Sanders Says Trump's "Dangerous" Nuclear Arms Race Talk Must Be Challenged
'Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, have understood that our goal must be to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, not expand them.'
Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it known that Donald Trump should not go unchallenged by his congressional colleagues as troubling comments by the President-elect about nuclear weapons this week sparked alarm across the United States and the world.
Following an initial out-of-the-blue tweet Thursday saying the U.S. should "expand" its nuclear arsenal followed by "clarifying" remarks Friday to MSNBC in which Trump said, "Let it be an arms race," Sanders responded: "It's a miracle a nuclear weapon hasn't been used in war since 1945. Congress can't allow the Tweeter in Chief to start a nuclear arms race."
Subsequently, he added:
Though Trump's press team was tied in knots as they tried (but failed) to walk back or explain Trump's nuclear talk, Sanders far from alone in expressing grave concern over the seriousness of what was said.
"Can a tweet start an arms race? This one may just have done that," Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, told NBC News.
On Saturday, a New York Times editorial argued that by "casually hinting at a seismic shift in fundamental policies, the president-elect is playing a risky game."
The Times continued, "For decades, American policy has been designed to stabilize relations between Russia and the United States and to deter other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Careless taunts risk undoing that progress."
But is everyone making too much of this?
Laicie Heeley, a nuclear expert at the non-partisan Stimson Center, doesn't think so.
Heeley told Agence France-Presse Trump's comments this week are "reckless," especially without providing details or context for what he said. "To make such a loaded statement without context or follow-up is irresponsible at best," she explained. "We could be talking about a return to the Cold War here, when the threat of a nuclear catastrophe was very real."
And Melissa Batchelor Warnke, a contributor to the Los Angeles Times, said that for all the other controversial and troubling things Trump has said and done--both during his campaign and since being elected--these casual and "absolutely frightening" comments about nuclear weapons and proliferation should be treated with special concern.
"Because of the difficulty detecting a signal in the noise, we can lose sight of what's at stake," Warnke wrote Friday. While not dismissing his many other troubling statements, Warnke argues Trump's positions on nuclear weapons are "exceptional" in their implications. "Donald Trump's prime campaign promise was that Donald Trump would always win. He would win through strength, intimidation and stick-swinging. But nobody wins in nuclear war. It doesn't happen. The use of nuclear weapons is a sin for which none is forgiven; a nuclear exchange is a potential extermination event.'
She continued, "When nuclear escalation is on the table, every journalist in America should get a new beat, and that beat should be reporting on how to avert nuclear war. We have covered this, but not with enough urgency. Each time the President of the United States speaks cavalierly or competitively about nuclear weapons, that should be a six-column headline in every paper in America. It isn't; it hasn't been."
In turn, many other journalists and political commentators, including Ring of Fire's Sydney Robinson, welcomed Sanders' promise to hold Trump to account on the issue.
"Trump's promise to begin a nuclear arms race is incredibly concerning for the entire globe," Robinson wrote Saturday, "and we hope that Senator Sanders and others will do more in the future to protect the nation from such dangerous outcomes."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it known that Donald Trump should not go unchallenged by his congressional colleagues as troubling comments by the President-elect about nuclear weapons this week sparked alarm across the United States and the world.
Following an initial out-of-the-blue tweet Thursday saying the U.S. should "expand" its nuclear arsenal followed by "clarifying" remarks Friday to MSNBC in which Trump said, "Let it be an arms race," Sanders responded: "It's a miracle a nuclear weapon hasn't been used in war since 1945. Congress can't allow the Tweeter in Chief to start a nuclear arms race."
Subsequently, he added:
Though Trump's press team was tied in knots as they tried (but failed) to walk back or explain Trump's nuclear talk, Sanders far from alone in expressing grave concern over the seriousness of what was said.
"Can a tweet start an arms race? This one may just have done that," Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, told NBC News.
On Saturday, a New York Times editorial argued that by "casually hinting at a seismic shift in fundamental policies, the president-elect is playing a risky game."
The Times continued, "For decades, American policy has been designed to stabilize relations between Russia and the United States and to deter other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Careless taunts risk undoing that progress."
But is everyone making too much of this?
Laicie Heeley, a nuclear expert at the non-partisan Stimson Center, doesn't think so.
Heeley told Agence France-Presse Trump's comments this week are "reckless," especially without providing details or context for what he said. "To make such a loaded statement without context or follow-up is irresponsible at best," she explained. "We could be talking about a return to the Cold War here, when the threat of a nuclear catastrophe was very real."
And Melissa Batchelor Warnke, a contributor to the Los Angeles Times, said that for all the other controversial and troubling things Trump has said and done--both during his campaign and since being elected--these casual and "absolutely frightening" comments about nuclear weapons and proliferation should be treated with special concern.
"Because of the difficulty detecting a signal in the noise, we can lose sight of what's at stake," Warnke wrote Friday. While not dismissing his many other troubling statements, Warnke argues Trump's positions on nuclear weapons are "exceptional" in their implications. "Donald Trump's prime campaign promise was that Donald Trump would always win. He would win through strength, intimidation and stick-swinging. But nobody wins in nuclear war. It doesn't happen. The use of nuclear weapons is a sin for which none is forgiven; a nuclear exchange is a potential extermination event.'
She continued, "When nuclear escalation is on the table, every journalist in America should get a new beat, and that beat should be reporting on how to avert nuclear war. We have covered this, but not with enough urgency. Each time the President of the United States speaks cavalierly or competitively about nuclear weapons, that should be a six-column headline in every paper in America. It isn't; it hasn't been."
In turn, many other journalists and political commentators, including Ring of Fire's Sydney Robinson, welcomed Sanders' promise to hold Trump to account on the issue.
"Trump's promise to begin a nuclear arms race is incredibly concerning for the entire globe," Robinson wrote Saturday, "and we hope that Senator Sanders and others will do more in the future to protect the nation from such dangerous outcomes."
Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it known that Donald Trump should not go unchallenged by his congressional colleagues as troubling comments by the President-elect about nuclear weapons this week sparked alarm across the United States and the world.
Following an initial out-of-the-blue tweet Thursday saying the U.S. should "expand" its nuclear arsenal followed by "clarifying" remarks Friday to MSNBC in which Trump said, "Let it be an arms race," Sanders responded: "It's a miracle a nuclear weapon hasn't been used in war since 1945. Congress can't allow the Tweeter in Chief to start a nuclear arms race."
Subsequently, he added:
Though Trump's press team was tied in knots as they tried (but failed) to walk back or explain Trump's nuclear talk, Sanders far from alone in expressing grave concern over the seriousness of what was said.
"Can a tweet start an arms race? This one may just have done that," Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, told NBC News.
On Saturday, a New York Times editorial argued that by "casually hinting at a seismic shift in fundamental policies, the president-elect is playing a risky game."
The Times continued, "For decades, American policy has been designed to stabilize relations between Russia and the United States and to deter other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Careless taunts risk undoing that progress."
But is everyone making too much of this?
Laicie Heeley, a nuclear expert at the non-partisan Stimson Center, doesn't think so.
Heeley told Agence France-Presse Trump's comments this week are "reckless," especially without providing details or context for what he said. "To make such a loaded statement without context or follow-up is irresponsible at best," she explained. "We could be talking about a return to the Cold War here, when the threat of a nuclear catastrophe was very real."
And Melissa Batchelor Warnke, a contributor to the Los Angeles Times, said that for all the other controversial and troubling things Trump has said and done--both during his campaign and since being elected--these casual and "absolutely frightening" comments about nuclear weapons and proliferation should be treated with special concern.
"Because of the difficulty detecting a signal in the noise, we can lose sight of what's at stake," Warnke wrote Friday. While not dismissing his many other troubling statements, Warnke argues Trump's positions on nuclear weapons are "exceptional" in their implications. "Donald Trump's prime campaign promise was that Donald Trump would always win. He would win through strength, intimidation and stick-swinging. But nobody wins in nuclear war. It doesn't happen. The use of nuclear weapons is a sin for which none is forgiven; a nuclear exchange is a potential extermination event.'
She continued, "When nuclear escalation is on the table, every journalist in America should get a new beat, and that beat should be reporting on how to avert nuclear war. We have covered this, but not with enough urgency. Each time the President of the United States speaks cavalierly or competitively about nuclear weapons, that should be a six-column headline in every paper in America. It isn't; it hasn't been."
In turn, many other journalists and political commentators, including Ring of Fire's Sydney Robinson, welcomed Sanders' promise to hold Trump to account on the issue.
"Trump's promise to begin a nuclear arms race is incredibly concerning for the entire globe," Robinson wrote Saturday, "and we hope that Senator Sanders and others will do more in the future to protect the nation from such dangerous outcomes."