Foreign Policy

In recent years, the threat of nuclear weapons being used has become an increasing concern. Treaties limiting weapons stockpiles have lapsed, a “shooting war” (involving nuclear-capable Russia) is underway, and there is an increasing rift between two major groups of countries (US/Europe leading one side, Russia/China leading the other) that make “tolerance” of increased nuclear capabilities seem acceptable to both factions. Even “Oppenheimer” (the movie) has helped raise this topic as one the general public is focused on.

Given these developments (and probably many more) The New York Times has recently been publishing a series of articles about the nuclear threat. While they’re still writing articles, it’s probably a good time to revisit this topic as a Beyond Labels discussion.

Question: What, realistically, can be done to reduce or manage the threat of nuclear war, while still maintaining and protecting our own strategic national interests?

For those who do have NYT subscriptions, there are some interactive graphics articles on the subject published over the last few weeks. (They have lots of good material, but the interactive nature of the articles mean they do not print well.)

For those who do not, here are some print articles from the Times:

Opinion: An Introduction: It’s Time to Protest Nuclear War Again
Select Sources From ‘The Brink’
Opinion: Should Either of These People Have the Power to End the World?
Biden’s Armageddon Moment: When Nuclear Detonation Seemed Possible in Ukraine
Opinion: ‘Oppenheimer’ Is the Origin Story. These Three Movies Reveal Our Nuclear Present

And from the Washington Post:

Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight amid nuclear and AI threats
Putin threatens nuclear response to NATO troops if they go to Ukraine
Opinion: Biden needs to prevent Trump from having unlimited control over nuclear weapons
Opinion: Why the U.S. should start telling the whole truth about Israeli nukes

I don’t expect everyone to read every article but, hey, it’s a rainy, blustery Sunday, so…

When we last met several weeks ago (lots of holidays in between), we had planned to discuss Trump’s legal issues and their impact on his candidacy.

Another regular member of the group has suggested that we discuss the genocide allegations against Israel in connection with its activities in Gaza. Here’s his suggestion:

The scope and intensity of Israel military retaliation against Hamas in Gaza has led to Israel being accused of genocide by South Africa in the Hague.  I’ve attached links to a N.Y. Times opinion piece by Bret Stephens, a consistent apologist for Israel, who disputes the genocide charge, calling it totally political, but he avoids the question of Israeli war crimes. The Economist piece [not included, behind a pay wall] agrees that the genocide charge is without basis and politically motivated, but does raise the possibility that war crimes have and are being committed by Israel. The last three links are to the proceedings in the Hague. The ICJ records are quite long – – filled with court room formalities and French language portions. The South African accusation runs to 85 pages, and I confess, I’ve read only a portion of it.

NYT/Stephens: The Genocide Charge…

ICJ Case Files 1
ICJ Case Files 2
ICJ Case Files 3

With Ron DeSantis dropping out of the Republican primary race, my guess is that we’ll have plenty to discuss.