The US Election & the Dangers of Nuclear Weapons

Protestors air their views on non-proliferation opposite UN Headquarters in New York. Credit: ICAN/Seth Shelden
 
Amid geopolitical divides, arms competition, increasingly dangerous new technologies and an elevated nuclear risk, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres highlighted his concern that the UN Conference on Disarmament is consistently failing to deliver. February 2024

By Daryl G. Kimball
WASHINGTON DC, Jul 23 2024 (IPS)

Today, we are facing a growing and unprecedented array of nuclear weapons dangers. At the same time, this year’s presidential election is also unprecedented, unpredictable, and extremely consequential.

History shows that U.S. presidential leadership is one of the most important factors determining whether the nuclear danger will rise or fall. Perhaps the most fundamental responsibility of a U.S. president, who has the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, is to avoid events that could lead to a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, mainstream campaign news coverage has paid scant attention to how the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and the Democratic Party nominee plan to address one of, if not the, most serious threats to U.S. and international security. That needs to change.

Given what is at stake, the candidates’ approaches to the nuclear weapons threat deserve more scrutiny.

The Arms Control Association (ACA) and Arms Control Today will, in our capacity as a nonpartisan public education organization, be working hard to highlight the nuclear weapons challenges that U.S. presidential and congressional candidates must responsibly address.

American voters are increasingly aware and, according to recent polling, deeply concerned about nuclear weapons dangers. A 2024 national opinion survey found that a majority of Americans believe that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous. Overall, just 13 percent think nuclear weapons are making the world a safer place, while 63 percent think the opposite, and 14 percent say neither.

Another challenge: unless the next U.S. president can productively engage Russia and China on nuclear risk reduction and arms control measures, we could see all three states engaging in an unconstrained and very dangerous nuclear arms race.

Ominously, some congressional leaders and members of the nuclear weapons establishment are already proposing a major buildup of deployed U.S. nuclear forces for the first time in more than three decades.

The Heritage Foundation, in its now infamous Project 2025 report, calls for ramping up the U.S. nuclear modernization program by adding more nuclear warheads to missiles, fielding more nuclear-capable bombers, and deploying nuclear-armed cruise missiles at sea.

As I wrote in the lead article of the July/August issue of Arms Control Today, such an expansion would be unnecessary, counterproductive, and prohibitively expensive. More nuclear weapons will not enhance deterrence capabilities or improve U.S. security. Nuclear arms control offers the most effective, durable, and responsible path to reduce the number, role, and risks of nuclear weapons.

Another public opinion survey conducted by the polling company IPSOS in the fall of 2023 shows that the next president would have strong U.S. popular support for nuclear arms control efforts with Russia and China. The poll indicated that 86% of respondents support nuclear arms control with Russia, with only 14% opposed; it also showed 88% support arms control with China, with only 12% opposed.

Daryl G. Kimball is Executive Director, Arms Control Association, Washington DC

Source: Arms Control Today