Alongside climate change, nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest risks to human survival. (Photo: Shutterstock)
The U.S. Should Never Start A Nuclear War
Seventy-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a No First Use pledge would make our country—and the world—much safer.
Seventy-four years ago this August, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was one of the most horrific acts of warfare in history.
This month, we remember the 200,000 or more civilian men, women, and children who died, and the many thousands more who suffered radiation poisoning, infections, severe burns, deadly cancers, and birth defects. We remember so we can prevent that atrocity from happening again.
Alongside climate change, nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest risks to human survival. That's why I was delighted to see a historic moment at the recent Democratic debate: presidential candidates actually talking about establishing a No First Use policy on nuclear weapons.
Simply put, No First Use refers to an explicit policy of refusing to initiate a nuclear conflict. It means we won't use nuclear weapons unless attacked first.
The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
When asked, most Americans think the United States already has that policy. The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
But we don't have that policy--yet.
That opens the door to a possible preemptive nuclear strike--either by us, or against us. Right now, at any moment, any sitting U.S. president can unilaterally decide to launch a nuclear attack. In about as long as it takes to send a tweet, we'd have a nuclear war.
Other nuclear-armed countries know that. And if they think we might strike first, or mistakenly believe we launched already, that could incentivize them to hit us first. That's exactly what No First Use is designed to prevent.
We need it more than ever. Today, the Doomsday Clock is at just two minutes to midnight--the closest we've been to nuclear conflict since 1953, at the height of the Cold War. And unlike in 1953, we know ducking under a school desk isn't going to save us.
My organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility, was founded to raise the alarm about the health impacts of nuclear weapons and the risks of nuclear war. We've researched everything from nuclear winter to what a nuclear war could mean for human health.
So, let us be the first to tell you: The U.S. is playing an elaborate, high-stakes, screwed-up game of chicken with other nuclear-armed countries.
Since the Cold War, the prevailing thinking is that we need nuclear weapons to discourage other countries from using their nuclear weapons. That's supposedly why we keep amassing them, even though just one has the power to destroy whole civilizations--just so people know we're really serious.
But that thinking is reckless and dangerous. Arming up encourages other countries to do the same, which increases the risk of someone launching a first strike.
The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.
Worst of all, the United States has withdrawn from the vital 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which helped eliminate over 2,600 intermediate-range missiles. That tangible progress in stabilization and disarmament is now at risk.
The United States should never start a nuclear war, because no one can ever win one. We should've established a No First Use policy long ago, but it's not too late to start one now.
Seventy-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's one of several much-needed steps to prevent nuclear conflict--and ultimately end the nuclear threat for good.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Seventy-four years ago this August, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was one of the most horrific acts of warfare in history.
This month, we remember the 200,000 or more civilian men, women, and children who died, and the many thousands more who suffered radiation poisoning, infections, severe burns, deadly cancers, and birth defects. We remember so we can prevent that atrocity from happening again.
Alongside climate change, nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest risks to human survival. That's why I was delighted to see a historic moment at the recent Democratic debate: presidential candidates actually talking about establishing a No First Use policy on nuclear weapons.
Simply put, No First Use refers to an explicit policy of refusing to initiate a nuclear conflict. It means we won't use nuclear weapons unless attacked first.
The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
When asked, most Americans think the United States already has that policy. The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
But we don't have that policy--yet.
That opens the door to a possible preemptive nuclear strike--either by us, or against us. Right now, at any moment, any sitting U.S. president can unilaterally decide to launch a nuclear attack. In about as long as it takes to send a tweet, we'd have a nuclear war.
Other nuclear-armed countries know that. And if they think we might strike first, or mistakenly believe we launched already, that could incentivize them to hit us first. That's exactly what No First Use is designed to prevent.
We need it more than ever. Today, the Doomsday Clock is at just two minutes to midnight--the closest we've been to nuclear conflict since 1953, at the height of the Cold War. And unlike in 1953, we know ducking under a school desk isn't going to save us.
My organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility, was founded to raise the alarm about the health impacts of nuclear weapons and the risks of nuclear war. We've researched everything from nuclear winter to what a nuclear war could mean for human health.
So, let us be the first to tell you: The U.S. is playing an elaborate, high-stakes, screwed-up game of chicken with other nuclear-armed countries.
Since the Cold War, the prevailing thinking is that we need nuclear weapons to discourage other countries from using their nuclear weapons. That's supposedly why we keep amassing them, even though just one has the power to destroy whole civilizations--just so people know we're really serious.
But that thinking is reckless and dangerous. Arming up encourages other countries to do the same, which increases the risk of someone launching a first strike.
The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.
Worst of all, the United States has withdrawn from the vital 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which helped eliminate over 2,600 intermediate-range missiles. That tangible progress in stabilization and disarmament is now at risk.
The United States should never start a nuclear war, because no one can ever win one. We should've established a No First Use policy long ago, but it's not too late to start one now.
Seventy-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's one of several much-needed steps to prevent nuclear conflict--and ultimately end the nuclear threat for good.
Seventy-four years ago this August, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was one of the most horrific acts of warfare in history.
This month, we remember the 200,000 or more civilian men, women, and children who died, and the many thousands more who suffered radiation poisoning, infections, severe burns, deadly cancers, and birth defects. We remember so we can prevent that atrocity from happening again.
Alongside climate change, nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest risks to human survival. That's why I was delighted to see a historic moment at the recent Democratic debate: presidential candidates actually talking about establishing a No First Use policy on nuclear weapons.
Simply put, No First Use refers to an explicit policy of refusing to initiate a nuclear conflict. It means we won't use nuclear weapons unless attacked first.
The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
When asked, most Americans think the United States already has that policy. The vast majority of us, with the exception of people like National Security Adviser John Bolton, don't want our country to start a nuclear war.
But we don't have that policy--yet.
That opens the door to a possible preemptive nuclear strike--either by us, or against us. Right now, at any moment, any sitting U.S. president can unilaterally decide to launch a nuclear attack. In about as long as it takes to send a tweet, we'd have a nuclear war.
Other nuclear-armed countries know that. And if they think we might strike first, or mistakenly believe we launched already, that could incentivize them to hit us first. That's exactly what No First Use is designed to prevent.
We need it more than ever. Today, the Doomsday Clock is at just two minutes to midnight--the closest we've been to nuclear conflict since 1953, at the height of the Cold War. And unlike in 1953, we know ducking under a school desk isn't going to save us.
My organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility, was founded to raise the alarm about the health impacts of nuclear weapons and the risks of nuclear war. We've researched everything from nuclear winter to what a nuclear war could mean for human health.
So, let us be the first to tell you: The U.S. is playing an elaborate, high-stakes, screwed-up game of chicken with other nuclear-armed countries.
Since the Cold War, the prevailing thinking is that we need nuclear weapons to discourage other countries from using their nuclear weapons. That's supposedly why we keep amassing them, even though just one has the power to destroy whole civilizations--just so people know we're really serious.
But that thinking is reckless and dangerous. Arming up encourages other countries to do the same, which increases the risk of someone launching a first strike.
The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.The risk of nuclear conflict is at an all-time high thanks to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, our failed attempts to broker a deal with North Korea, and our tensions with Russia because, as usual, we're reheating the Cold War.
Worst of all, the United States has withdrawn from the vital 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which helped eliminate over 2,600 intermediate-range missiles. That tangible progress in stabilization and disarmament is now at risk.
The United States should never start a nuclear war, because no one can ever win one. We should've established a No First Use policy long ago, but it's not too late to start one now.
Seventy-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's one of several much-needed steps to prevent nuclear conflict--and ultimately end the nuclear threat for good.