American Forum

AMERICAN FORUM

By Rick Weidman

When I served as an Army medic in Vietnam, I often saw a 19-year-old solider whose job was to spray an herbicide called Agent Orange on anything green inside my base. The same was true around the perimeter, to deny cover to any enemy intruders and to ensure a clear line of fire in case of enemy attack.

As I visited numerous American military bases in Vietnam during the war, they all looked like moonscapes. They were stripped of grass and foliage by the same chemical for the same reasons.

Now, more than 40 years after the war, we know that Agent Orange contained dioxin, which is among the world’s most lethal toxins. American veterans of Vietnam fought a long, hard postwar struggle to get our Veterans Administration to compensate troops for a dozen diseases associated with Agent Orange/dioxin. But what about the Vietnamese who were also exposed? And what about the leftover “hot spots” of dioxin that still exist there and continue to harm people to this very day?


Click here to read the full article. 

ILLINOIS EDITORIAL FORUM

By Chris Miller

As a former U.S. Army nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons specialist I was always skeptical of the assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  After I hit ground in Iraq in April, 2003, it soon became clear he didn’t have any. The U.S. searched the entire country for months trying to find them, but to this day nothing more than a few dusty chlorine gas mortars have ever turned up in Iraq.  What would have happened if Hussein had complied with the IAEA inspection regime voluntarily?  The 2003 Iraq war would likely never have happened.  Because he did not comply, it was open to conjecture whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or were trying to acquire them.  The rest is history.

In view of that, why would we dither, delay, or play politics with a treaty that would allow us to continue a responsible, voluntary inspection regime with a partner state that we know for a fact, with certainty, has nuclear arms, lots of them, and is simply waiting for the U.S. Senate to sign on the dotted line?  Why would we risk significantly setting back relations with Russia and at the same time make it much harder to verify that their nukes are secure?  Ask the Senate GOP leadership. 

The old START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was negotiated and signed in the early nineties under President George H.W. Bush, based on a concept by President Ronald Reagan.  The treaty served the U.S. well through the era of instability at the end of the Cold War and the New START would simply continue what was already a good idea.  It has served us well for the last two decades and, if passed, would continue to today.  It would reduce nuclear stockpiles by one third on both sides, still leaving America with more than enough firepower to defend itself.  It would responsibly allow mutual transparency and allow us to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons and material.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By Linda Tarr-Whelan

The so-called New START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, is poised for an historic ratification vote in the Senate this year. Three more major international treaties are also lined up on President Obama’s ratification to-do list: the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

CEDAW is a landmark international agreement that affirms principles of fundamental human rights and equality for women and girls around the world.

Our role as a human rights defender would be improved mightily by ratifying CEDAW, reasserting the United States as a strong global leader in standing up for women and girls in countries worldwide. The resulting glow of praise for the Senate from half the planet would result in more positive action.


Click here to read the full artcile.

OHIO FORUM

By Pat Marida and Beatrice Brailsford

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering giving a $2 billion loan guarantee to United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to build a uranium enrichment facility in Ohio. Many in the state are hailing this project for bringing in much-needed jobs, but financially, the project is on shaky ground and is unlikely to bring anything but debt and dashed hopes to Ohio’s residents.

U.S. taxpayers are already on the hook for $2 billion in guarantees that DOE offered to the French government-owned company Areva to build a similar uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. Once that $3.3 billion facility gets a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and begins operating in four years or so, it is supposed to supply fuel to about 50 nuclear reactors, but not exclusively to plants in the U.S.

All this taxpayer money is being waved around in the name of moving the U.S. toward a clean energy policy. But what are American taxpayers being asked to invest in? Let’s take a closer look at the bets Washington is making with our tax dollars.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By Susan Shaer

The partisan split in politics is getting old and stale. Real people want real solutions to real issues, and one of the gravest is within our grasp to solve. For decades, we have been under a nuclear cloud, but world and U.S. leaders have risen to the occasion to provide safeguards.

The United States and Russia maintain over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal of some 23,000 nuclear weapons. The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between our two countries that has provided for inspections and monitoring of these weapons expired nearly a year ago. The Senate now must ratify the New START treaty by a 2/3 margin (67 votes) to preserve the security protections of on-the-ground intelligence we have relied upon.

You may well ask what is taking our Senators so long? Sometimes the only solutions can be provided by government at the highest levels. The old START treaty was backed by Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Clinton. and now President Obama backs New START. Kennedy and Nixon supported efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. Bush II relied on START verification issues for his treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), better known as the Moscow Treaty. The mandate for strategic arms reduction appears to be bi-partisan and firm.


Click here to read the full article.

AMERICAN FORUM

By: Hugh Pringle


Nuclear arms control: What high school student cares, much less has anything to say about this global issue? Some policy issues feel as complicated as – well, rocket science. But that makes it even more important for us to understand them.

I started thinking about nuclear arms control while watching President Obama and Russian President Medvedev sign the New START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), agreeing to reduce, verify and inspect each other’s nuclear arsenals.

But wait, the Cold War is over, and last time I practiced my nuclear fallout escape plan was…well…never. I was sorely confused. I wondered how this was connected to the war on terrorism and our 21st century enemies. Curiosity took hold.


Click here to read the full article.