This appears to be arguing that because there are indicators that more Americans don't like nuclear weapons, the US should get rid of them.
That says nothing about the deterrence element of a viable nuclear weapons arsenal. Or what happens if a nation voluntarily disarms when hostile nations do not.
Well, nuclear weapons policy, like other policies in a democracy, ought to take the views of ordinary people into account. That's the way democracy works. If enough people don't like nuclear weapons, then a responsible democratic government should either change its policy so it agrees with the majority or at least explain why it believes the majority are wrong.
And (you are right) it does say nothing about what happens when a nation voluntarily disarms when hostile nations do not because (you and I, I think, agree) that would be a stupid plan. I have never advocated that the United States should "lay down its nuclear weapons" in hopes that that noble gesture would inspire other countries to do the same. In fact, in my book, It Is Possible: A Future Without Nuclear Weapons, I explicitly mock such an approach to the problem.
What I intended the article to say is that there is a realistic approach to eliminating nuclear weapons (although I didn't lay out its arguments) and the response of audiences to that argument is generally positive. I thought it was important to say because nuclear weapons have been a looming danger in the background of American life for nearly eighty years and efforts to eliminate them have not, so far, been successful. I hope to explicitly state those arguments over the next few months.
What are the views of people in the eight other nations that have nuclear weapons?
This appears to be arguing that because there are indicators that more Americans don't like nuclear weapons, the US should get rid of them.
That says nothing about the deterrence element of a viable nuclear weapons arsenal. Or what happens if a nation voluntarily disarms when hostile nations do not.
Well, nuclear weapons policy, like other policies in a democracy, ought to take the views of ordinary people into account. That's the way democracy works. If enough people don't like nuclear weapons, then a responsible democratic government should either change its policy so it agrees with the majority or at least explain why it believes the majority are wrong.
And (you are right) it does say nothing about what happens when a nation voluntarily disarms when hostile nations do not because (you and I, I think, agree) that would be a stupid plan. I have never advocated that the United States should "lay down its nuclear weapons" in hopes that that noble gesture would inspire other countries to do the same. In fact, in my book, It Is Possible: A Future Without Nuclear Weapons, I explicitly mock such an approach to the problem.
What I intended the article to say is that there is a realistic approach to eliminating nuclear weapons (although I didn't lay out its arguments) and the response of audiences to that argument is generally positive. I thought it was important to say because nuclear weapons have been a looming danger in the background of American life for nearly eighty years and efforts to eliminate them have not, so far, been successful. I hope to explicitly state those arguments over the next few months.
Ward is active in the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship and beyond on this topic.