The estimated cost, when adjusted for inflation, for the planned "modernization" of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex has risen to $1.7 trillion. That money could provide an awful lot of healthcare, education, housing, parks, public transportation, roads, clean water, child nutrition, disability benefits, Social Security, and other public services to improve the lives of Americans. But, of course, it won't. Instead, it will be used to facilitate the race toward the human catastrophe of nuclear war.
The total takeover of the U.S. government by the Republican Party, occasioned by the GOP sweep in the 2016 elections, has produced a disaster for the peace movement -- and for anyone concerned about building a peaceful world. But the 2018 Congressional elections offer the movement a useful opportunity to help steer the U.S. government away from militarism and war.
The reckless threats of nuclear war flung back and forth between the North Korean and U.S. governments remind me of an event in which I participated back in the fall of 1961, when I was a senior at Columbia College. At that time, picketing against the renewal of atmospheric nuclear testing had a significant effect. Who knows what will happen today if enough people insist, loud and clear, that nuclear war is simply unacceptable?
Based on recent economic developments, the super-rich don't have much to complain about. Their wealth is skyrocketing, public policy favors their interests, and just eight men now possess the same wealth as half the world's population. But they do face problems, including how to spend the enormous amounts of money that they are amassing, how to find hardworking and deferential servants, and -- above all -- how to stave off popular resistance or even revolt.
In a world bristling with nuclear weapons, savage wars, accelerating climate change, rapidly-depleting resources, and growing economic inequality, we need a global entity to take the necessary actions for which no single nation has sufficient legitimacy, power, or resources. And that entity is clearly a strengthened United Nations.
Negotiating an agreement with North Korea to restrain its nuclear development program is important. Even so, the problem posed by nuclear weapons goes considerably deeper than an upgraded nuclear capability by North Korea. It lies in the fact that the danger of nuclear annihilation will persist as long as any nations possess nuclear weapons.
Recent elections and opinion polls show that most people around the world -- including most people in the United States -- are not zealous nationalists. In fact, they display a remarkable level of support for moving beyond the nation-state to world citizenship.
What kind of civilization have we developed when two mentally unstable national leaders, Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, in an escalating confrontation with each other, threaten one another -- and the world -- with nuclear war? This kind of reckless, irrational behavior is reminiscent of the game of "Chicken," which achieved notoriety in the 1950s.
Should the average CEO receive 347 times the pay of the average worker? That's the situation today in the United States, where the income gap has grown rapidly during recent decades.
For as long as they have existed, nations have clung to the illusion that their military strength guarantees their security. In line with this illusion, the nine nations that have developed nuclear weapons have no plans to part with them. But most other nations take a quite different view of nuclear weapons and, under UN auspices, are now crafting a treaty, scheduled to be voted on this July, to ban the bomb.