Mikhail Gorbachev speaks at the 2007 unveiling ceremony of the Raisa Gorbachev Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Transplantology in St. Petersburg, Russia. The bas-relief depicts his wife, Raisa, who died in 1999.
He knows a thing or two about the nuances of U.S.-Russian relations, not to mention nuclear disarmament, and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev flexed his knowledge in a New York Times op-ed piece about the New START treaty this week, praising the Senate for pushing the legislation through before the holidays and laying out some challenges that lie ahead for those in earnest pursuit of a nuke-free world. —KA
Mikhail Gorbachev in The New York Times:
JUST a few weeks ago, the fate of the New Start nuclear arms treaty seemed to hang by a thread. But since last week, when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, which reduces the size of the American and Russian nuclear stockpiles, we can speak of a serious step forward for both countries. I hope this will energize efforts to take the next step to a world free of nuclear weapons: a ban on all nuclear testing.
In the final stretch, President Obama put his credibility and political capital on the line to achieve ratification. That a sufficient number of Republican senators put the interests of their nation’s security, and the world’s, above party politics is encouraging.
The success was not without cost. In return for the treaty’s ratification, Mr. Obama promised to allocate tens of billions of dollars in the next few years for modernizing the American nuclear weapons arsenal, which is hardly compatible with a nuclear-free world.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
By Eso, December 31, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Most of the time we hear officials talk of “narcotics” and include marihuana among it.
Most of the time we hear officials and retired officials talk of nuclear weapons without defining them, like big ones, small ones, mini-size ones.
As usual, Mr. Gorbachev speaks clearly and cogently. The “game” is for President Obama to clearly define what “modernize” means. If it means making certain some crack-pot crazy Air Force general, worrying about “our precious bodily fluids” can’t generate their use, I’m all for it! If it means reducing environmental damage and danger to those around them, I’m all for it (The cryogenic fuels in the liquid-fueled missiles are insanely explosive, corrosive AND toxic).
The President, by executive order, can define “modernize” to mean reducing the chances of accidents, theft, and accidental usage.
In which case, it’s better than spending it on creating more destructive weapons.
By SarcastiCanuck, December 30, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Reducing the number of nukes while making the remaining ones more lethal.Sure gives me a warm and fuzzy.And it only cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars.Hmmmm,sounds like Homer Simpson negotiated this one….A nuke free world Mr.Gorbachev?Yeah right,oh look,flying pigs….
By Eso, December 31, 2010 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Most of the time we hear officials talk of “narcotics” and include marihuana among it.
Most of the time we hear officials and retired officials talk of nuclear weapons without defining them, like big ones, small ones, mini-size ones.
It is the mini-sizes that worry me.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, December 30, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
As usual, Mr. Gorbachev speaks clearly and cogently. The “game” is for President Obama to clearly define what “modernize” means. If it means making certain some crack-pot crazy Air Force general, worrying about “our precious bodily fluids” can’t generate their use, I’m all for it! If it means reducing environmental damage and danger to those around them, I’m all for it (The cryogenic fuels in the liquid-fueled missiles are insanely explosive, corrosive AND toxic).
The President, by executive order, can define “modernize” to mean reducing the chances of accidents, theft, and accidental usage.
In which case, it’s better than spending it on creating more destructive weapons.
Report thisBy SarcastiCanuck, December 30, 2010 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Reducing the number of nukes while making the remaining ones more lethal.Sure gives me a warm and fuzzy.And it only cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars.Hmmmm,sounds like Homer Simpson negotiated this one….A nuke free world Mr.Gorbachev?Yeah right,oh look,flying pigs….
Report this