A Presidential Fireside Chat

 

 

Putin is threatening Ukraine with battlefield nuclear weapons. Arms control agreements are in the toilet. Many if not all of the nine nuclear powers are renewing their nuclear arsenal. None of them is willing to sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than ever before. And yet it’s as if most of us were in a trance, hypnotized into passivity by the planetary challenge of how to move beyond the nuclear conundrum. 

 

From a lay point of view, a policy like launch-on-warning appears insanely self-defeating. But in the halls of power, where doubts are suppressed to avoid being perceived as weak or disloyal, a dangerous status quo continues, as if no alternative were possible. Sometimes silence speaks volumes. Only after admirals, generals and even statesmen like Henry Kissinger retire do we hear misgivings.

 

Imagine what a U.S. president might say to the nation if he or she were willing to break ironclad political taboos and admit some self-evident truths . . . 

 

My Fellow Americans:

 

 There are some issues that are so complex that experts are needed to find the safest way forward. One of these is nuclear weapons policy. But we are a democracy, where the peoples’ will prevails. Our country has never had a national discussion in real depth about nuclear issues. It is time to begin one.

 

The nuclear age brought a fundamental contradiction into our lives: we are ultimately relying for our security on weapons which could end life on our planet as we know it. The leaders of all the nuclear nations would have only minutes to decide how to respond to a nuclear attack. God keep any of them, including me, from having to experience such a moment. 

 

This cannot be a partisan issue. As Ronald Reagan said in 1982: “ . . .a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

 

The deterrence system encourages non-nuclear nations like Iran to want the weapons, and discourages the nuclear nations from being able to afford to give them up. Meanwhile the arms race accelerates in an endless cycle moving in a hair-trigger direction. While no one is prouder than I am of the professionalism of our military forces, systems made and administered by humans do fail. The space shuttle and nuclear power plant disasters, let alone when misinterpretations of early warning systems have almost led to the launch of weapons that could not be called back—we forget such realities at our ultimate peril.  

Further, now we are aware that the detonation of only a few nuclear warheads, perhaps hundred or less, over cities, could lead to what scientists call nuclear winter, where soot rising high into the upper atmosphere could cause global cooling and even the radical diminishment of agriculture for a decade—an effect that obviously should concern not only us but all countries, nuclear or not.

 

The Russians, the Chinese, Iran and North Korea are all making aggressive moves—not an opportune time to bring up how we might reduce our dependence upon our nuclear arsenal. But they too want to survive. There is no good or bad time to have this discussion except before, not after, another Cuban Missile Crisis or worse. 

 

Would it be easier or harder to alert ourselves to violations of weapons agreements were there fewer weapons? Should we seek new arms control agreements with our adversaries that could result in the reciprocal reductions of numbers of weapons? Should we invite the militaries of the nuclear nations to dialogue about launch on warning, mistakes, and nuclear winter? Should we make easily reversible gestures like bringing a few of our submarines into port, hoping that adversaries would send similar signals? 

 

The community of nations face the challenge not only of nuclear weapons but also of global sustainability: the transition out of not only nuclear weapons, but also fossil fuels. Nations have become so deeply interdependent economically and ecologically that no one country can be secure until all are. Can the world afford to continue to pour its resources into a nuclear deterrence system that diminishes funds needed to meet the global climate emergency? A system which, should it break down, would mean the end of everything we cherish? There will always be conflict, but the science of conflict resolution tells us that even mortal adversaries can cooperate if they work toward a shared goal—in this case, planetary survival. 

 

I am committed to whatever policies make both the United States and the world safer. If there are fundamental changes to be made, I cannot execute policy without the advice and consent of the Congress and therefore, ultimately, of you. Experts may formulate policy, but broad citizen agreement is required for your representatives to continue to push whatever policy direction we choose beyond a single four year administration.

To encourage a national dialogue on the role of nuclear weapons and their place in the context of the sustainability challenge, I will be sending teams of people all around our country who are equipped to listen and to encourage honest and civil conversation. I am calling it the National Nuclear Weapons Policy Dialogue. I’m certain it will result in a stronger, safer America.

 

God bless America and God bless our troops.

Nukes and Climate Are One

 

The conservative columnist George Will wrote a very welcome column calling attention to a book, Nuclear War: A Scenario by historian Annie Jacobsen, a riveting must-read that details just how easily deterrence could unravel, how fast and irreversibly escalation would occur, and how complete the worldwide destruction would be. 

 

But Will undercut the value of his review by saying we ought to pay more attention to nuclear war and less to the climate crisis, of which he is a denier. Climate deniers these days are as obsolete as Holocaust deniers and surely neither should be given space in major American newspapers.

 

The climate crisis is inescapable,  the nuclear crisis is becoming more so, and the two are inescapably intertwined.

 

Both crises continue because of denial. The extreme kind is exemplified by Mr. Will and, from all indications, candidate Trump—neither of these thinks global climate change is an emergency at all. That an influencer of Mr. Will’s scope has become anxious about nuclear war is a good thing. As for Mr. Trump, whatever his thoughts about nukes, it is clear he should never again be in charge of nuclear command and control (bearing in mind that no leader would be able to conduct themselves calmly in the minutes before the world ended).

 

Some degree of denial encompasses us all. We see the obvious indicators of climate and nuclear dysfunctionality and feel helpless. The exceptions are the Bill Mckibbens and Greta Thunbergs and their followers who have given their utmost to waking the rest of us up, including the doctors of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, or the activists in International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

 

The denial of the passive mass middle around both issues includes the political establishments of many nations. Some countries are doing more than others to mitigate global warming, even as the powerful fossil fuel industry fights tooth and nail against its own looming obsolescence. On the nuclear front too many nations are renewing their arsenals. The invasion of Ukraine and China’s ongoing threat to repossess Taiwan are rendering new arms control initiatives all the more difficult—just when the aggressive pursuit of such treaties is most needed.

 

In the Jacobsen book it takes only 72 minutes to pretty much change the planet we know and love into a world where those still living would envy the dead. But because global warming is not just somewhere over the horizon but here now, there are going to be far too many people who will die in the summer of 2024 from the effects of heat,  Mr.Will’s air-conditioned denial to the contrary.

 

Establishment thinking assumes that we have enough money and creativity to cope with both crises. For 35 years one member of the International Physicians for Nuclear War who is on the activist end of the spectrum, Dr. Robert Dodge, has been writing hair-on-fire editorials that apply a formula for determining how much of our tax revenue is poured down the nuclear weapons rathole. In tax year 2023, just the one small town of Ojai where Dodge lives spent $2,742,698 funding U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Ventura County, where Ojai is located in California spent $253,174,999. The total U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs expenditure was $94,485,000,000. That’s 94 billion.

 

There are differences between the leaders of the nine nuclear powers. Mr. Biden has little in common with Kim Jong Un, though the other candidate for U.S. president, spending his down time in court at the moment even as he polls neck-and-neck, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Mr. Kim.

 

But all the leaders of the nuclear powers are failing to put the interests of the planet above the interests of their sovereign nations: they know that a nuclear war cannot be won, that launch-on-warning is insane, and that none of them could possibly be prepared for those awful minutes of decision described so powerfully by Jacobsen. But they refuse to act creatively upon the implications.

 

Jacobsen’s book is short on solutions, but there is a way out, and, once again, it involves the interconnection between nuclear war and the climate crisis. Start by pulling our ostrich heads out of the sand and admit the crazy dysfunctionality of nuclear deterrence. The nine nuclear powers need to sign the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons even if they may violate its provisions for some years yet. Make gestures which are quickly reversible if no other party responds, like bringing home a few nuclear-armed submarines. Convene the generals, Russia’s and China’s included, and talk about the no-exit nature of the situation—and talk unilaterally about it even if some generals refuse the invitation.

 

And talk equally loudly about the need for a new level of cooperation on climate. Think outside the box: the military forces of all nations happen to also be the biggest polluters. How could they work together to help with the effects of climate already here, the refugees, the water crises, the conflicts over resources? It’s a proven fact that tensions decrease when adversaries cooperate toward a common goal.

 

Everything has changed in our world: we can no longer deny along with powerful influencers like Mr. Will and Mr. Trump that everything we do or don’t do affects everyone else around the world and vice versa. We all breathe one ocean of air.

 

But there’s some consolation that were all in this together. Will the fact that leaders would die in a nuclear war along with the rest of us, or that the real war ought to be against chaos of climate effects, constrain them and push them in new directions? There’s hope in accepting our radical interdependence and acting on it. As a start, we can probe our representatives at every level with questions that drive home the connection between the two challenges.

 Shorter version of letter to WAPO:

 

Dear Editors:

 

George Will’s op-ed reviewing Nuclear War: A Scenario by historian Annie Jacobsen

was most welcome. The book shows how easily deterrence could unravel, how fast and irreversibly escalation would occur, and how complete the destruction would be. 

 

Will undercut his own review by saying we ought to pay more attention to nuclear war

and less to the climate crisis, of which he is a denier. Arguably, climate deniers are as

obsolete as Holocaust deniers. Both crises continue because of denial.  

 

Both crises are globally existential. Jacobsen explains it takes only 72 minutes

to change the planet into a world where the living would envy the dead. Global warming is not just somewhere over the horizon but here now. Many people will die in the summer of 2024 from heat effects.

 

The leaders of the nine nuclear powers know that launch-on-warning is insane. None of them could possibly be prepared for those awful minutes of decision laid out by

Jacobsen. A ‘victory’ is impossible. But they do not act on the implications.

 

Jacobsen’s valuable book is short on solutions. The way forward connects the nuclear and the climate crises. The arms race drains scientific creativity needed to reduce global warming. The military forces of all nations are also among the biggest polluters. They can work together to reduce the effects of climate destruction. History shows that tensions decrease when adversaries cooperate toward a common goal.

 

It is more pragmatic to invest in clean energy than preparation for war. To conserve life on Earth, we all need to be "conservatives."