

One of Obama's long term goals is to eliminate nuclear weapons. I clearly remember the drop drills that I practiced when I was in elementary school. I remember seeing movies of atomic explosions and I remember the nightmares. I also remember waking up in terror in the middle of the night whenever I heard a strange sounding siren. I don't want additional generations of children to have a childhood like this.

The START treaty is a promising beginning. We need to back it. We need to let Obama know we've got his back. Pure and simple.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: billhabedank

07-22-2010 @ 8:26pm

The reason we have entered into a more dangerous era is largely because the United States has empahtically stated repeatedly that nothing is off the table in our dealings with certain countries. Apparently we are prepared to use even nuclear force necessary for us to control other countries; yes control. This means to me that we will use nuclear weapons if "forced" to. That is way too much power for one country or even one person. No wonder other countries want that kind of power and most likely for no other reason than the same reason why the U.S says it wants them -for security and for a way (but distorted way) of preserving the "peace". Some of you might say "well its worked hasn't it?" and I would ask you if you really do feel safer? I don't and I am 63 years old and have lived under nuclear threat my life.This is no security for anyone living on this earth with nuclear weapons in anyones hands. I would put trust in other countries saying they have disarmed and it would be a good enough reason for me to say the U.S. must disarm first. Even if we were attacked, I could not as a Christian bring it upon myself to use such a weapon on other people. Shouldn't any Christian feel the same?

by: billhabedank

07-22-2010 @ 8:26pm

The reason we have entered into a more dangerous era is largely because the United States has empahtically stated repeatedly that nothing is off the table in our dealings with certain countries. Apparently we are prepared to use even nuclear force necessary for us to control other countries; yes control. This means to me that we will use nuclear weapons if "forced" to. That is way too much power for one country or even one person. No wonder other countries want that kind of power and most likely for no other reason than the same reason why the U.S says it wants them -for security and for a way (but distorted way) of preserving the "peace". Some of you might say "well its worked hasn't it?" and I would ask you if you really do feel safer? I don't and I am 63 years old and have lived under nuclear threat my life.This is no security for anyone living on this earth with nuclear weapons in anyones hands. I would put trust in other countries saying they have disarmed and it would be a good enough reason for me to say the U.S. must disarm first. Even if we were attacked, I could not as a Christian bring it upon myself to use such a weapon on other people. Shouldn't any Christian feel the same?

by: billhabedank

07-22-2010 @ 8:26pm

The reason we have entered into a more dangerous era is largely because the United States has empahtically stated repeatedly that nothing is off the table in our dealings with certain countries. Apparently we are prepared to use even nuclear force necessary for us to control other countries; yes control. This means to me that we will use nuclear weapons if "forced" to. That is way too much power for one country or even one person. No wonder other countries want that kind of power and most likely for no other reason than the same reason why the U.S says it wants them -for security and for a way (but distorted way) of preserving the "peace". Some of you might say "well its worked hasn't it?" and I would ask you if you really do feel safer? I don't and I am 63 years old and have lived under nuclear threat my life.This is no security for anyone living on this earth with nuclear weapons in anyones hands. I would put trust in other countries saying they have disarmed and it would be a good enough reason for me to say the U.S. must disarm first. Even if we were attacked, I could not as a Christian bring it upon myself to use such a weapon on other people. Shouldn't any Christian feel the same?

by: JerryFolk

07-22-2010 @ 9:16pm

This is very encouraging, especially to those of us who worked on this issue in the 70's and 80's, but equally important is the issue of arms expenditures overall. It is incredible that in the midst of all the talk about deficits, virtually no mention is made of the vast expenditures on arms. The Pentagon budget remains sacrosanct. I am convinced that reduction in this budget is essential if we are to bring the deficit under control. It is the responsibility of the church to raise this issue boldly and relentlessly.

Jerry Folk

by: JerryFolk

07-22-2010 @ 9:16pm

This is very encouraging, especially to those of us who worked on this issue in the 70's and 80's, but equally important is the issue of arms expenditures overall. It is incredible that in the midst of all the talk about deficits, virtually no mention is made of the vast expenditures on arms. The Pentagon budget remains sacrosanct. I am convinced that reduction in this budget is essential if we are to bring the deficit under control. It is the responsibility of the church to raise this issue boldly and relentlessly.

Jerry Folk

by: elainemrondeau

07-22-2010 @ 9:17pm

Dear Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis,
We admire the work of Sojourner and the courage that you have Rev. Wallis, to speak the truth.
PLEASE TRY TO ENCOURAGE FOX NEWS TO STOP THE VITRIOL, THE LIES, THE RACISM THAT THEY SPEW OUT ON A DAILY BASIS.
Please encourage the Christians that call themselves so to stop the hatred and bring the United States of America back together once again.

Sincerely yours,
Elaine M. Rondeau
Executive Director,
The Renee Olubunmi Rondeau Peace Foundation
Marietta, Georgia

by: elainemrondeau

07-22-2010 @ 9:17pm

Dear Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis,
We admire the work of Sojourner and the courage that you have Rev. Wallis, to speak the truth.
PLEASE TRY TO ENCOURAGE FOX NEWS TO STOP THE VITRIOL, THE LIES, THE RACISM THAT THEY SPEW OUT ON A DAILY BASIS.
Please encourage the Christians that call themselves so to stop the hatred and bring the United States of America back together once again.

Sincerely yours,
Elaine M. Rondeau
Executive Director,
The Renee Olubunmi Rondeau Peace Foundation
Marietta, Georgia

by: dcoombs

07-22-2010 @ 9:24pm

I believe that Sojourners has something very important to say in the ongoing dialog and so it grieves me to see it constantly marginalize itself by injecting discourse designed to alienate many who need to read and internalize the message.

I am specifically referring in this article to the comment "And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." This adds nothing to the article yet casts dispersions on previous presidents all of whom I am certain felt deeply about nuclear disarmament.

Your apparent hatred for past administrations so colors your rhetoric as to make it extremely difficult to share your important messages with anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints. I would suggest you pay attention to Dr. Marty who is able to communicate these same views without resorting to constant name calling and bashing of the opposition.

by: dcoombs

07-22-2010 @ 9:24pm

I believe that Sojourners has something very important to say in the ongoing dialog and so it grieves me to see it constantly marginalize itself by injecting discourse designed to alienate many who need to read and internalize the message.

I am specifically referring in this article to the comment "And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." This adds nothing to the article yet casts dispersions on previous presidents all of whom I am certain felt deeply about nuclear disarmament.

Your apparent hatred for past administrations so colors your rhetoric as to make it extremely difficult to share your important messages with anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints. I would suggest you pay attention to Dr. Marty who is able to communicate these same views without resorting to constant name calling and bashing of the opposition.

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: michele_sfo

07-23-2010 @ 1:23am

Earlier submitted a comment but it just "went away" so will try to repeat the sentiments....

I find it a bit bi-polar of this administration - to remain in the present - to escalate the war in Afghanistan and embrace the use of unmanned drones while proposing disarmament.

It is not only in government, this bi-polarity exists in our churches as well. In Christian churches we have walls in our halls dedicated to parishioners serving in the armed forces, but there is rarely a wall honoring peacemakers and their sacrifices to live up to Jesus call to non-violence, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.

Surely, to hear voices promoting nuclear disarmament who have not been on board in the past is heartening, however, as long as we trust in war as the primary means to try to end conflict, we have missed the mark. All the talk of disarmament will likely fail if we ignore the call of the Gospel peacemaker-prophets who are standing in the gap for all of us.

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: plCarlsen

07-23-2010 @ 1:26am

For a readable description of the earliest discussions of how to control nuclear weapons worldwide, by those who helped invent them, read the last third of American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, New York : A.A. Knopf, 2005. We need a worldwide demand to bring us from the brink, and religion is possibly the best way to achieve that. We also need thought of how it might be accomplished without increasing the risk of extreme nuclear destruction by those who would evade volunteer efforts.

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: The_Commoner

07-23-2010 @ 1:33am

How cen we achieve nuclear disarmament without first calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants? Answer; We cannot!
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Their heat is used to boil water into steam. The steam is used to drive electrical generators the same as in conventional power plants. The only real product of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste. That nuclear waste is the material used to fashion nuclear warheads. Nuclear warheads are also nuclear waste. Nuclear waste lasts forever. Why are we making more nuclear waste? I think we have been hoodwinked by the nuclear establishment. That is why I am calling for the abolition of nuclear power plants. Then we can deal with the present stock of nuclear waste in all its forms. In summary; ABOLISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! QUIT MAKING MORE NUCLEAR WASTE!

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: BillSamuel

07-23-2010 @ 1:50am

"And now, we have a president who cares about nuclear disarmament." Well, his actions seem to indicate either that he doesn't really care about that, or that he is grossly misguided in how to show that care.

President Obama has proposed massive increases in spending on nuclear armaments. The treaty negotiated with the Russians leaves enough nuclear weapons to blow the whole world to smithereens many times, although the Russians apparently tried to persuade him to accept lower ceilings. The treaty provides no clear path to nuclear disarmament.

The Obama Administration has acted with great hypocrisy and arrogance in insisting that other countries have no nuclear weapons while maintaining a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. This "do what I say, not what I do" approach is not effective, and naturally raises great resistance in those countries Obama tries to browbeat into submission.

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: Derek

07-23-2010 @ 3:01am

"We (all countries on earth combined) have the technology to destroy the earth thousands of times over. Surely once is enough."

Maybe we have an issue that both parties can actually agree on. I know this is the real world and we are not, unfortunately, not going to have the "world peace" that Miss America always talks about, but why do we need nuclear weapons?

""The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
--Albert Einstein

by: veryregularlistener

07-23-2010 @ 9:10am

The solution to nuclear waste might be as easy as the solution to fossil fuel waste - fire it up a long chimney stack. What do you think?

Yes, it will kill the planet. But then we also know firing fossil waste gases up long chimneys (or short car exhaust pipes) is also well along the road to killing the planet. So, the outcomes will be the same.

Store nuclear waste carefully on the surface. Pass it on to future generations to look after just as carefully. At least they will still be around to look after it, unlike with the fossil fuel situation. A much less dangerous legacy than the fossil waste legacy.

It is quite possible, of course, that a future generation will find out how to re-use this nuclear waste constructively, and will probably thank us for leaving it to them in accessible places, rather than down a sealed, deep hole.

I am an engineer who manages new fossil fuel power plant projects. I wish my career had been in managing nuclear projects, so that my conscience would be less troubled.

by: veryregularlistener

07-23-2010 @ 9:10am

The solution to nuclear waste might be as easy as the solution to fossil fuel waste - fire it up a long chimney stack. What do you think?

Yes, it will kill the planet. But then we also know firing fossil waste gases up long chimneys (or short car exhaust pipes) is also well along the road to killing the planet. So, the outcomes will be the same.

Store nuclear waste carefully on the surface. Pass it on to future generations to look after just as carefully. At least they will still be around to look after it, unlike with the fossil fuel situation. A much less dangerous legacy than the fossil waste legacy.

It is quite possible, of course, that a future generation will find out how to re-use this nuclear waste constructively, and will probably thank us for leaving it to them in accessible places, rather than down a sealed, deep hole.

I am an engineer who manages new fossil fuel power plant projects. I wish my career had been in managing nuclear projects, so that my conscience would be less troubled.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 11:56am

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's 'new best special friend', David Cameron, supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators for an act of compassion led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. Contact and communication, however, appears to have got lost in the ether which is disappointing.

I am encouraged by what I read in this blog, therefore, but I am concerned about the lack of interest or awareness about a context where there is the potential to make a real and present difference before a new generation of weapons become part of the equation. In writing this I am yet conscious that the responsibility to do somethig about this lies with us in this country. The lack of interest or activity, however, in contrast to what is being reported here leaves me frustrated rather than hopeful as this is not simply an American issue.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 11:56am

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's 'new best special friend', David Cameron, supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators for an act of compassion led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. Contact and communication, however, appears to have got lost in the ether which is disappointing.

I am encouraged by what I read in this blog, therefore, but I am concerned about the lack of interest or awareness about a context where there is the potential to make a real and present difference before a new generation of weapons become part of the equation. In writing this I am yet conscious that the responsibility to do somethig about this lies with us in this country. The lack of interest or activity, however, in contrast to what is being reported here leaves me frustrated rather than hopeful as this is not simply an American issue.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 12:07pm

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's new 'best special friend' supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union!) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports. Here I am not denying the presence of a Scottish Campaign for nuclear disarmament but simply that there is little sense of a 'movement' of opposition and certainly among the churches not least the evangelical ones.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. If Britain were not to renew its nuclear weapons this would be globally significant step. While not the primary argument from my perspective economic conditions give an additional 'space' for discussing non-renewal. Contact and communication, however, with Sojourners appears to have got lost in the e-mail ether, which is disappointing.

As I read this blog entry, therefore, I am encouraged by what I read but am also frustrated at the lack of active engagement with it in Britain as a moral and spiritual issue of first importance. I wish there were ways to transfer some of the energy here reported into our context.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-23-2010 @ 12:07pm

I read this sitting near Glasgow, Scotland. This is significant. Britain's independent (hear irony here) nuclear deterrent is based on the River Clyde Glasgow in the form of Trident missiles carried on nuclear submarines. These missiles are due for renewal. This makes the nature of Britain's nuclear deterrent a live and contested political issue.

The Westminster government led by President Obama's new 'best special friend' supports the renewal of the weapons on the basis of the usual reasons of national self interest. The present Scottish Government presently much maligned by a number of American senators led by the Scottish Nationalist Party is opposed to the renewal of nuclear weapons.

Despite the current political significance of this matter and despite the stated opposition to nuclear weapons by most of the main Christian denominations (except my own Scottish Baptist Union!) the subject is not a 'live' issue among the Churches or Christian people and certainly not younger ones. This appears to be in contrast to what Jim optimistically reports. Here I am not denying the presence of a Scottish Campaign for nuclear disarmament but simply that there is little sense of a 'movement' of opposition and certainly among the churches not least the evangelical ones.

On one or two occasions I have tried to e mail Sojourners on this issue because bringing focus to this area where the discussion is at least politically live and impacts the future of one of American's main allies is I think strategically significant. If Britain were not to renew its nuclear weapons this would be globally significant step. While not the primary argument from my perspective economic conditions give an additional 'space' for discussing non-renewal. Contact and communication, however, with Sojourners appears to have got lost in the e-mail ether, which is disappointing.

As I read this blog entry, therefore, I am encouraged by what I read but am also frustrated at the lack of active engagement with it in Britain as a moral and spiritual issue of first importance. I wish there were ways to transfer some of the energy here reported into our context.

by: AlanP2

07-23-2010 @ 1:40pm

Nuclear disarmament? Great! Just get the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Iranians to do it first. Then the U.S. can follow.

by: AlanP2

07-23-2010 @ 1:40pm

Nuclear disarmament? Great! Just get the Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis and Iranians to do it first. Then the U.S. can follow.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: billwilson1

07-23-2010 @ 3:12pm

Thinking about the unthinkable nuclear use makes the use less likely. Slowly we realize we are one world and one human race. We realize that MAD is very tenuously tied to vigilent thinking. But like the oil spill shows us and the continued use of fosil fuels that is slowly killing us shows we can't rely on the special interests of seperate governments or the industry itself to know better. As we recognize our universal concerns and develop a universal consciousness we realize what one Noble Peace Prize winner said that we can't be more secure than our neighbor and they live closer than ever. R. Reagan went against the conservative advice to state that MAD is just not acceptable. Likewise Pres. Obama realizes we must move forward to accept our neighbors need to be free from our insecurity of needing more that only makes them search for more security in deadlier weapons of mass destruction. So we recoginze our own madness and endless drive for security is untenable in the old world of far off infidels and far off oil spills and far off air pollution. The Churches and all people of good will can meet to overcome the divide and rule of Dems and Rep's, and other governments to bend them to the will of the people free from fear that as idividuals know is as close as every person in the world, but not so unlike that we can't diffuse each others pains and frustrations that lead to hate and war. Intellectual and moral honesty leads us to accept our vulnerability and shared efforts to destroy every weapon of mass destruction including the way we burn fossil fuel today.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

by: retiredpreacher

07-23-2010 @ 3:52pm

Reply to Alan P2:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems that you are advocating the US disarm nuclearly AFTER everybody else. And everybody else can take the same position; "We'll disarm after the US (and everybody else) does." So there will be no disarmament.
I'm not advocating unilateral disarmament on the part of the US or anybody else, but mutual, simultaneous disarmament.

The US must take the lead in this. Nuclear destruction is our baby. We conceived and delivered him. We must conceive and deliver in his abolition.

by: hillbilly66

07-23-2010 @ 6:39pm

To think that there are still individuals in 2010 who allow themselves to contemplate the unthinkable - the actual use of these terribly destructive weapons! The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kt; modern weapons are hundreds of times that.

As a young man, I made several patrols out of Holy Loch. Now more mature, I shudder at how that beautiful landscape would be utterly destroyed by the use of these weapons. The United States led in the development of these weapons and we should also lead in their ultimate banishment.

by: hillbilly66

07-23-2010 @ 6:39pm

To think that there are still individuals in 2010 who allow themselves to contemplate the unthinkable - the actual use of these terribly destructive weapons! The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kt; modern weapons are hundreds of times that.

As a young man, I made several patrols out of Holy Loch. Now more mature, I shudder at how that beautiful landscape would be utterly destroyed by the use of these weapons. The United States led in the development of these weapons and we should also lead in their ultimate banishment.

by: hillbilly66

07-23-2010 @ 6:39pm

To think that there are still individuals in 2010 who allow themselves to contemplate the unthinkable - the actual use of these terribly destructive weapons! The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kt; modern weapons are hundreds of times that.

As a young man, I made several patrols out of Holy Loch. Now more mature, I shudder at how that beautiful landscape would be utterly destroyed by the use of these weapons. The United States led in the development of these weapons and we should also lead in their ultimate banishment.

by: Ekahng

07-24-2010 @ 1:24am

While I admire the vision of a nuclear-free world and the Christian perspective that emphasizes the potential cost of such deadly weapons in the needless loss of human lives, I think that it is naive for us to believe that we can somehow reverse technology. Even if the U.S. and all other willing nations were to disarm themselves completely of nuclear weapons, the technology to create them would still exist. As long as the technology exists, the threat of nuclear weapons still exists. Not to mention, that in a nuclear-free world, the incentive for rogue states like North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons would significantly increase since a nuclear weapon in an otherwise nuclear-free world would be extremely valuable. This to me, does not invoke a sense of greater safety.
The nuclear deterrent theory observes that two nuclear states have never been at war with one another. Moreover, the chances of a war breaking out between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state are far lower than the chances of a war breaking out between two non-nuclear states. While I think the level of development of the countries factors into the chances of them going to war in a way that the nuclear deterrent theory doesn't necessarily account for, I think this theory still brings up an important point about the role of nuclear weapons in actually helping to maintain peace.
Without any clear reference to scriptures, it's hard for me to see how a nuclear-free world is a "biblical mandate" as the Two Futures group claims.

I do, however, think that securing, maintaining, and reducing our current stockpile, like the Obama administration has already begun to do with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is extremely important. Currently, we have far more nuclear warheads than we would ever need even in the event of another world war. The bigger our stockpile, the harder it is to keep track of and secure our nuclear weapons. The chances of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons are extremely small, but it would be wise to take the proper precautions. I think it a far more effective non-proliferation strategy is for nuclear states stop bullying non-nuclear states because doing so creates incentive for non-nuclear states to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And I think it is far more realistic to aim for the goal of maintaining peace and security in a world with nuclear weapons.

by: Ekahng

07-24-2010 @ 1:24am

While I admire the vision of a nuclear-free world and the Christian perspective that emphasizes the potential cost of such deadly weapons in the needless loss of human lives, I think that it is naive for us to believe that we can somehow reverse technology. Even if the U.S. and all other willing nations were to disarm themselves completely of nuclear weapons, the technology to create them would still exist. As long as the technology exists, the threat of nuclear weapons still exists. Not to mention, that in a nuclear-free world, the incentive for rogue states like North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons would significantly increase since a nuclear weapon in an otherwise nuclear-free world would be extremely valuable. This to me, does not invoke a sense of greater safety.
The nuclear deterrent theory observes that two nuclear states have never been at war with one another. Moreover, the chances of a war breaking out between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state are far lower than the chances of a war breaking out between two non-nuclear states. While I think the level of development of the countries factors into the chances of them going to war in a way that the nuclear deterrent theory doesn't necessarily account for, I think this theory still brings up an important point about the role of nuclear weapons in actually helping to maintain peace.
Without any clear reference to scriptures, it's hard for me to see how a nuclear-free world is a "biblical mandate" as the Two Futures group claims.

I do, however, think that securing, maintaining, and reducing our current stockpile, like the Obama administration has already begun to do with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is extremely important. Currently, we have far more nuclear warheads than we would ever need even in the event of another world war. The bigger our stockpile, the harder it is to keep track of and secure our nuclear weapons. The chances of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons are extremely small, but it would be wise to take the proper precautions. I think it a far more effective non-proliferation strategy is for nuclear states stop bullying non-nuclear states because doing so creates incentive for non-nuclear states to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And I think it is far more realistic to aim for the goal of maintaining peace and security in a world with nuclear weapons.

by: Ekahng

07-24-2010 @ 1:24am

While I admire the vision of a nuclear-free world and the Christian perspective that emphasizes the potential cost of such deadly weapons in the needless loss of human lives, I think that it is naive for us to believe that we can somehow reverse technology. Even if the U.S. and all other willing nations were to disarm themselves completely of nuclear weapons, the technology to create them would still exist. As long as the technology exists, the threat of nuclear weapons still exists. Not to mention, that in a nuclear-free world, the incentive for rogue states like North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons would significantly increase since a nuclear weapon in an otherwise nuclear-free world would be extremely valuable. This to me, does not invoke a sense of greater safety.
The nuclear deterrent theory observes that two nuclear states have never been at war with one another. Moreover, the chances of a war breaking out between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state are far lower than the chances of a war breaking out between two non-nuclear states. While I think the level of development of the countries factors into the chances of them going to war in a way that the nuclear deterrent theory doesn't necessarily account for, I think this theory still brings up an important point about the role of nuclear weapons in actually helping to maintain peace.
Without any clear reference to scriptures, it's hard for me to see how a nuclear-free world is a "biblical mandate" as the Two Futures group claims.

I do, however, think that securing, maintaining, and reducing our current stockpile, like the Obama administration has already begun to do with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is extremely important. Currently, we have far more nuclear warheads than we would ever need even in the event of another world war. The bigger our stockpile, the harder it is to keep track of and secure our nuclear weapons. The chances of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons are extremely small, but it would be wise to take the proper precautions. I think it a far more effective non-proliferation strategy is for nuclear states stop bullying non-nuclear states because doing so creates incentive for non-nuclear states to obtain their own nuclear weapons. And I think it is far more realistic to aim for the goal of maintaining peace and security in a world with nuclear weapons.

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-24-2010 @ 12:26pm

It seems to me that in many of our conversations on a Christian response to nuclear weapons we begin by asking the question 'what should our government/nation' do? Is that the correct starting question for Christian people? Is our first question not 'what would the living Jesus christ head of the Church have we his people do?'For me I find it hard to say that Jesus would have me as his follower or the Church as his people complicit in the maintenance, use, and in my case renewal of weapons of mass destruction. To quote from an anabaptist songwriter 'When Jesus said love your enemies he probably meant don't kill them'. Having established this answer (or whatever one we come to) it is then our responsibility to bear witness to it before the nations including our own and seek to find ways to nudge and persuade our governments/ nations in that direction. (It is here that the other discussions, arguments, and matters of persuasion come in). To claim that this is not a 'real world' approach is to claim that the proclaimed Kingdom is not the 'real' world approach, or that Jesus is not the Lord over all things - indeed a difficulty that the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus had with their wider cultures.

I observe that in other areas of moral/ethical decision making that our starting point is not normally the governments or nations dilemma or interest but what we believe the living Jesus Christ is saying to his people through the Word. Here, however, we take a different starting point - what should the government our nation do? Why is this? Is it a result of unquestioned national self intererst at this point of our ethical decision making and or a lack of faith that the way of peace of the crucified one is actually God's way of resurrection and Kingdom come and the way his people should follow and bear witness to?

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-24-2010 @ 12:26pm

It seems to me that in many of our conversations on a Christian response to nuclear weapons we begin by asking the question 'what should our government/nation' do? Is that the correct starting question for Christian people? Is our first question not 'what would the living Jesus christ head of the Church have we his people do?'For me I find it hard to say that Jesus would have me as his follower or the Church as his people complicit in the maintenance, use, and in my case renewal of weapons of mass destruction. To quote from an anabaptist songwriter 'When Jesus said love your enemies he probably meant don't kill them'. Having established this answer (or whatever one we come to) it is then our responsibility to bear witness to it before the nations including our own and seek to find ways to nudge and persuade our governments/ nations in that direction. (It is here that the other discussions, arguments, and matters of persuasion come in). To claim that this is not a 'real world' approach is to claim that the proclaimed Kingdom is not the 'real' world approach, or that Jesus is not the Lord over all things - indeed a difficulty that the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus had with their wider cultures.

I observe that in other areas of moral/ethical decision making that our starting point is not normally the governments or nations dilemma or interest but what we believe the living Jesus Christ is saying to his people through the Word. Here, however, we take a different starting point - what should the government our nation do? Why is this? Is it a result of unquestioned national self intererst at this point of our ethical decision making and or a lack of faith that the way of peace of the crucified one is actually God's way of resurrection and Kingdom come and the way his people should follow and bear witness to?

by: stuartmcleodblythe

07-24-2010 @ 12:26pm

It seems to me that in many of our conversations on a Christian response to nuclear weapons we begin by asking the question 'what should our government/nation' do? Is that the correct starting question for Christian people? Is our first question not 'what would the living Jesus christ head of the Church have we his people do?'For me I find it hard to say that Jesus would have me as his follower or the Church as his people complicit in the maintenance, use, and in my case renewal of weapons of mass destruction. To quote from an anabaptist songwriter 'When Jesus said love your enemies he probably meant don't kill them'. Having established this answer (or whatever one we come to) it is then our responsibility to bear witness to it before the nations including our own and seek to find ways to nudge and persuade our governments/ nations in that direction. (It is here that the other discussions, arguments, and matters of persuasion come in). To claim that this is not a 'real world' approach is to claim that the proclaimed Kingdom is not the 'real' world approach, or that Jesus is not the Lord over all things - indeed a difficulty that the prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus had with their wider cultures.

I observe that in other areas of moral/ethical decision making that our starting point is not normally the governments or nations dilemma or interest but what we believe the living Jesus Christ is saying to his people through the Word. Here, however, we take a different starting point - what should the government our nation do? Why is this? Is it a result of unquestioned national self intererst at this point of our ethical decision making and or a lack of faith that the way of peace of the crucified one is actually God's way of resurrection and Kingdom come and the way his people should follow and bear witness to?

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 2:45pm

Dave: 1) Observing that we currently have a president who cares deeply about nuclear disarmament casts no dispersions (sic) on past presidents.
2) As a practical matter, past presidents can do relatively little about nuclear disarmament compared to the paradigm change the current administration can potentially initiate.
3) Jim Wallis does no "name-calling" or "bashing the opposition" in this piece. To paraphrase you (and imitate your ability to twist others' words): "Your apparent hatred of the current administration so colors your attitude as to make it extremely difficult to receive important messages from anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints." This, of course, is unfair of me, just as your misinterpretation of Jim Wallis' observation is unfair (and ignores the point of the piece).
4) Please put aside political partisanship for a moment. What if we all, as Christ-followers, supported political leaders based on their ideas (in this case, disarmament) instead of whether they have an R or a D beside their name?

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 2:45pm

Dave: 1) Observing that we currently have a president who cares deeply about nuclear disarmament casts no dispersions (sic) on past presidents.
2) As a practical matter, past presidents can do relatively little about nuclear disarmament compared to the paradigm change the current administration can potentially initiate.
3) Jim Wallis does no "name-calling" or "bashing the opposition" in this piece. To paraphrase you (and imitate your ability to twist others' words): "Your apparent hatred of the current administration so colors your attitude as to make it extremely difficult to receive important messages from anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints." This, of course, is unfair of me, just as your misinterpretation of Jim Wallis' observation is unfair (and ignores the point of the piece).
4) Please put aside political partisanship for a moment. What if we all, as Christ-followers, supported political leaders based on their ideas (in this case, disarmament) instead of whether they have an R or a D beside their name?

by: skoopsl8

07-24-2010 @ 2:45pm

Dave: 1) Observing that we currently have a president who cares deeply about nuclear disarmament casts no dispersions (sic) on past presidents.
2) As a practical matter, past presidents can do relatively little about nuclear disarmament compared to the paradigm change the current administration can potentially initiate.
3) Jim Wallis does no "name-calling" or "bashing the opposition" in this piece. To paraphrase you (and imitate your ability to twist others' words): "Your apparent hatred of the current administration so colors your attitude as to make it extremely difficult to receive important messages from anyone other than those who share your extreme viewpoints." This, of course, is unfair of me, just as your misinterpretation of Jim Wallis' observation is unfair (and ignores the point of the piece).
4) Please put aside political partisanship for a moment. What if we all, as Christ-followers, supported political leaders based on their ideas (in this case, disarmament) instead of whether they have an R or a D beside their name?