New York Times
The Obama administration seems ready to resuscitate relations with Russia, including by renewing nuclear-arms-reduction talks. Even before the inaugural parade wound down, the White House Web site offered up a list of ambitious nuclear policy goals, with everything from making bomb-making materials more secure to the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.
That’s welcome news, but for such goals to be realized, the White House will need to be prepared to reimagine and reshape the nuclear era and, against strong opposition, break free from cold war thinking and better address the threats America faces today.
George W. Bush actually started down this road. He reached an agreement with the Kremlin in 2002 to cut the number of operational strategic warheads on each side to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012, a two-thirds reduction. Washington is likely to reach that goal ahead of schedule.
Filed under: 360° Radar • Raw Politics
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
You know the Bush administration has done so very many things WRONG it's becoming almost ludicrous to even mention them any more. I would just like to see some heads roll from that administration in somne criminal trial or jail sentances just to give Americans a sense of self confidence in our Government and out judicial system once again.
Getting rid of all nukes could never be verified, so will never happen.
Sorry,but it was the Bush Administration in 2002 that broke the, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" worldwide, which infuriated the Russian Government! Then the bum goes ahead an sells nuclear material to a non-signatory country like India,...
I hope Russia accepted and that both parties act the same way, and in good faith. Anyone take advantage of the arms diminution to increase of one your arsenal.
I have a doubt: the war industry is big and powerful. This reduction would bring more unemployment, right? This is a welcome unemployment?
Whether the elimination of nuclear weapons is feasible and that “getting to zero” will be exceedingly difficult. That’s a distant goal-but with many third world countries emerging with nuclear capabilities, North Korea, India, Pakistan--the one with the most nuclear stokpile will remain "king of the hill"--and the one to be most feared-the ultimate determent. Reducing the nuclear stockpile levels the playing field of deterence--and eliminates the king--I don't think that the US wants to be weaken in that aspect. On the other hand-–do we have that much trust in our allies? Even though the weasel says good morning to the chickens in the hen house-–it is still a weasel.