Putin and Obama: #talk

Putin and Obama: #talk
(Please retweet this message.)

President Barack Obama has precious few days left in office. (Real-time count here.)

If he's going to make a difference in stopping the threat that nuclear weapons pose to the world, there is one (and only one) thing to do.

Talk.

With Putin.

About eliminating US and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Everything else is sideways motion (at best).

Spread the word . . . .

Putin: It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons . . .
Obama: We can do that. We can eliminate them.
Think it could never happen? Read on ....
The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know)
(Please retweet this message!)

Related links

February 11, 2016: Prof. Alan Robock and Prof. Owen Brian Toon, writing in The New York Times, underlined the urgency of action by President Obama on nuclear disarmament: "With less than a year left in office, President Obama could add to his legacy . . . . Mr. Obama said himself in 2009 that 'the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War' and that the United States, as the only nation to have used these weapons, had 'a moral responsibility' to seek a world without them. 'We have to insist,' he said, '"Yes, we can."'" "Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter"


Related posts

 The total elimination of nuclear weapons by the U.S. and Russia is by far the most important issue confronting our two countries -- more important than all the other issues combined. This is not to slight the importance of the many areas upon which we disagree; the hard facts of nuclear weapons danger trump everything else.
(See SOTU 2015: What Will Obama Say January 20 About Nuclear Disarmament? )








It can all happen very fast . . . . No one really knows ahead of time what will happen . . . . That's why it's so important for people to get together and talk.

(See The Lesson of Reykjavik: TALK About Nuclear Disarmament (You Never Know) )








The nuclear "haves" are meeting in London today and tomorrow. Everyone in the world should be doing everything possible to drive them towards an agreement on nuclear disarmament. It's more important than ISIS. More important than Iran, Bibi, or Boehner. And certainly more important than the top ten things trending on Twitter or coming up in your Facebook feed.

(See Job #1 Vis-a-vis Russia: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT)










Far too many people think that the NPT is about freezing the status quo, and preventing additional states from obtaining nuclear weapons. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The NPT is based on a quid pro quo: nuclear "have-nots" agree to not acquire nuclear weapons, and nuclear "haves" agree to disarm.

(See A DEAL'S A DEAL! (What part of "nuclear disarmament" doesn't the US understand?) )


How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))

There are three centers of power that will impact nuclear disarmament: the President, the Congress, and the people. One of them will have to make nuclear disarmament happen.

(See Countdown to U.S. Nuclear Disarmament (With or Without the Politicians) )








Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










Any advocacy for the elimination of nuclear weapons must sooner or later get around to the specifics of the steps by which we get to zero. U.S. nuclear strategists recognize that 311 is still a large number of strategic nuclear weapons for the U.S. to hold. Shouldn't our minimum demand be to get U.S. to this level (or below)?
(See Why Are These Military Experts Saying CUT CUT CUT Nukes? )







The US Council of Mayors just met in San Francisco in June and adopted a strong position for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

(See US Mayors "Get It': The Nuclear Threat Must Be Stopped )