SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear weapons
No One Wins When Nuclear-Armed States Believe That ‘We Can’t Lose’
Any conflict risks going nuclear if one of the belligerent parties choses to use their ultimate weapon rather than accept the possibility of defeat.
Mar 28, 2025
Nations engaged in wars with conventional weapons are not likely to hold back from using their most powerful weapons if they believe they are losing the war, and for too many countries in our world the most powerful weapons are nuclear. Countries committed to fighting a conventional war are also likely to be committed to the meme of “We Can’t Lose.”
A nuclear war could begin with the losing side in a conventional war making use of a small local tactical nuclear weapon to destroy the supply lines of its enemy. But once one side uses such a weapon the other side will feel that it too must engage with its most powerful weapons. Frustration is likely to set in when it appears that restricting such weapons to the immediate battlefield of the war is not sufficient to win. It might then be seen as necessary to destroy the enemy’s airfields and the power centers in its capital with longer range, more powerful nuclear weapons.
Just such a sequence of escalation in the use of nuclear weapons from tactical use in a local battlefield to strategic use in the destruction of an enemy’s cities was shown to be likely in a 1983 simulation described in a recent article by William Langewiesche in The New York Times Magazine. The simulation was large scale and involved much of the U.S. defense establishment. The simulation began with a conventional war between Russia and the West on the fields of Poland and East Germany. As it began to appear that the West was losing and the Netherlands was threatened, the West initiated the use of small tactical nuclear weapons that it fired onto the enemy’s supply lines in the local battlefield. Russia followed suit. Within a few days the airfields behind the frontlines from which the planes dropping the tactical weapons took off were struck with larger nuclear weapons. Finally, strategic weapons were used against the capitals of Western Europe and Russia.
One fears the near inevitability that one or more of the current wars in our world will end in nuclear war, the accompanying nuclear winter, and the possible end of human life on Earth.
The results surprised those who participated in the simulation. The conclusion was that a nuclear war cannot be controlled.
Our world has many local conflicts such as the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that involve nuclear powers. This is in addition to major geostrategic conflicts between the nuclear powers of U.S., Russia, and China. All of these conflicts have the potential of becoming nuclear.
Russia, for example, has warned the West that it will use a nuclear weapon in its war with Ukraine if it believes it is losing the current war with conventional weapons. Russia is thus telling the west that “we can’t lose.”
Israel has warned that it will exercise “The Samson Option” if it is in a war with its neighbors and believes it can no longer defend Israel with conventional weapons. The Samson Option involves the nuclear bombing of cities such as Damascus, Bagdad, or Cairo with nuclear weapons. More recently, Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu has raised the possibility of dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Israel too is thus telling the world that “we cannot and will not lose.”
It is likely that the United States too believes that “we cannot lose.” If it is in a war with China using conventional weapons and China is gaining the upper hand then it is quite possible that the U.S., with its triad of nuclear-armed submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles, would use these nuclear weapons. In fact, many in the U.S. defense establishment believe that a nuclear war with China can be fought and won by the U.S. Thus, the U.S. too believes that “we cannot lose.” Similar considerations by the U.S. would apply if it were losing a war with Russia.
Other states with nuclear weapons may also believe they cannot lose. North Korea has stated that it would not use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike but would use its nuclear weapons if attacked, and recent events on the Korean peninsula suggest that war between the two Koreas is a real possibility. It also seems likely that if Pakistan or India were engaged in a conventional war and one side was losing, that that side would believe they could not lose and would initiate a nuclear exchange.
The likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons becomes still greater if other nations such as Japan, Brazil, Iran, or Saudi Arabia join the nuclear club in the interest of deterrence (no nuclear armed country has ever been invaded) and adopt the meme of “we cannot lose.”
All this makes one pessimistic. One fears the near inevitability that one or more of the current wars in our world will end in nuclear war, the accompanying nuclear winter, and the possible end of human life on Earth.
What can be done? It seems the only solution is the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as proposed in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that has now been signed by 93 non-nuclear states. Unfortunately, the nuclear states have not signed onto this treaty but should be encouraged to do so.
Skeptics will say that nuclear powers might sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons but would hold in secret a few nuclear weapons so as to be able to dominate their enemies in a conventional war. That may well happen, but the vast reduction of nuclear weapons that the treaty would require and the absence of nuclear fear it would bring with it would make the universal adoption of the treaty a self-perpetuating step toward the world we deserve and must have.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Dems Need a Clear Vision to Move Themselves—and the Country—Forward
A just transition for fossil fuel workers, a pro-worker AI strategy, and a pragmatic approach to global security could be the cornerstones of a compelling Democratic message.
Mar 23, 2025
People continue to observe that the political parties have at best a very limited if any vision or a frightening one at worst.
There are many things that people are worried about, but three issues sit in the back of voters’ minds—issues that will inevitably come to the fore and produce anxiety in the electorate. The first is the future of energy and the jobs tied to it. Many working-class Americans rely on fossil fuel jobs to support their families. They hear talk of green energy but wonder: What happens to us?
The term “just transition” is often used to address this concern, and experts like Jillian Neuberger and Devashree Saha, in their April 5, 2021, publication, have provided a roadmap for how it could be implemented. A just transition ensures that workers in fossil fuel industries are not left behind in the shift to renewable energy; rather, they are retrained and given new opportunities in clean energy sectors. This is a crucial conversation, but the Republicans continue to be in denial and the Democrats have not adequately articulated the idea to the public. Instead, they are allowing the perception to fester that climate action simply means job losses, without presenting a compelling case for how workers will be protected. The party needs to make it clear: Climate action does not mean economic devastation. Instead, it can be an opportunity to build a new, sustainable economy that works for everyone. But to do this, they need to communicate a clear vision—something they are failing to do.
The last presidential election sent a clear message: Americans are primarily concerned about their work, their financial security, and the future of their families.
Another widespread concern is the rise of artificial intelligence and its impact on jobs. Workers fear automation and AI replacing their livelihoods. This concern is not unfounded; many industries are already seeing jobs being replaced by machines and algorithms. Yet, there are solutions that could make AI work for, rather than against, the American worker. Economists Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Simon Johnson have written extensively about “pro-worker AI,” a model that emphasizes using artificial intelligence to complement human labor rather than replace it. The industries that stand to benefit the most from this approach include education and healthcare—sectors where AI can be leveraged to assist, not replace, workers. In education, AI can provide personalized tutoring, help automate administrative tasks, and free teachers to focus more on student engagement and critical thinking. In healthcare, AI can aid doctors in diagnosing diseases more accurately, reduce paperwork for nurses, and streamline hospital operations, improving patient care without eliminating human oversight.
The Democrats should be leading on policies that ensure AI serves as an enhancement rather than a replacement for human workers. One way to accomplish this is through tax-code changes that incentivize hiring human labor over automation. Right now, businesses can often save money by replacing workers with machines because tax structures favor capital investment over labor costs. Changing this dynamic could encourage companies to keep employees in meaningful roles while integrating AI in a way that boosts productivity without sacrificing jobs. Additionally, as AI increasingly touches all aspects of government—from infrastructure planning to national security—there is an urgent need for AI expertise within federal agencies. Without knowledgeable oversight, policymakers risk falling behind in regulating AI’s impact, leaving critical decisions to private companies whose priorities may not align with the public good. A forward-thinking Democratic vision should prioritize hiring AI specialists within government to ensure that technology is developed and deployed responsibly.
Beyond domestic concerns, global instability is another major source of anxiety. Nine nations now have nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Russia hold 90% of them. Meanwhile, China is currently on course to gain parity with the Big Two. This reality makes the threat of nuclear war or catastrophic accidents an ever-present concern. President Donald Trump recently questioned why the U.S. is spending exorbitantly on nuclear weapons, stating, “We have so many, so many, and we can’t use them.” (Reuters, February 13, 2025, Andrea Shalal and Steve Holland). This time, rather than opposing him reflexively, the Democrats should agree—and hold him to his words. Russia and China have already expressed willingness to engage in nuclear arms limitation talks. Instead of dismissing Trump’s remarks, Democrats should demand that he take the next step and follow through on negotiations. There is now a real pathway to reducing nuclear arsenals, and the Democrats should ensure that Trump and the GOP are held accountable for making it happen.
The last presidential election sent a clear message: Americans are primarily concerned about their work, their financial security, and the future of their families. While other issues matter, the fundamental well-being of the working and middle class remains the dominant force shaping electoral outcomes. If the Democrats fail to articulate a vision that speaks directly to these concerns, they will continue to be distrusted by many of the people they claim to champion.
There are answers to these challenges. A just transition for fossil fuel workers, a pro-worker AI strategy, and a pragmatic approach to global security could be the cornerstones of a compelling Democratic vision. But the party needs to do more than just hold these ideas in policy papers and academic discussions. They need to articulate them forcefully, repeatedly, and in a way that resonates with the American people.
If you don’t have a vision, you’re not going to get anywhere. Right now, the Democrats seem to be standing still. The question is: When will they start moving?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can the Voices of A-Bomb Victims Drown out the Military-Industrial Complex?
Let us listen to those who have suffered the most. Let us hear the cry of their throbbing souls and begin to understand that the time has come for us to create a world beyond dominance and war.
Mar 16, 2025
When the powerful speak, mushroom clouds emerge—oh so easily. Power is about conquest; winning the war, getting what you want no matter the cost.
For instance, Israel should nuke Gaza. “Do whatever you have to do.” Thus declared Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) last year in a “Meet the Press” interview, comparing the current genocide in Palestine to the U.S. decision to end World War II by A-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “That was the right decision,” he said, spewing out the historical abstraction that still rules the world.
Nothing is more sacred than self-defense! And nothing is more necessary for that than nuclear weapons, at least for the countries that possess them. To think beyond this abstraction—to cry out against the pain of the victims and declare their use is potential human suicide—violates the political norm of the powerful and is easily categorized by the media, often sarcastically, as naïve.
“I realized my pain was not only my pain but other people’s pain.”
And thus we’re stuck in a MAD world, apparently: a world under unending threat of mutually assured destruction. If you have a problem with that, you’re probably a weakling singing “Kumbaya.”
Or so the global war machine wants us to believe, reducing humanity’s anti-nuke—antiwar—sanity to a hollow hope.
It is in this context that I heard Sim Jintae and Han Jeong-Soon speak at a small event the other day in suburban Chicago, sponsored by an organization called—brace yourself—The International People’s Tribunal to hold the U.S. accountable for dropping A-bombs. The two speakers (via translator) are Korean victims of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima nearly eight decades ago. Sim Jintae is a first-generation survivor: He was two-years-old when the bomb was dropped. Han Jeong-Soon is a second-generation survivor—the child of survivors of the inferno, who has suffered throughout her life from the aftereffects of the bombing. Their message: Nuclear war lasts forever!
Well, that’s part of their message. Note: The movement they represent is Korean. A little known fact about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that thousands of Koreans were what you might call doubly victimized by the horror. This was during an era when Japan had colonial control over Korea, and some 100,000 Koreans had been forcibly moved to Japan to do wartime labor. Many of them, including Sim Jintae’s parents, had been working in a munitions factory in Hiroshima.
About 40,000 Koreans died in the bombings. Those who survived suffered the aftereffects in silence... until they reclaimed one another and found a collective voice. This is the voice I heard last week at the event I attended, and it resonated as loud as—perhaps louder than—the pro-nuke media and their supplicants. Their collective voice emerges from reality, not abstraction. My God, I hope it’s louder than that of Lindsey Graham, and so many other politicians.
Here is the voice of Han Jeong-Soon. Born in Korea 14 years after the destruction of Hiroshima—her parents had also been forced laborers there, living a few kilometers from the epicenter of the bomb blast—she suffered all her life from birth defects: heart problems, chest pain, lung issues. She had multiple surgeries. She suffered on her own... until she saw a film about the bombing in 2004. Then:
“I realized my pain was not only my pain but other people’s pain,” she told us. She began organizing other second-generation survivors, and began telling the world: “My war has not ended. No war should be allowed or tolerated. No to all war.”
Is this the voice that will drown out the military-industrial complex? The People’s Tribunal is demanding, as the starting point of the human journey beyond war, for the United States to apologize for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was an action that instantly expanded the scope of hell the human race could inflict on itself.
When I heard that word, “apologize,” in the context of first- and second-generation Korean A-bomb victims—victims who were denied necessary healthcare, by both Japan and the United States—what I heard was a soul scream: a demand that the perpetrator grasp and acknowledge the full extent of the harm it caused, and in so grasping, vow never to use such a monstrous weapon again... and, indeed, vow to transcend war itself.
The International People’s Tribunal put it this way:
The A-Bomb Tribunal aims to establish the illegality of the U.S. atomic bombings in 1945 to secure the basis for condemning all nuclear threats and use as illegal today. The fact that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal under the international laws in 1945 means that the use and threat of nuclear weapons today are also illegal.
The A-Bomb Tribunal aims to overcome the nuclear deterrence theory that justifies the use and threat of nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon states, and contribute to the realization of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a nuclear-free world.
Let us listen to those who have suffered the most. Let us hear the cry of their throbbing souls and begin to understand that the time has come for us to create a world beyond dominance and war. Indeed, let us begin listening to one another and, in so doing, learn that we all matter. This is the true nature of power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular