The article says that President Obama’s lieutenants argue that smaller and more reliable nuclear weapons will make their use less likely, reasoning that doesn’t make sense to me. I believe that developing such flexible weapons will make their use more likely, as the weapons will fill niches not covered previously. General James Cartwright, a retired vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees that “what going smaller does is to make the weapon more thinkable.”

And Andrew Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense, said that “It’s unaffordable and unneeded.”

Of course, Russia and China are very much opposed to the new developments, and their opposition adds to nuclear tension and increases the possibility of a new arms race.

In 2009, in his first year in office, Mr. Obama pledged that he would take steps toward a nuclear-free world and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons.” The Nobel committee cited his pledge in awarding him the Peace Prize.

Mr. Obama is reversing his earlier position by increasing the role of nuclear weapons in his military arsenal. His new position is just plain wrong. We must oppose these misguided and dangerous weapons.

Source

William Broad and David Sanger, “Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens to Revive Cold War,” The New York Times, Jan 11, 2016.

In October of the same year, 2009, President Obama received the Nobel Peace prize, in part for his vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. (2)

However, the United States armed forces are now considering nuclear upgrades and modernizations as much as 40 or 50 years into the future, with expenditures of up to one trillion dollars. (1) It is true that Obama has not yet approved these expenditures, but he has not disavowed them either.

A conference will be held in Vienna, Austria, in December on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. (1) President Obama should attend this conference and make clear his continued support for a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Despite American differences with Russia over the Ukraine, the United States should resume negotiations with Russia for a large mutual reduction of their nuclear arsenals. A deep reduction, coupled with the example it would set for other nations, would go a long way toward achieving President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Sources:

(1) Democracy Now, Friday, Oct. 24, 2014
(2)  Nobel Peace prize

Since then, China has changed a great deal. But the problems that triggered the Tiananmen Square protests are still present.

Today’s China is far more prosperous than it was in 1989. Its major cities glisten with impressive, new buildings, but much of the work was done by low-paid rural migrants with little security or health insurance. Its leading companies compete successfully throughout the world, but often depend on maintaining the favor of government officials at home. Poverty has declined significantly and a middle-class has blossomed. But the gap between rich and poor is vast.

More people in China have access to the Internet than in any other country in the world. Yet, web traffic is closely monitored and censored. Don’t expect to watch YouTube or read The New York Times when you are in Beijing. Though small-scale experiments in local government have been tried, China, as Evan Osnos writes, is the only country where a Nobel Peace Prize winner is in jail, democracy advocate, Liu Xiaobao.

Last month, Indiana University opened an office in Beijing to expand student and scholarly programs in China. If it serves to promote the values of political, economic, and academic freedom to which IU subscribes, it will be a fitting way of honoring the sacrifices made a quarter century ago.

Sources:

Tiananmen protests

Internet usage

Evan Osnos, Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth and Faith in the New China, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014.