What Are These Things Good For? The Pragmatic Push To Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
Many former hawks are now drafting a plan for the phased, decades-long elimination of nuclear weapons, while U.S. relations with Russia, China, and Iran continue to sour. These countervailing trends could adversely affect new opportunities for nuclear disarmament. This program assesses these new opportunities and the best ways of overcoming the obstacles to exploiting them. Funded by the Ploughshares Fund.
Guests:
Barry Blechman, Co-Founder and Distinguished Fellow, Henry L. Stimson Center
Catherine Kelleher, Professor, Strategic Research Department, U.S. Naval War College
James Goodby, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Natalie Goldring, Senior Fellow, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University
(Click on a guest's name to listen to their full unedited interview.)
Click on a program topic to hear audio with voices and stories behind the issues.
Use the study guides to inform yourself about the topic and learn the skills of innovation, including:
- Creative problem-solving
- Strategic thinking
- Entrepreneurial initiative
- Collaborative design
In addition:
- Explore other audio, video and print resources on the topic
- Use the suggested activities to put innovation into action in your community
- Choose from a menu of options to adapt the materials to your specific learning and teaching objectives.
- Consider the first part of the title of our program, “What Good are These Things For?” It originates from a question asked by one of the guests, nuclear analyst Barry Blechman, in an attempt to illustrate the antiquity of nuclear arms necessity. He asserts that nuclear weapons are no longer at the center of diplomacy or international relationships. How would you respond to his question? What is the purpose of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons development in the twenty first century?
- Ambassador James Goodby argues that mutually assured destruction is no longer a deterrent in the use of nuclear arms because of the rising threat of terrorism. How valid is this argument? What evidence can you use to support your response? In light of this, what can be done to assure that terrorist organizations will not acquire and/or use nuclear weapons? If the “genie cannot be put back in the bottle”, as Goodby asserts, what hope is there for the containment of nuclear weaponry? According to Natalie Goldring, what can be done to decrease, the psychological, social, and political value of these weapons?
- Why did the historical meeting of former President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev, which was intended to disarm nations with nuclear capability, fail? What circumstances led to this failure? Under what circumstances might we have this unique opportunity again on a global scale?
- Mark Sommer and other guests suggest throughout our program that disarmament is a possibility at this moment in time due in large part to a shift from the moral stance to a pragmatic one. What has changed globally that makes this argument true? Sommer and former UN representative Jayantha Dhanapala also assert that timing is important in disarmament. Is this a historic moment for the potential of disarmament? Why or why not?
© 2007-2009 Connexus Communications. All rights reserved. All trademarks, service marks and logos are owned by or registered to Connexus Communications or A World of Possibilities.