Comments about ‘Former U.S. senator Jake Garn wants to phase out nukes by 2030’

If we get rid of our nukes only terrorist countries will have them. Do you really think they will give them up when we do not have any to fight back with. Peace through strength should be our motto.

Go for it Sen. Jake!

You can't hug anybody with nuclear arms :)

Seriously? Have you seen the kind of devastation we can lay out with conventional weapons? We don't need nukes as a deterrent to terrorist states. Let's be honest...even if a terrorist happened to detonate a nuke in the U.S., do you really think we'd get away with the political suicide of nuking, say, Waziristan in retaliation?

There's Peace Through Strength. And then there's Suicidal Deterrents. The only justification for building such a strong arsenal, on both sides of the Cold War, was to deter the other side. If the 'big boys' get rid of their massive stockpiles of nukes, there's gonna be maybe 20 warheads left in the world, and a whole lot of conventional weapons that could effectively bomb anyone who used any of them back to the Stone Age in a few days (without making the countryside completely uninhabitable for several decades, no less!)

Wow!!! a Conservative with brains...is it really possible?

We need 'em. We have 'em. Why get rid of 'em? To make ourselves vulnerable?

Based on your arguments, we should get rid of conventional weapons as well since they are so destructive.

Sorry, but it's almost laughable to think that it would be practically and politically possible to verify that rogue states don't have nukes. Look at what Iran and North Korea are doing; we dont really have much of a clue now as it is with them! And we thought Iraq had WMD (because Saddam was bluffing) before the Iraq war. Sorry, but the best defense is to be prepared for war. Now that nuclear genie is out of the bottle -- how do you ever get it back? Reduce the overall numbers again, maybe.... but we should never lay down our arms, unload our guns, and just trust that other nations will "love us."

Seems pointless to shoot for 0. They would have more credibility if they just got the numbers down to very low numbers - say 50 on each side. Beyond that, they just look foolish.

I agree that if nobody had nukes, the world would be safer. This however, seems impossible and a dangerous attempt.

I know that some people see nukes as deterrents, and I think this is probably true of nation states. Terrorists may not have the same incentives and by nature are more willing to challenge the status quo, and so I think keeping nukes out of their hands by other means would be more appropriate than just trying to get rid of all nukes.

worst weapon ever invented....yet!

The minute Jake gets the terrorist states to give up nuclear arms, I'm 1000% behind him. I suspect we'll rid the world of Nuclear arms the month after we get rid of terrorists and the greed of those nations who sell nuclear material to the terrorists. Go get'em Jake. Good Luck. You'll need more than you can imagine.

A noble endeavor but possibly impractical.

As long as countries have ICBM's and ocean-prowling nuclear submarines, the potential delivery of "conventional" weapons would be a very difficult hurdle to overcome.

With chemical agents (short-and-long-term) and "star-wars" annihalation techniques coupled with the on-the-brink-of-defeat mindsets of delusional despots to "...take down as many of the (infidels, oppressors, imperilists, etc.) along with us".

One must always keep in mind the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Also, that today, close to half of the world's engineers and scientists are engaged in some form of war-making application of their intellects. Sadly, that is where the money is (think greed, power, men and women in uniform, etc.)

Good luck to Global Zero and may The Force be with you!

How about this reasoned alternative:

Identify and monitor every atom of nuclear material from every country that will cooperate.

Ensure the mechanisms to safe-guard that material are adequate to keep the material from getting 'lost' or 'stolen'.

Unite behind a strategy that clearly lets the uncooperative (rogue) states know that if they use nuclear arms against anyone, the consequences will be 10-fold greater on them than whatever they could inflict on anyone else.

Have the intestinal fortitude (guts) to stand behind and act on the strategy of deterrance.


The 'bully only stops being a 'bully' when he really believes he'll get the worse of the beating. The scary thing is that some religious extremists are willing to die to kill the 'infidel'. The only strategy I can see working there is to have ALL rogue-state neighbors monitor their borders and ensure the rogue states can't get hold of critical nuclear materials.

Ronald Reagan won the cold war by 'Peace through strength'. Jake should be smart enough to realize that, for conservatives, if it comes down to Reagan vs. Garn, Reagan will win.

I'm sorry, but you are naive if you believe we will be safer as a nation by getting rid of our nukes. Peace through strength, President Reagan had it right. We all want peace and the best way to provide it is through strength. We can't police the whole world, never will be able to, don't want to. Until Christ reignes as king the world will have wars and torment. Your intentions are fine Mr. Garn, but if you succeed you will only make our world a more dangerous place.

of things but not a realistic idea in the unstable world we live in. There is no way some of those despot nations would give theirs up (i.e.North Korea). Maybe after the second coming but not before then I'm afraid.

This ought to get this forum jumping, but when you look at the history of warfare in the world, nuclear weapons have have a tremendous impact on maintaining stability and peace in the post World War II period between major industrialized nations. They have kept us from going to war, and spilling American blood, with former SOviet Union. The challenge in future is both former threats, and emerging terrorist threats. We have to defend against BOTH. The former is not going away. I think we ought to reduce the numbers of nukes, pay attention to their storage and maintenance, but we can never be without them. That's just not realistic. Plus, conventional weapons can be just as deadly... Maybe not as singularly destructive, but just as deadly.

The reason we have not had World War III is simple: the existence of nuclear weapons. If the peace-loving countries of the world give up their nukes, only those nations who are controlled by terrorists, power-hungry tyrants or Islamic extremists will have nukes. That is not an imbalance of power I'm willing to risk. Will North Korea give up its nukes? Absolutely not. And has been proven many, many times, communist and totalitarian governments may not be trusted, for it is the absence of truth and freedom that cause them to be secretive and deceptive. They are based on lies. I'm all for peace, as Jake Garn obviously is, but without the deterrence of nuclear holocaust, peace would be even rarer than it is today.

I agree, the possibility of eliminating nuclear weapons is essentially zero. Here's where I don't agree with the many of the comments here and on KSL. Just because something is "impossible" doesn't mean we should not attempt it especially if it is something this important. To clarify, Jake is not suggesting unilateral disarmament and is emphasizing verification and enforcement.

I remember a time years ago, when my father was quite discouraged because no matter how hard he tried it seemed that meaningful progress on deficit reduction and other key issues seemed impossible. My mother told him that it probably is impossible and that things will only get worse, but Jake that is no reason not to try to make the world a better place. I've never forgotten that comment, and hope to live worthy of it.

The possession of nuclear weapons, no matter how few, is EXTREMELY dangerous. We've had several false alarms that almost started a nuclear nightmare. A human error or computer malfuction can also start what would be the end of a livable world. The process of downsizing arsenals shoud be done in less time than the plan targeted for 2030.
The hypocritical idea of keeping a "deterrent" has made nonproliferation efforts impossible. These monstrous killers are insane and keeping them is as "weapons" is also insane.

As long as someone believes that something is "impossible",it will be for them. However, when enough of us believe that something is possible, incredible good can be accomplished. There are hundreds of examples of how patient ,persistent,creative,communication won over attitudes of fear,distrust and veiwing people as potential enemies instead of friends. We are one human family with one planet home. Letting the doubtful among us know about the advantages of creative cooperation has in the past, and can in the future, solve these problems.

Putting our faith in weapons and our trust in hating each other, perpetuates the negative thoughts and feelings that cause the violence we see today. We are capable of changing that.