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. 

In recent years, the State University of New York (SUNY) has embarked on two "partnerships" with private, profit-making businesses:  Start-Up NY and SUNY Polytechnic Institute.  According to government officials, these ventures would provide a dramatic boost to the state's economy and to higher education.  But the outcome of these projects raises serious questions about the costs, benefits, and intellectual integrity of university-corporate collaboration.

In recent weeks, the people of the world have been treated to yet another display of the kind of nuclear insanity that has broken out periodically ever since 1945 and the dawn of the nuclear era.  And what has been the response of the public to government officials in the United States and North Korea threatening nuclear war?  It has been remarkably subdued.  Why?

Political parties on the far right are today enjoying a surge of support and access to government power that they have not experienced since their heyday in the 1930s.  A global alliance among them is now emerging, headed by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Scientific and technological change has been outstripping the ability of social institutions to cope with it, often -- as in the case of climate change and the nuclear arms race -- resulting in extremely perilous situations.  The real question is whether people and nations can muster the political will to reshape their behavior and social institutions to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

In response to an article published in The Nation about reviving the peace movement, six leading peace proponents (including me) were asked to provide short commentaries on that subject.  Here are their commentaries, published in a forum that appeared in thenation.com.

The accession of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency brings us face-to-face with a question that many have tried to avoid since 1945:  Should anyone have the right to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust?

Although decades of effort in developing and deploying a national missile defense system (a revision of the "Star Wars" program once championed by Ronald Reagan) have cost U.S. taxpayers well over $180 billion, it still doesn't work.   Aren't there better uses for America's resources?

If the new U.S. administration was interested, it could do a number of things to promote world peace.  These include improving U.S. relations with Russia and China, moving forward with nuclear arms control and disarmament, and drawing upon the United Nations to handle international conflicts.  Although, given the militarist inclinations of the new administration, little of this seems likely to become U.S. public policy, progress along these lines could be made if enough people demanded it.

The financial security of corporate CEOs is far, far greater than the financial security of most Americans.  Indeed, 100 corporate CEOs possess company retirement funds equivalent to the entire pension savings of 41 percent of U.S. families  The vast and growing gap in retirement pay reflects the deline in union strength, corporate attacks on worker pension funds, and government action to serve the interests of the wealthy.