LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     robert scheer     barack obama     gay marriage     ndaa     chris hedges
Most Read

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Say 'Hi-Ho!' as They Strip-Search You

Children Slaughtered in Government Attack on Syrian Town

I Can't Hear Myself Think

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Daddy Goes to Work

Daddy Goes to Work

By Jabari Asim
$12.47

more items

 
Reports

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on Nuclear Weapons

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Apr 8, 2010
If you missed Robert Scheer discussing his column, nuclear weapons and President Obama with readers or you just want to relive the excitement, you can read a full transcript right here. This chat was held the afternoon of April 8th, 2010.
Truthdig Logo3:00 Truthdig
Welcome to our live chat, let's get started

Robert Scheer3:01 Robert Scheer
Hello.

Robert Scheer3:03 Robert Scheer
We seem to be having some technical difficulties, one sec...

3:05 Question From Douglas
Many advocates of nuclear energy, now even on the left, disclaim any connection with nuclear weaponry proliferation. What do you think, and is a consensus developing or disintegrating on this issue?

Robert Scheer3:05 Robert Scheer
I'm torn on that issue

Robert Scheer3:05 Robert Scheer
I happened to be able to visit and report on chernobyl (spelling?) one year after the disaster.

Robert Scheer3:06 Robert Scheer
and witnessed the incredible confusion, even at that late date, as to how to handle the crisis -- what had caused it. So I don't want to underestimate any of the dangers.

Robert Scheer3:07 Robert Scheer
However there is a fundamental difference between the attempt to develop peaceful usages of atomic power and the deliberate development of nuclear warfighting capabilities.

3:07 Question From Monsiuer Bronx
Tell me, Mr. Scheer, why we need so many nuclear bombs? How about we just have the ones on the nuclear sub fleet and drop all the rest?

Robert Scheer3:07 Robert Scheer
Yes!

Robert Scheer3:07 Robert Scheer
Obviously a correct suggestion, but the point is how to we get not only there but to the ultimate abolition of these horrid implements.

3:08 Question From Douglas
Wait!! Drop all the rest?!

Robert Scheer3:08 Robert Scheer
The problem is a political one

Robert Scheer3:08 Robert Scheer
we have been ignoring this issue for half a century basically

Robert Scheer3:08 Robert Scheer
and even the minor agreements that have been developed during the cold war have collapsed

Robert Scheer3:09 Robert Scheer
we still don't have a test ban treaty agreement

Robert Scheer3:09 Robert Scheer
we needed a new START agreement

Robert Scheer3:09 Robert Scheer
and Obama has accomplished something very important, which is putting the nuclear weapons issue back on the front burner.

Robert Scheer3:09 Robert Scheer
What he has negotiated with the Russians is a modest step in that both sides are still left with many more weapons than are needed to destroy all life on the planet.

Robert Scheer3:10 Robert Scheer
but we're moving in the right direction.

Robert Scheer3:10 Robert Scheer
The real issue now is whether the senate will affirm this and that is highly questionable. So instead of arguing about better proposals we should be working to get this one approved.

3:10 Question From Billy B.
Is there a stated goal of the Obama admin re nuclear drawdown...is he fulfilling a campaign promise with this treaty?

Robert Scheer3:11 Robert Scheer
Yes. as well as the promise he made in his Prague speech last April.

Robert Scheer3:11 Robert Scheer
A 1/3 cut in the strategic arsenal of both Russia and the US is a major step forward. As well as moves to cut the delivery systems. And end MIRVing of weapons

3:12 Question From Billy B.
Are you at all surprised by the right's attempt to villify even this???

Robert Scheer3:12 Robert Scheer
I'm not surprised. Given what has happened in the last year. But I am appalled. I mean how in the world can one justify being opposed to getting the russians to have fewer nuclear weapons and yet call yourself a conservative.

Truthdig Logo3:13 Truthdig
A question from a reader submitted ahead of time has come in:
John, New York says:
Clearly reversing the development of nuclear weapons has been in progress for some years, but from an strategic defense point of view? What do you think the outcome of this policy is going to be in light of a nuclear threat, what is our leverage power and how can we even guarantee a strong retaliation let alone a successful one?
 
Robert Scheer3:15 Robert Scheer
As the president pointed out, our retaliatory power now is designed to combat an enemy that no longer exists, namely the Soviet Union. We have to recognize that nuclear weapons are lousy weapons that cannot differentiate between a military target and the surrounding population. That is what happened, even with a very small weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1   2   3   4   NEXT PAGE >>>

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s new book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: An Icon Without a Clue

Next item: In Defense of Chairman Mike



New and Improved Comments

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.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 11, 2010 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

I read the four pages of transcript and it was not so bad, maybe I am a fast reader?

In the thread on Robert Sheers article this week, the gloom and doom crowd is doing their song and dance routine about Obama not doing enough about Nuclear proliferation, like Sheer stated, this is a start in the right direction.

What will the topic be next week?

Report this

By erichwwk, April 10, 2010 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

I was disappointed that no one raised the issue of whether this START was used to justify the new capacity infrastructure at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Kansas City. To many of us the warhead reductions, while useful in drawing attention to the nuclear weapons issue, has a serious downside in that acyally capacity to develop NEW nuclear weapons has actuallt been significantly increased under Obama. See eg

http://www.lasg.org/press/2010/press_release_7Apr2010.html

and

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/nuclear-weapons-the-modernization-myth

and

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/06/nuclear_posture_review_or_nuclear_public_relations

Report this

By rollzone, April 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

hello. we discovered nuclear weaponry. we developed nuclear energy. from a safety standpoint- both bad ideas. eliminate them. nobody needs them. nobody has to use them. put the technology in the vault alongside free energy, and forgettabouttit. turn the page in nuclear history. the end. no political games- eliminate all of it. it will be a good loss. we do not need it. lesson learned.

Report this

By omop, April 9, 2010 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

This subject matter falls within the “halo” of a sisyphusian discussion.

  To get, say a state like Israel who is reported to have nuclear weapons to agree
to a modus vivendi with Japan, or Syria or Iran or Pakistan or Russia is an
exercise in futility.

  If the intent is to minimize the use of nuclear weapons then by an international
agreement each member state of the UN should be allowed to have a minimum
of half a dozen nuclear bombs made at their disposal to be used when ever they
deem it appropriate.

  If no one can agree on just plain military hardware, like helicopters, missiles,
cluster bombs, what is the rational for ” an agreement on nuclear weapons”.

  As basically “animals” when one know that every one else has an equal
potential of causing havoc the chances [ hopefully ] of using one are diminshed
considerably.

  At the present the socalled “mad dog” posture of the Israelis to wipe out
everyone including several capitals in Europe according to their military expert
Martin Van Cleveld why should not the Italians, Greeks, Turkey, Poland et al not
have an equal capability?

  A curse and a blessing for some.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 9, 2010 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

There is nothing new ...with this…

The same line of crap we have heard forever
Thats all we during Cinton years….
Iran and North Korea…we might nuk you!!!
So they are getting rid of their old , obsolete nuks
and replacing them with more conventional weapon..
WOW,  were are still the poorest nation in the world
world’s largest debtor nation gobbling up every penny
we can borrow to build more destruction to kill a
boggyman that doesn’t exist making a few extremly
wealthy while we rot our country and the minds of its
citizens.

Report this
ron_woodward's avatar

By ron_woodward, April 9, 2010 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

Nobody in the Middle East will take the USA seriously until she prosecutes her officials for selling US nuclear secrets to potential enemies.
At least a year ago Israel developed an attack plan to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons. There is no need to nuke an entire population to disarm them.
Bob Scheer is correct that nukes guarantee self-destruction.
In this regard anyone who votes against ratification of the POTUS treaty should be tried for Sedition.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, April 9, 2010 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

So, where’s the Mp3 of the live chat; I’m not reading
through 4 pages of transcripts!

Report this

By gerard, April 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

To reinforce the motivation for getting rid of nuclear weapons, and previous to the Senate sessions on the subject (which are bound to be nasty), please consider engaging the opinions of someone who knows first-hand about the actual human, painful, extensive, long-lasting suffering caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  With the passage of time, the horror has rather “worn off” for people who didn’t experience it, and it needs to be reiterated in no uncertain terms.  If anyone has the contacts to do it, a video of film at the time, (or a slide show) on YouTube would be a good idea, too.

Report this
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.