When I was a young person I would occasionally awaken in the middle of the night to a flash of blinding light, with a visceral explosion of fear shaking my body. It would take me a few seconds to realize I had been dreaming.
Those were the days of the Cold War, when the threat of a nuclear attack was in the collective consciousness of Americans and, might I speculate, among the citizens of the Soviet Union and other countries of the world as well.
Today fear of a nuclear attack is mostly out of mind. It surfaces only briefly in daily news reports of our government’s efforts to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.
However, in spite of the current tensions among many international relationships, there is minimal concern about the possession of nuclear warheads by nine other countries: 6,850 in Russia, 6,185 in the United States, 300 in France, 280 in China, 215 in the United Kingdom, 145 in Pakistan, 135 in India, 80 in Israel and 15 in North Korea.
However, today there is a movement once again raising the awareness of the risks inherent in the presence of nuclear weapons. (The “doomsday clock” is at 100 seconds to midnight.) It is a national grassroots initiative called Back from the Brink: The Call to Prevent Nuclear War.
Ira Helfand, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, notes: “Nuclear weapons are not a force of nature, they are not an act of God. We have made them with our own hands and we know how to take them apart. We’ve already dismantled more than 50,000 of them. The only thing that’s missing is the political will and commitment to do this. And that’s where all of us come in.”
The goal of Back from the Brink is to build support for the U.S. government to adopt the five common-sense steps toward a nuclear-weapons-free world as its highest national security priority. They include:
■Renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons.
■Ending the sole, unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack.
■Taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.
■Canceling the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons.
■Actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
A “no first use” declaration would reduce the likelihood that tensions or conventional conflict with another nuclear-armed state would escalate to nuclear use. The world has nothing to gain and everything to lose by escalating a conflict to the nuclear level. No one can win a nuclear war.
Granting a U.S. president the authority to launch a nuclear attack is risky and unjustified. No single individual should be able to make such an immutable decision. There are practical ways to include multiple decision-makers in authorizing the use of nuclear weapons, and the United States should adopt such changes.
Hair-trigger alert, risky high-alert status, increases the chance that a nuclear war could start due to a false alarm or other error. Being ready to launch in minutes creates the danger of ordering a launch based on faulty information.
Over the past 40 years there have been numerous examples of close calls due to computer or human error. Taking land-based missiles off high alert and removing rapid-launch options from U.S. nuclear plans would reduce the risk of a catastrophic mistake.
Over the next 30 years, the United States plans to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion to upgrade its entire nuclear arsenal, including the addition of smaller tactical nuclear weapons. If one of these weapons is launched, the adversary will not be able to discern the size of the weapon and will most likely launch a larger weapon for its arsenal.
Modernizing and increasing U.S. nuclear capability sends a counterproductive message to the rest of the world that the United States continues to see its nuclear arsenal as central to its security and intends to keep it for the foreseeable future. This perception will only encourage other states to develop or improve their own nuclear arsenals. The result will be an increased proliferation and acceleration of the arms race.
Finally, the United States needs to initiate negotiations with all of the nuclear weapons states on a verifiable agreement to eliminate these weapons. Nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to our survival.
Recent studies have shown that the use of any significant portion of the existing nuclear arsenal against cities, even against an adversary who never fired back, could cause worldwide climate disruption and global famine.
The United States, Britain, China, France and Russia are already obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to take concrete steps toward eliminating their nuclear arsenals. Other nations have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress among the nuclear weapons states toward meeting their treaty obligations.
Each of us can become a part of the Back from the Brink movement by endorsing the five policy solutions. Already hundreds of physicians, scientists, environmental activists, ethicists and people of faith, as well as religious denominations, state legislatures and municipalities, have endorsed Back from the Brink.
The U.S. Council of Mayors unanimously adopted the resolution, as have the Des Moines (Iowa), Los Angeles and Baltimore city councils; 42 cities around the nation, including eight in New Hampshire; and more than 150 faith organizations, NGOs and thousands of individuals.
Endorsing Back from the Brink can also give support for the “No First Use Policy Act of 2019-2020” that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate. It reads simply, “It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.” This is a significant first step.
Just imagine, a groundswell of New Hampshire people and people across America choosing life for ourselves and our children by endorsing Back from the Brink. Imagine the influence on our legislators.
Life without nuclear weapons can be our legacy for our descendants and for all humanity.
(The Rev. John Buttrick, United Church of Christ, lives in Concord.)