We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Number of posts: 2
Email address: email
By Russ Wellen:
Conservatives and nuclear-weapon advocates reacted with predictable apoplexy to an article on February 14 by Robert Burns of the Associated Press. Titled US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts, it began:
The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons. … No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer.
At Global Security Newswire, Elaine Grossman provides some background. Prior to the Senate’s December 2010 ratification of the New START treaty, she explains, acting Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller and then head of U.S. Strategic Command Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton briefed Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who was shepherding Republican senators on the issue.
On February 8 I posted about an online dialogue on evangelical Christians and nuclear disarmament. In March of last year, at A Deeper Story: Tales of Christ and Culture, site administrator Nish shared emails with Reverend Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, founder of the Two Futures Project, a groundbreaking evangelical disarmament group, as well as with commenters.
One of the commenters addressed what constitutes a sticking point about disarmament for evangelicals, as well as fundamentalists. To wit, many of them either look forward to the End Times or see no way of avoiding it. No matter how familiar we may be with this line of thinking, for progressives — secular or religious — chancing upon evangelicals and fundamentalists actually discussing it is surpassingly strange.