RSS
The big problem with banning nukes
Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons, says Robert Marquand at Christian Science Monitor. But what about outlaw nations?
 
The bomb over Hiroshima caused unspeakable damage.
The bomb over Hiroshima caused unspeakable damage.
Creative Commons

On April 12, President Obama will meet more than 40 world leaders to discuss what he has called one of the four most important goals of his presidency: Nuclear disarmament. But the idea has its share of dissenters. "Skeptics of a nuclear-free world [say] such a goal is politically impossible and practically dangerous," says Robert Marquand in the Christian Science Monitor.

"The road to zero...faces a silo of skepticism, inertia, and practical and psychological complexities," Marquand says. "States like India and others see nuclear status as a matter of prestige. China isn't yet ready for disarmament. Smaller states view nuclear weapons as a hedge against large states with hefty conventional armies. Nor are Pentagon strategists dancing in their bunkered hallways about zero nukes.

"Some analysts argue that if nukes are outlawed then only outlaws will have nukes – the nations that don't conform to international treaties...Sen. John Kerry, though a supporter of no nukes, notes that you can't get to zero unless everyone goes there. 'The road to zero does not run through a nuclear Iran,' he says."


Read the full article here.

 

THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER

Subscribe to the Week