Okay, so Gorbachev didn't do too well with the second part. But we're not asking Obama to dismantle capitalism as the then-Soviet leader did socialism. Empower financial regulators, reduce our military commitment overseas, and draw down the defense budget and he'd be off to a good start.
All of these reforms are rendered moot, however, if we're not around to enjoy them. If, that is, the ensuing "Great Society," to borrow a term from JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, were laid low by a nuclear attack on an American city (or seven, if al Qaeda had its way).
This is the territory into which Gorbachev launched his most daring raids. First, in 1985, he announced that the Soviet Union would no longer deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces (INFs) in Eastern Europe. Later that year, he proposed that both his country and the US slice their nuclear arsenals in half.
The next year, at the memorable Reykjavik summit, Gorbachev got Ronald Reagan to agree in principle to his plan for removal of all INFs from Europe, as well as to draw them down worldwide. Caught up in Gorbachev's enthusiasm, Reagan expressed a willingness to join Russia in eliminating all nuclear weapons in 10 years.
In the end, though, Reagan clung to his blankie, the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Gorbachev feared SDI would lead to nukes in space, not to mention leave the Soviet defense establishment with the impression he'd been played. Their dreams of saving the world came crashing back down to earth.
Still, the summit paved the way for the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. Between the two nations, almost 2,700 of the weapons were destroyed within four years.
Where does Obama stand on nuclear weapons? He's worked with Senator Dick Lugar on his and Sam Nunn's Nuclear Threat Initiative, which provides for locking down nuclear materials in the former Soviet states.
However unrealistically, he seeks to make that a done deal by the end of his first term. (Though when it comes to nuclear terrorism, Hillary Clinton has seen Obama and raised him with her plan to create the position of Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism.)
Obama also seeks to abolish intermediate-range nuclear weapons once and for all. Furthermore, he plans to end the production of highly enriched uranium, ensure that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert, and build no new weapons.
Sounds promising. Still, in his self-appointed incarnation as the repository of all our hopes, Obama must take the next step. We need nothing less than a leap of faith into a future with no nuclear weapons, their budgets freed up for social programs.
One can counter that, with terrorism, times have changed. But, during the Reagan years, the US was arming itself to the teeth (to bankrupt the Soviet Union, remember?). In fact, Russian military leaders actually thought we were planning a first strike.
Yet Gorbachev's response to the extremities of that threat couldn't have been, by most standards -- especially American -- more counter-intuitive. He sought to disarm.
In "Arsenals of Folly" (Knopf, 2007), the third in his proposed quartet on the nuclear age, Richard Rhodes reprints a letter Gorbachev wrote. Obama would do well to heed his words:
"Don't think that something will stop me, that there is a threshold through which I shall not be able to pass."
"I accept without embarrassment. . . . Everything that is needed for the very deepest transformation of the system."
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
"We go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard."
Ok, so what's "hard"?
Obama could demand some kind of "sacrifice" of Americans --- beyond maxing out their credit cards, that is. An appropriate sacrifice would be to stop consuming so much energy in the form of coal and oil.
"O, but we can't do THAT," say Americans. "China and India might outpace us as the greatest economies on the globe."
Well, then, how about dismantling the military-industrial complex?
"O, no, not THAT. The only industry still functioning at full tilt in the US is the arms industry. Just look at all the jobs we'd lose."
Ok, well how about stop bitching about how high taxes are and start spending some of those taxes on social welfare rather than corporate welfare.
"What??!! Tax-and-spend like a drunken liberal? Can't do THAT."
In sum, are Americans even willing to consider what they can do for their country? Or will that have to wait for another 4 to 8 years?
by
delia (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 111 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM
Voting For the reauthorization of the Patriot Act,
And NOT opposing the Homegrown Terrorism Act, S 1959, otherwise known as HR 1955.
Threatening Iran with Missile strikes, not taking Nuclear strike off the table, threatening Pakistan, and saying he couldn't bring the Troops home from Iraq before 2013.
He parrots Bush and Hillary too much on these important issues, and has VOTED to infringe on our rights. I don't know why anyone would think he would change anything. His actions and votes prove he wouldn't on anything except Domestic policies.
by
Highstreet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 26 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 1:05:40 PM
Don't count Obama out yet. I truly believe he is the one to do it. He won't be able to change the entire system overnight, mind you, but he will work with all concerned (Dems and Repubs) to make it better in the end. All he needs from us is our blessings to help him get the job done, I believe.
by
b2008 (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 43 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 4:08:55 PM
