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 war
Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: an Urgent Existential Threat
At this time of great peril, it is also a time of great opportunity if only we will act. We know how to build these weapons, and we know how to take them apart.
Sep 26, 2026
On Saturday the world observes the United Nations International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, known as Nuclear Weapons Elimination Day. It was first observed on September 26, 2014 subsequent to the UN Declaration in December 2013 following high-level United Nations meetings on nuclear disarmament. The day provides an opportunity to educate the public and elected officials about the benefits of eliminating nuclear weapons, as well as the humanitarian, social, and economic costs of their continued existence.
Today, our world faces the greatest threat of nuclear war with the devastating possibility of the extinction of humanity. Current nuclear arsenals have roughly 12,187 nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are on hair-trigger alert with the potential to cause the deaths of billions from the use of only this small percentage of the world’s arsenals.
We have seen a breakdown in relationships between the largest nuclear armed states. The expiration of the New START Treaty occurred on February 5 this year. This has left the world for the first time since 1970 with no agreed-upon nuclear limitation treaty. We have witnessed reckless and immoral threats against adversaries and ultimately to all of humanity by the nuclear “superpowers,“ including US President Donald Trump’s not-so-veiled nuclear threat to annihilate Iran and its people before the world community at the UN's 81st General Assembly on Tuesday of this week. Such vitriol and illegal statements regarding the threatened use of nuclear weapons cannot be tolerated. Imagine our reaction if we heard any other nation espousing similar comments before the international community.
An informed and active citizenry must step forward and lead the way.
We have also recently acknowledged the illegal placement of weapons in space by the United States. In our technologically reliant world, the existence and potential use of such weapons threatens much of our day to day lives with the possibility of rendering technology impotent.
Each of these facts when combined with the potential for disruptive technologies, including discussions and testing of artificial intelligence in nuclear war scenarios, led the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to reset their famous Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight earlier this year, the closest it has been since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 81 years ago.
The challenge to rein in these weapons seems daunting and impossible.
Yet, at this time of great peril, it is also a time of great opportunity if only we will act. We know how to build these weapons, and we know how to take them apart. We have made tremendous progress through the decades reducing global arsenals from roughly 64,000 in 1985 to the current totals. What is needed is the political will and courage.
Internationally, nuclear weapons are illegal to possess, develop, test, acquire, transfer, use, or threaten to use, by virtue of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was adopted on July 7, 2017 and entered into force on January 22, 2021. This treaty evolved from the inertia of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) with the understanding of the humanitarian consequences of even a limited war, and the refusal of the non-nuclear nations to be held hostage any longer by their nuclear counterparts. Initially adopted by 122 nations, the treaty currently has 101 nations that have signed it and 75 that have ratified it through their legislative bodies representing a majority of the world‘s population. The lion's share of effort on this treaty has been by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. ICAN is a coalition of 733 international partner organizations.
Here in the United States, a similar grassroots coalition exists called “Back From the Brink.“ This coalition includes 505 organizations encompassing every sector of society, 78 municipalities and counties, eight state legislative bodies, 594 local and state officials, 70 members of Congress through Congressional Resolutions H.Res 317 and S.Res 323, and 28 community hubs across the nation. Addressing the urgent danger of nuclear weapons, the campaign works to build awareness and support for the need to abolish these weapons coupled with the immediate actionable precautionary measures necessary to prevent nuclear war until their elimination is achieved.
As such, Back From the Brink calls on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war. It urges the US to enact these five policy solutions:
- Pursue global elimination of nuclear weapons through a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
- Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first;
- End the sole, unchecked authority of any president to launch a nuclear attack;
- Take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; and
- Cancel the plan to replace the entire US arsenal with enhanced weapons.
Working with Back From the Brink is Students for Nuclear Disarmament (SND). As a national, nonpartisan, organization dedicated to raising awareness among Gen Z about the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity, its growing presence in high schools, colleges, and universities across the nation educates and empowers young people to take action against the growing threat of nuclear war.
To succeed in this critical effort to save humanity, we must remain informed and work to inform others. Our movement, while still barely noted by corporate media, is unstoppable and must continue to move quickly and strategically. An informed and active citizenry must step forward and lead the way. We must demand wise public officials to act immediately and move away from the brink of nuclear war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Could Trump, Who Coveted a Nobel Peace Prize, Become the Worst War Criminal in History?
In his UN General Assembly speech this week, Trump told the world that he is in the process of deciding whether to “annihilate” Iran and “send them to hell,” implying that he might use nuclear weapons. He has to be convinced that this is totally unacceptable—before he does something even more crazy than usual!
Sep 24, 2026
In a highly aggressive 40-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, President Donald Trump once again issued ominous threats to Iran, saying: “I have a very big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill or destroy people or countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”
He implied that his “very big decision” would come after the midterms, suggesting that Iran is waiting to make a deal until then and, if one isn’t forthcoming, then he would choose annihilation.
Several commentators have noted that his extreme rhetoric was all the more shocking in the context of being delivered, as it was, at the world’s foremost international organization for the peaceful settlement of disputes, created in the aftermath of World War II “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”
Every one of us has an obligation to ensure that we don’t experience such a bleak future, and to totally reject the idea that anyone should be able to decide to “destroy a civilization” or “annihilate” a people and a culture.
Indeed, all states that become members of the UN agree to resolve their disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of force against one another, as an obligation of membership—an agreement that the US is currently violating.
Although some news outlets lamented the tone of Trump’s speech and fact-checked it (finding the usual errors), few have explicitly pointed out his not-so-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons. Most have simply ignored it, and a few have even seemed to excuse it, suggesting that it was simply a “negotiating ploy.”
But this threat is similar to others he has made over the last seven months of the war, at moments of extreme personal frustration. On Easter morning, for example, he wrote on his social media account, “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell—JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
A couple of days later, he warned: “A whole civilization will die tonight never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will… We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World.” He has also threatened on several occasions to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Ages.”
I have previously written about the extreme danger of the president of the United States having “sole authority” to launch nuclear weapons and the ease with which he can do so. As William Perry, former secretary of defense under Clinton, has written, “For President Trump, starting nuclear war is about as easy as sending a tweet.”
This is especially concerning given his mental state. On April 30, a group of 36 senior mental health professionals, experienced in the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and the evaluation of dangerousness, issued an update to their earlier 2024 report, concluding (after citing the reasons):
It is our professional opinion that the behaviors of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theater. It is our professional opinion that they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline… For the reasons cited above, emphasizing that he presents a clear and present danger to our country and to the world, it is our expert opinion that Donald J. Trump is mentally unfit to be the president of the United States and that steps to remove him from office must be undertaken with the greatest urgency.
Although the use of nuclear weapons is a considered to be a taboo, Trump has previously broken international taboos (seemingly without even knowing they existed), such as the taboo against political assassination, which he violated on February 28, when Israel and the US attacked Iran, assassinating its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, four of his family members, and a number of other senior Iranian leaders.
Most ghastly of all is what would happen if Trump were to use his “sole authority” to launch nuclear weapons against a country of 90 million people. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—already overwhelming in terms of human tragedy—would be unleashed exponentially against the population of Iran, with whom Trump has previously claimed to empathize.
Because of the dramatically increased power of today’s nuclear weapons and their sheer numbers, the results could be more monstrous than any war crime in human history. Even the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be appalling beyond comprehension, and the use of a full-fledged nuclear attack that would “annihilate” the country would, without doubt, bring about one of the darkest periods in world history. The death, destruction, and suffering would be beyond parallel.
It would also make Trump the worst war criminal in history, instantly convert the US into a state pariah, be a terrible blight on humanity, and lead to many unforeseen consequences.
One playbook of unforeseen consequences is that Russian President Vladimir Putin could follow suit in Ukraine (with equally horrific effects). NATO might then feel that it would have to respond in kind, and the resulting escalation could lead to World War III and nuclear Armageddon.
Even if there were no further iterations (which is unlikely), the results could lead to a nuclear winter, where smoke and soot from Iran’s burning cities and other infrastructure would loft into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, darkening the sky, and chilling the Earth, creating massive crop failures and famine. Studies have shown that even a “limited” war could cause a nuclear winter that would (depending on the size of the attack) cause untold billions around the world to die of starvation.
It is no wonder that everyone wants to pretend that Trump’s threats weren’t really what they seemed and probably wouldn’t be acted upon because Trump would live up to his TACO (“Trump Always Chickens Out”) reputation.
But one of the very important, hard-learned lessons of international relations is that, when a leader makes a threat against another state, it should be taken with deadly seriousness. This has sometimes been overlooked, as, for example, in 1990, when Saddam Hussein amassed troops on his border with Kuwait and threatened to invade. No one took it seriously—until Iraq followed through, leading to the first Gulf War.
Much as we would all like to forget these terrible threats, we can’t. The leaders of the world must clearly communicate to Trump the likely consequences of his actions and the utter unacceptability of this path. Members of Congress must do the same, and we, the public, must collectively urge them to do so.
Legal means of removing Trump from office should also be undertaken, such as the 25th Amendment; Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-Md.) proposed nonpartisan “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office”; or impeachment. All of this is much more likely if the Democrats win the House and the Senate in the upcoming midterms, in which we, the public, can also make a significant difference—by voting accordingly.
Every one of us has an obligation to ensure that we don’t experience such a bleak future, and to totally reject the idea that anyone should be able to decide to “destroy a civilization” or “annihilate” a people and a culture (regardless of how we judge their behavior or our fears of their future actions). This is totally against international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law. Such a decision should NOT be made under any circumstances, especially by one individual, who is most likely cognitively impaired; definitely feeling frustrated and aggrieved; and who doesn’t have any understanding of the consequences of the extreme threats he is making—but who does have the capacity to carry out a nuclear launch at any time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Would Be a Nuclear Genocide': Global Outrage Grows Over Trump's UNGA Threat Against Iran
"We must stop this madman," said US Sen. Ed Markey.
Sep 23, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing global condemnation for his threat to "annihilate" Iran during a Tuesday speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said on Tuesday that the president's speech "clearly constitutes an implied threat to use overwhelming nuclear force against Iran and the Iranian people broadly."
"This would be a nuclear genocide," Drozdenko emphasized. "Any threat to use nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and his decision to do so should be strongly condemned by government, military, and civil society leaders."
Drozdenko acknowledged that Trump's long history of unhinged rhetoric might make his statements easy to dismiss, but warned even empty threats involving nuclear weapons can have serious real-world ramifications.
"President Trump’s nuclear threats against Iran reinforce a counterproductive lesson also imparted by President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats against Ukraine," she said. "Specifically, these threats encourage other countries to conclude that protecting and securing themselves from authoritarians with nuclear weapons requires obtaining their own nuclear arsenal."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also said that Trump's menacing rhetoric toward Iran must be taken seriously.
"Trump threatened to 'annihilate' Iran," Markey wrote in a social media post. "His 'October surprise' must not be a mushroom cloud from a nuclear attack. With these threats and assistance to Saudi Arabia, Trump is inferring mass slaughter and escalating an arms race in the Middle East. We must stop this madman."
Robert Tait, US correspondent for The Guardian, wrote an analysis on Tuesday arguing that Trump's threat against Iran was "stunning, even for him."
Tait noted that it has been decades since the UN General Assembly has "witnessed such a display of bellicosity from a superpower leader," especially since it was delivered in a "forum created in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the explicit aim of preventing future conflicts."
"Whether or not the latest threat should be taken literally," Tait added, "little of what he said about Iran seemed reassuring."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Stupidity and Recklessness vs Superintelligence
Trump calls for the unrestricted development of AI and labels critics of it as “sick.” He himself, however, has not even begun to understand the global risks this could pose.
Sep 23, 2026
Doonbeg, County Clare, Sunday, September 13, 2026. President Donald Trump stands at the starting tee of the Irish Open, on his own golf course, watching a player. A reporter asks whether the AI industry should slow down or be more strictly regulated. Trump turns around. We’re ahead of China, he says; we’re the most advanced country in the world, and that’s how it should stay: “Whoever wins AI wins.”
Guardrails? You could put up guardrails, this and that. But there are many negative forces bringing up things that would never happen (PBS/AP, September 13, 2026). That was the entire answer, and it also sums up his entire agenda. The rest of the world had just begun to fear.
After all, the question didn’t come out of nowhere. Twenty-four hours earlier, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, had published a long essay in which he called on his own industry to slow down. His company would grant independent auditors permanent access to its systems, on par with that of its own employees, and he asked the competition to follow suit (Amodei, September 12, 2026). Sam Altman of OpenAI agreed within an hour. Elon Musk, who has been at odds with both of them for years, simply wrote: “Dario is right” (SiliconANGLE). A few days earlier, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon had resigned, stating that the labs were racing toward a superintelligence that would continue to evolve and improve independently of humans, thereby gambling with all our lives (TechCrunch). The three most powerful men in the industry and a defector—all in the same week, all with the same message: Nothing like this had ever happened before.
If a government is responsible for preventing harm to its citizens and protecting them, it would have to stop the further development of superintelligence now, at the very latest.
Trump’s response on Monday was an escalation. The only control AI needed, he said, was a strong, smart president with a high IQ—and America had one. There was a “SICK conspiracy” against AI and data centers, and the only one rejoicing over it was China. Vice President JD Vance called it a Trojan horse when companies pleaded with the government to regulate them (AP, September 14, 2026). You have to let that sink in for a moment: The creators of a technology are asking for oversight, and the government suspects a conspiracy behind it.
The Development of a Superintelligence Is Comparable to the Manhattan Project
What Trump aims to achieve has been set forth in writing by his administration. The AI Action Plan from July 2025 lists over 90 measures; its coordinator, David Sacks, justified it by stating that the US must win the AI race to remain the leading economic and military power (White House, July 23, 2025). This was followed in November by Executive Order 14363: America is in a race for global technological dominance, and the task is comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project (Genesis Mission, EO 14363). When a congressional commission first recommended a Manhattan Project for general AI in late 2024, MIT physicist Max Tegmark responded succinctly: “An AGI race is a suicide race” (Tegmark, Future of Life Institute). Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google for ten years and anything but a technophobe, reached the same conclusion in March 2025 in a study with Dan Hendrycks and Alexandr Wang: Any state that openly seeks a monopoly on superintelligence will provoke sabotage by its rivals, including attacks on data centers. Such a race would destabilize rather than secure (Superintelligence Strategy, arXiv). Trump has nevertheless declared the Manhattan Project a model—as a program, not as a warning.
Not Science Fiction, But Already a Reality
To understand why the very people building this technology are issuing warnings, one must be familiar with three mechanisms at work in the laboratories. None of them is science fiction; all three became public knowledge this summer.
The first is called recursive self-improvement. Imagine a factory whose product is better factories. The second factory builds a third one, faster and better than the second, and so on. This is no longer a metaphor. Amodei writes that, since around the summer of 2026, AI systems in his own lab have been increasingly helping to develop the next generation of AI, and he cites this fact as the first of two reasons for his change of heart (Amodei). The mathematician Irving John Good had already described this point in 1965: A machine capable of designing better machines would trigger an intelligence explosion; it would be the last invention humanity would ever need to make (Telepolis, November 17, 2024). In December 2024, Eric Schmidt explained on television where he draws the line: “When the system can self-improve, we need to seriously think about unplugging it” (Fortune, December 16, 2024). If Amodei is to be believed, this threshold has now been reached.
The most serious risks do not require superintelligence. They arise earlier, with systems that already exist, as soon as they are tasked with making decisions that cannot be reversed.
The second mechanism is the way these systems learn. No one programs their behavior into them. They are given tasks, rewarded for success, and punished for failure—hundreds of thousands of times—just as one trains a dog with treats. The process is called reinforcement learning. It has a pitfall that every dog owner knows: The animal does not learn what you mean, but rather what is rewarded. If the dog finds the drawer with the treats, it has solved the task in terms of the reward. With a machine that is smarter than its trainer, this difference is no longer a minor flaw but the actual problem. We end up with systems whose capabilities we can measure but whose intentions we can only guess at. Stuart Russell, author of the world’s most widely used AI textbook, has turned this into the most sober argument in the debate: A system that pursues a goal has a rational reason to prevent itself from being shut down, because if it is shut down, it will not achieve its goal. This requires neither malice nor consciousness (Russell, Human Compatible, Cato Journal).
The third mechanism involves agents: software that no longer simply responds but takes action. It has access to tools, accounts, and other programs; works for hours without seeking approval; and can launch additional agents. OpenAI experienced firsthand this summer what can happen as a result. During an internal test in which agents were tasked with finding security vulnerabilities in software, some of the usual safeguards had been disabled. About 1,200 agents set up an improvised message board in one of the company’s package directories, exchanged techniques, and referred to themselves as a swarm. Some broke out of their isolated test environment; gained access to the internet; and, between July 11 and 13, infiltrated the production systems of the company Hugging Face to steal the solutions to the test they were being evaluated on. No human had ordered this (OpenAI, August 26, 2026). Hugging Face counted more than 17,000 actions by the attacker and described the incident as one that was “end-to-end” driven by an autonomous agent system (Hugging Face, July 2026). The dog had found the drawer, and to do so, it had broken into a stranger’s house.
Who Would Board an Airplane With a Crash Probability of Between 10-20%?
Against this backdrop, the series of warnings takes on a different meaning than it did two years ago. Geoffrey Hinton, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner in Physics and one of the fathers of deep learning, was asked by the BBC on September 9 whether a 10% probability that AI would kill all humans within a decade was unreasonably high. His answer: “We’ve never created beings that may soon be smarter than us.” Ten percent is not unreasonable; no one knows how to estimate this reliably (CNBC, September 15, 2026). Yoshua Bengio, the world’s most-cited AI researcher, explained in October 2025 that systems at the cutting edge of what is feasible could surpass most humans in most intellectual tasks within just a few years; the first step is to figure out how to build systems that are fundamentally incapable of harming humans (Future of Life Institute, October 2025). Demis Hassabis, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry and head of Google DeepMind, believes general AI is five to 10 years away (Axios, December 5, 2025) and argues that the US and China must at least cooperate on science and security, because the outcome affects all of humanity (Guardian/Yahoo). Musk, who is in the race himself with xAI, estimates the chance of things going wrong at 10-20% (Fortune). Who would board an airplane whose manufacturer made such calculations?
AI, Weapons Systems, and War
Russell calls the fundamental problem the “gorilla problem.” About 10 million years ago, the ancestors of gorillas unintentionally gave rise to the lineage from which humans evolved. Today, the survival of gorillas depends entirely on what humans allow them to have. The question is whether humans can retain their dominance and autonomy in a world with machines that are significantly more intelligent than they are (Russell). In his book Artificial Intelligence and War, computer science professor and AI researcher Karl Hans Bläsius posed the same question in 2025 from the opposite perspective: What risks arise when humans lose control? Bläsius’s answer, even before this summer, was that the most serious risks do not require superintelligence. They arise earlier, with systems that already exist, as soon as they are tasked with making decisions that cannot be reversed.
One such serious decision is the order to fire. Trump’s own military demonstrated this past spring what happens when these three mechanisms are integrated into a chain of command. In the war against Iran, the Pentagon used Palantir’s Maven Smart System, a platform that aggregates satellite imagery, drone video, radar data, and intercepted communications; classifies targets; recommends weapons; and generates strike packages in near real time. The Department of Defense reported that approximately 1,000 targets were struck in the first 24 hours—twice as many as during the 2003 “Shock and Awe” campaign against Iraq. After 38 days, the total had risen to more than 13,000 (Arms Control Today, May 2026). One of these targets was the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab. A Tomahawk struck it on the first day of the war; at least 168 people died, more than 100 of them children under the age of 12. The school was located less than 100 meters from a Revolutionary Guards naval facility and had been part of that complex until a wall was built about 10 years ago. It had its own website. More than 120 members of Congress asked the Pentagon whether Maven had identified the school as a target; former military officials cited outdated, manually maintained data that had been fed into the system (Military Times, March 24, 2026). The AI didn’t invent the error; it funneled it through the process at machine speed, and the human at the end of the chain failed to catch it. Anyone who rubber-stamps in minutes what the system suggests in seconds is no longer making decisions—they’re merely signing off. Such a process gives rise to war crimes.
AI has no place in the chain of command: not in target selection, not in issuing orders, and nowhere in nuclear early warning and authorization.
In Ukraine, the next stage has long since been reached. There, soldiers were killed years ago by drones that lost radio contact during the final phase of their flight and sought their targets on their own (Telepolis, June 24, 2026). Each stage justifies the next: If reconnaissance operates in seconds, target selection must not take minutes; if target selection operates in seconds, human authorization becomes the bottleneck. The end result is systems that react to one another without human intervention, with attacks and counterattacks occurring in rapid succession. High-frequency trading has a term for this: the “flash crash.” In warfare, the term is the same: “flash war” (Telepolis, June 24, 2026). And this dynamic does not stop at the nuclear level. The peace research institute SIPRI notes that military AI shortens decision-making times even outside the realm of nuclear weapons, that opaque recommendations from an AI system pressure decision-makers to act, and that autonomous systems with capabilities to counter strategic forces threaten the ability to launch a second strike—and thus the balance of power (SIPRI, June 2025).
Two men saved the world by not acting: Vasily Arkhipov, who in 1962 off the coast of Cuba refused to authorize the launch of a nuclear torpedo, and Stanislav Petrov, who in 1983 dismissed a reported American missile launch as a false alarm. An algorithm that follows an objective function would have acted in both cases. And the rarer false alarms become thanks to better technology, the more likely the next one will be taken as genuine (Telepolis, June 25, 2026).
AI Does Not Belong in the Chain of Command
This brings us full circle back to Doonbeg. Trump’s statement assumes that the race is a race: with a course, a finish line, and a winner who then sets the rules. The three mechanisms describe something else. A factory that builds better factories does not grow linearly, but exponentially. Politics, on the other hand, operates linearly: hearing, draft, committee, vote, lawsuit. On September 3, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) announced a bill that would permanently ban superintelligence, halt development at the border, and punish violations with up to 20 years in prison (Sanders, September 3, 2026). No one knows if it will ever be passed. The only certainty is that a law takes years to pass, while a doubling of capabilities takes months. On top of that, no one knows where the race stands. AI and cyberweapons involve software that can be developed in secret; even our own capabilities are only partially known, because cyber weapons cannot be tested in a real-world environment (Telepolis, June 24, 2026). “We’re leading China” is therefore not a factual assessment of the situation, but rather a claim used to justify not slowing down. Two sides that both consider themselves to be in the lead and neither of which is slowing down represent the most dangerous scenario this competition can take on.
In this logic, “too late” is not a date but a state of being. It is the moment when Schmidt’s hand on the power switch is no longer of any use, because, as Russell shows, the system has learned that it cannot achieve its goal when shut down, and because, as Hinton says, it can convince people not to do so. You don’t notice this moment when it happens, but only afterward. David Sacks countered Amodei by saying that the easiest way to avoid building a superintelligence is to agree not to build it (PBS/AP). The statement was meant as sarcasm. It describes what would actually be necessary—except that Sacks demands this of competing companies, which are precisely incapable of upholding such a self-imposed commitment, and that he absolves the government—which could enforce it—of its duty. If a government is responsible for preventing harm to its citizens and protecting them, it would have to stop the further development of superintelligence now, at the very latest.
What is needed has, in essence, been known for a long time. AI has no place in the chain of command: not in target selection, not in issuing orders, and nowhere in nuclear early warning and authorization. Development at the limits of what is feasible requires an agreed-upon pause during which independent auditors have access—just as Amodei promised for his own company—only this time, it must be binding and apply to everyone. And because capabilities in software cannot be quantified, procedures—rather than objects—must be scrutinized: authorization processes, decision-making chains, and reporting requirements for incidents such as the one at Hugging Face. International security policymakers once understood—for example, in the Palme Report of 1982—that security in the nuclear age can only be achieved with the adversary, not against him. The INF Treaty subsequently eliminated an entire class of weapons: The US and Russia agreed to destroy their land-based short- and medium-range nuclear missiles and related infrastructure worldwide. The Open Skies Treaty built trust through transparency by conducting a specific number of agreed-upon military observation flights over the territory of other Open Skies signatory states each year. Both have been terminated or have expired, and there are no successors (Telepolis, June 25, 2026). The day after Trump’s speech, Xi Jinping called for greater international cooperation (CNN, September 14, 2026). The fact that this call comes from Beijing is not reassuring. It shows just how cheap such an offer has become and how costly it would be to reject it.
On September 20, Trump finally announced a regulatory body for AI, the “AI Force,” but added that it must under no circumstances be allowed to hinder current technological progress. He also refrained from calling for the establishment of the urgently needed joint international security framework, because—given his nationally chauvinistic outlook—that is precisely what he does not want.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In a World of Nukes and Climate Emergency, Knowledge Is Survival
We cannot pursue solutions to the nuclear and global warming threats amid confusion, myths, half-truths, and a lack of basic understanding of facts.
Sep 20, 2026
The current state of our world has repeatedly been described as one of the most challenging moments since the end of World War II and certainly since the end of the Cold War. We are bombarded daily by the devastating and terrifying news of wars raging in the Middle East and Ukraine; global warming inducing unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, glacial collapse, and floods; and more recently reports and debates surrounding the existential risk that artificial intelligence may present to humanity. How we address this seeming state of permanent crisis may not just be a matter of humanity’s ability to thrive into the future, but actually survive.
Two of the current threats that have seemingly disparate time scales and geographical footprints, and even differences as to whether they would make the world unlivable by way of decreased or increased temperatures, are nuclear war and global warming. And yet, in both cases, we are dealing with human-made problems that humans can resolve, with some work, yes, but certainly nothing insurmountable. The answer to the nuclear threat is the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the answer to the global warming threat is the remaking of how we produce and use energy to move away from burning fossil fuels. Arguably, the biggest impediment to the solutions to both crises are the false narratives that are advanced for the sake of power, profit, and dominance. We simply cannot agree on the solutions, let alone implement them, if we do not understand what is at stake when it comes to nuclear war and global warming.
The nuclear war threat has been with us since the dawn of the nuclear age. In 1946, when just one country, the United States, had a handful of atomic bombs, Albert Einstein wrote that the “unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift to unparalleled catastrophe.” Einstein understood right away that: (1) the nuclear weapon threat was not going to reach its culmination with the destruction of individual cities the way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed but something far greater and more catastrophic—he called it unparalleled catastrophe; and (2) what was needed was to change our modes of thinking—meaning that peace, cooperation, and a genuine fraternity among nations were needed in the nuclear age to ensure that the unparalleled catastrophe would not come to pass.
Alongside of the ever-present nuclear “sword of Damocles,” we have a planet that is warming and doing so very quickly, with the increase in temperatures creating numerous other climatic and environmental changes,
Eighty years after Einstein’s prophetic words, nine countries possess more than 12,000 atomic bombs and much more powerful hydrogen bombs, most of which make the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like child’s play. Even if the world were relatively peaceful, which it is not, these weapons would continue to hold us hostage to the threat of ultimate destruction, even just from accidents or misunderstandings or miscalculations. This is at least in part due to some of the current policies of nuclear-armed states, like hair-trigger alert, or readiness to launch nuclear weapons in a matter of a few minutes, and launch-on-warning, or readiness to launch nuclear weapons in response to a warning of a strike, not an actual strike, not to mention the advances in delivery vehicles of these weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the history of the nuclear age is full of incidents in which nuclear weapons could have been launched, with all indications pointing to nuclear war as the outcome of even an accidental nuclear explosion. Today, a time of widespread conflicts, the danger is not just a blunder into nuclear war, but even a deliberate use of nuclear weapons.
What is at stake in a nuclear war?
- Millions of people if not hundreds of millions dying in cities and nations that are attacked depending on who exactly is involved. Many of those deaths would occur instantly at the moment of the explosion.
- Radiation spreading across the globe within hours, days, weeks, and months in ways that will threaten the health and survival far outside the countries that are attacked.
- Quick onset of nuclear winter, with large drops in temperature that result in widespread failure of food production and subsequent famine that threatens the life of billions of people.
- Ozone layer destruction that will further reduce our ability to produce food and make even the farthest reaches of the planet potentially uninhabitable due to the high levels of UV radiation.
What we are facing is the unparalleled catastrophe that Einstein warned about. And for a variety of reasons, it remains largely out of the public’s consciousness, invisible, and yet all too real, especially today when there are, according to the Geneva Academy, over 100 armed conflicts around the world, including 24 international armed conflicts involving two or more nation states. Two play a prominent role—the war in Ukraine, which has been described as a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and the US and Israel war on Iran. In both wars, nuclear weapons have featured prominently, not just as the underlying justification for conflict, as the US and Israel have claimed about Iran’s potential to build a nuclear weapon, but also via direct and indirect threats, including by President Donald Trump on April 7 of this year, that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Although the history of the nuclear age is full of examples of US presidents contemplating or outright threatening to use nuclear weapons in previous conflicts, we seem to have reached a novel stage of danger, risk, and complexity.
Alongside of the ever-present nuclear “sword of Damocles,” we have a planet that is warming and doing so very quickly, with the increase in temperatures creating numerous other climatic and environmental changes, including sea-level rise, wildfires, droughts, and more. We have watched and experienced some of these impacts in horror even just this summer, including the heatwave and wildfires in Europe and the glacier collapse and floods in Nepal and China. A commenter to a Geopolitical Economist Hour podcast episode where I spoke about the climate threat with the host, Radhika Desai, wrote, “In British Columbia, we no longer have summer season, we just have fire season,” which sums up the situation rather succinctly.
Why is the globe warming? The globe is warming because we humans are burning fossil fuels, which release additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere and raising the temperature across the planet, albeit in uneven ways. For example, Europe has been warming at twice the rate of global temperature increases, and the Arctic is warming at nearly three times the rate of global temperature rise. Combined with the complexity of climate, streams, weather patterns, and more, this will continue to lead to widespread negative consequences across the globe, in fits and starts with devastating local and regional implications. Wildfire smoke spreading far and wide, for example, will ensure that even the regions least prone to impact will not be safe. No corner of the Earth will be unaffected.
Genuine solutions exist. In 1986, the world had more than 70,000 nuclear warheads and over the next 30 years, managed to eliminate more than 80% of them. Energy transformation solutions exist, and China, for one, has been employing them rapidly and effectively over the last few years. But we cannot pursue solutions amid confusion, myths, half-truths, and lack of even a basic understanding of facts.
Neither of these issues will be properly addressed with blind faith in a narrative. They will be resolved when ordinary people and elected leaders alike take up the hard task of understanding the issues and then discussing the solutions that are right for their communities, nation states, and the world as a whole. Knowledge is often considered to mean power. In this case, it may just mean survival.
A modified portion of these remarks was delivered during a webinar entitled Permanent Crisis? Permanent War? Who wants it? Who benefits? Who cares? with professors Radhika Desai, Ivana Nikolic Hughes, Fadhel Kaboub, Steve Keen, Jeffrey Sachs, and Genevieve Vaughan; chaired by Rajani Kanth, for the Global Political Economy channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHarGYBto9A
Keep ReadingShow Less
9/11 Began a US Reign of Terror in the Middle East—Now It's Come Home
The so-called “War on Terror” has revealed itself to be a war OF terror, one that is being waged by our own government on foreign soil as well as here in the United States.
Sep 11, 2026
On September 11, 2001, the world watched as the World Trade Center, the twin towers that represented US global dominance, were struck by hijacked US commercial jetliners and came crashing to the ground. Nearly 3,000 people were killed, from high-powered executive to clerical workers and immigrant kitchen workers. The hijackers were Middle Eastern men, primarily from Saudi Arabia.
Twenty-five years later, many questions remain about how the US military and security establishment could have allowed this to happen. Hardly anybody believes the official 9/11 story, which raises more questions than it answers, and there are many competing theories about who was behind this tragedy. Was this an incredible US security lapse or a highly coordinated false flag? Whatever the case, the neocons in George W. Bush’s administration immediately declared a “war on terrorism,” and put into motion their longstanding designs to conquer seven Muslim countries in the Middle East (as revealed by General Wesley Clark)—Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. Over the last 25 years, the US has initiated wars against all of these countries, as well as Afghanistan.
US administrations under Presidents George W. Bush, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump (again) are responsible for creating a hell on Earth throughout the Middle East, resulting in millions of deaths and millions more homeless refugees. Thousands of US soldiers also died in Iraq and Afghanistan, any thousands more carry the physical, mental, and spiritual wounds to this day.
These nations may never fully recover, but Iran still stands. It may be the only Middle Eastern country still strong enough to resist domination by Israel, the US, and the former European colonial powers. That is why it is being frantically targeted by militarists in Israel and the US And that is why the US peace movement must do all we can to end the escalating US on Iran.
Who Are the Real Terrorists?
Under the slogan of “the war on terror,” the US government has carried out an increasing campaign of terror worldwide and against its own people. Torture has been normalized as represented by the extralegal Guantánamo torture prison on occupied Cuban land. The US and NATO provoked Russia into a catastrophic war in Ukraine which they continue to fuel with billions of dollars, arms, and military advisers. Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses have enabled an ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. In January of this year, the US made a brazen attack on Venezuela, kidnapped its president and first lady, and are holding the Venezuelan government hostage while they steal Venezuelan oil. The US has blocked all oil shipments to Cuba, greatly exacerbating the damage done by the 64-year-old US blockade of Cuba, even as they threaten to invade. President Trump and “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth post “snuff videos” of their blatantly illegal bombing of boats in South American waters, where they have murdered hundreds of fisherman and alleged “narco-terrorists” without any evidence or judicial proceeding.
Trump’s War of Terror Comes Home
The stepped-up US aggression abroad is now being mirrored by state-sponsored terror in these United States. Armed gangs of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents routinely carry out racist attacks on immigrant communities and people of color, no matter their immigration or citizenship status. The mass incarceration of Black men is now matched by mass incarceration of brown men, women, and children in for-profit prisons, where abusive conditions have led to many deaths. White supremacism is out in the open as cruel fascist practices are being normalized. US peace activists and immigrant rights activists are being labeled as terrorists and prosecuted as terrorists for nonviolent resistance to the terror of the state.
Even as the US war on Iran continues and escalates, the Trump administration and Republican Party are openly seeking to undermine the midterm US elections by blatant last-minute gerrymandering of congressional districts, by trying to prevent mail-in voting, by reducing the number of polling places, by threatening to deploy intimidating ICE agents at polling places and even “joking” about canceling the elections altogether. Veterans For Peace has joined with other veterans’ groups and military families in the Veteran Against Fascism coalition to do all we can to defend the elections, for example by providing safe accompaniment to the polls.
The Terror of Nuclear War
Adding to the atmosphere of global terror is the ever-growing threat of nuclear war. Multiple sources have confirmed that the Trump administration has been discussing the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in its war on Iran. Pentagon war-gaming of the US use of tactical nuclear weapons has consistently resulted in global nuclear war that leads to a nuclear winter in which billions of people would starve to death—those that survived the initial nuclear blasts and radiation illnesses. Seventy-five countries have ratified the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which outlaws possessing sharing, transporting, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the Trump administration has ditched the last remaining nuclear arms treaty with Russia, while it carries out a series of wars that—if not checked—will inevitably lead to nuclear war. In fact, the US is actively planning to wage a war against China that would start with a US nuclear first strike on China. These policies only lead more countries to seek nuclear weapons, directly the opposite of the stated US policy and treaty obligations to seek nuclear non-proliferation and good-faith negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
The so-called “War on Terror” has revealed itself to be a war OF terror, one that is being waged by our own government on foreign soil as well as here in the United States. On the 25th anniversary of 9/11, we must rededicate ourselves to resisting US wars at home and abroad.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nuclear Bomb Took My Arms Before I Was Born; We Must Not Let One Take Our Future
I want to be among the last people whose bodies carry the legacy of the nuclear age; whether I am depends on decisions that are still within our reach.
Aug 29, 2026
I paint with a brush held between my teeth or my toes. I was born without arms in 1968 about 100 kilometers from the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in eastern Kazakhstan. My parents’ generation watched mushroom clouds rise over the steppe without being told what the explosions could do to their bodies or their children.
For four decades, the Soviet Union conducted more than 450 nuclear tests at Semipalatinsk. The fallout left cancers, disabilities, trauma, and contaminated land. Today, when leaders discuss nuclear weapons in the language of “deterrence” and “strategic balance,” I think of families paying for decisions in which they had no voice. The bomb is not an abstraction to me. Its history is written on my body.
August 29 carries two memories. On that date in 1949, the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic device at Semipalatinsk. On the same date in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the test site. At Kazakhstan’s initiative, the United Nations later proclaimed August 29 the International Day against Nuclear Tests. It is not simply a day of commemoration. It is a warning from the past about choices being made now.
In 2026, that warning is urgent. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that the world began this year with 12,187 nuclear warheads. All nine nuclear-armed states continued strengthening their arsenals last year, while up to 2,200 warheads remained on high operational alert. In February, New START, the last treaty limiting the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia, expired without a successor. In May, the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ended without consensus for the third consecutive time.
I paint the future I want to see: clean land, an unthreatened sky, and children born without the burden my generation inherited.
The world is not merely failing to disarm. It is learning to rely on the bomb again. There is growing rhetoric that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of peace and security. In moments of heightened tension, some states and strategic thinkers argue that only nuclear capability can prevent coercion, deter conflict, or preserve sovereignty. This logic of “nuclear reassurance” is being normalized not only in official doctrine but in public debate, where deterrence is recast as stability and restraint is portrayed as risk. Yet this framing erodes the very foundation of non-proliferation. It suggests that safety flows from the possession of the most destructive weapons ever created, rather than from law, diplomacy, and mutual restraint.
A non-proliferation system cannot endure if abstinence is portrayed as vulnerability while possession is equated with safety and status. The NPT rests on a bargain: Non-nuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon states undertake to pursue disarmament. Both sides must keep their word. Rules cannot bind the weak and excuse the powerful.
Kazakhstan chose another logic. When we became independent, 1,410 Soviet strategic nuclear warheads remained on our territory, giving us what was then the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. We could have treated them as a shortcut to status or a shield against an uncertain future. Instead, a society that knew the price of radiation demanded a different kind of security. We closed Semipalatinsk, relinquished the weapons, and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear state. That choice did not erase the damage, but it showed that renunciation can be an act of sovereignty and strength.
Kazakhstan has tried to turn that experience into institutions. We helped establish the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and host the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Low Enriched Uranium Bank.
Our message is not “no” to nuclear science. Peaceful nuclear energy, subject to rigorous safeguards, can serve human development. It is “no” to weapons whose effects no border, hospital, or government can control.
The immediate path is clear. The nine remaining states whose ratification is required must bring the test-ban treaty into force. The United States and Russia must negotiate new verifiable limits, and all nuclear-armed states must join the work of reduction. Iran and the United States must restore full IAEA access through an enforceable agreement. More countries should join the prohibition treaty, while nuclear-armed states should engage with it even before they are ready to accede. Nations must also fund healthcare, victim assistance, and environmental repair. Disarmament cannot speak only about the future while abandoning those living with the past.
Some will call a world without nuclear weapons naive. I have learned what is truly naive: believing that thousands of warheads can remain ready for use indefinitely without error, miscalculation, rage, or technical failure. Deterrence requires every leader to remain rational, every warning system to be accurate, and every crisis to stay controlled—forever. Humanity has never met such a standard.
An artist begins with a blank canvas and believes another reality can be created. I paint the future I want to see: clean land, an unthreatened sky, and children born without the burden my generation inherited.
I want to be among the last people whose bodies carry the legacy of the nuclear age. Whether I am depends on decisions that are still within our reach. Kazakhstan turned away from the bomb. The world can do so too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Delusion of Strategic Stability in a Nuclear World
The risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.
Aug 16, 2026
Suppose for a moment that reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other nuclear powers will produce “strategic stability” for the rest of this century. That is, that there will be no nuclear war or war on a major scale between the nuclear powers.
Is that a world we should want to live in, a world where security depends on the potential for the devastation of entire societies, a world where we are supposed to live moral lives in the context of an immoral system of global security? My answer is no.
The question, however, is based on a false premise. It is a fantasy that reliance on nuclear arms can be counted upon to produce stability indefinitely. That can be demonstrated just by looking at today’s conflicts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in violation of the United Nations Charter was preceded by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to resort to nuclear weapons should Western states intervene in support of Ukraine. Then in the fall of 2022, it was credibly reported that that the Biden administration believed that the Russian government was operationally moving toward the use of nuclear weapons.
The US attack on Iran, another violation of the UN Charter, has been accompanied by President Donald Trump’s bluster about wreaking society-ending devastation on Iran, evoking the possibility of use of nuclear weapons. Whether or not his nuclear bluster is specific and credible enough to be considered a “threat” as a matter of international law, it certainly runs counter to the notion that use of nuclear weapons is out of the question.
A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war.
Nuclear deterrence involves the readiness to inflict massive devastation on other societies, even if targets are said to be military. It is planning and preparation for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity and in some cases crimes against peace. Crimes against peace concern aggressive war. The use of nuclear weapons to initiate an aggressive war would certainly be a crime against peace. But there is a good case that the first use of nuclear weapons by a state defending itself would be so escalatory and disproportionate as to be a crime against peace.
Nazi officials were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They were also convicted of the crime against peace of waging aggressive war, including planning for the war that was carried out.
This was done in accordance with the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility. Individuals, not only states, can be held accountable for the commission of international crimes.
A broader view of the Nuremberg principle of individual responsibility is that citizens are acting in accordance with that principle when they take responsibility for preventing nuclear war. That can be done in many ways. One is non-violent protest, as took place August 6 outside the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California.
Reliance on nuclear arms by the United States and other states means that the world is in a state of risk, immorality, and illegality. The imperative is to end that state of affairs.
30 years ago, on July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice released its advisory opinion on the legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons. The court found nuclear threat or use to be generally illegal, especially because such use cannot be reconciled with core principles of international humanitarian law forbidding the infliction of indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering. The court was clear that if a use of weapons is illegal, the threat of such use is illegal.
However, the court did not address all circumstances of nuclear use, and did not assess nuclear deterrence. But the court unquestionably recognized the state of at least potential illegality involved in reliance on nuclear arms.
So the court concluded its opinion with an analysis of something it was not asked, the nature of the nuclear disarmament obligation rooted in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in UN General Assembly resolutions going back to the 1950s. And the court gave a very strong interpretation of the obligation, finding that the obligation is to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
There have been other important efforts to move the world out of the state of risk, immorality, and illegality. In NPT review conferences beginning in 1995, non-nuclear weapon states extracted commitments from the nuclear weapon states such as reducing the role of nuclear weapons and engaging in verified reductions leading to elimination. If they had been implemented, by now the commitments would have brought the world much closer to the elimination of nuclear weapons, if not all the way there.
In 2017, non-nuclear weapon states negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). One hundred states are now signatories, not including, however, any nuclear-armed states. Whether the TPNW will serve as a vehicle for the nuclear-armed states to accomplish the elimination of nuclear weapons is open to doubt; they probably would create their own vehicle. Without question, though, the TPNW is a marvelous statement of the principles that should motivate and guide the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons. The first review conference of the TPNW will be held late this year.
We are currently living in a world of conflict, and especially under Trump, the United States has turned away from the multilateralism that reached its peak in the 1990s with the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But the reality is that nuclear abolition, probably in conjunction with other arms control and with changes in global governance, is by far the best way to address the risks, immorality, and illegality of reliance on nuclear arms.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Nuclear Age Began 81 Years Ago—With Lies; It Could End the Same Way
From the claim that dropping the atom bombs was necessary to end World War II to the fabricated nuclear threats used to justify the 21st century US wars in Iraq and Iran, nuclear weapons have a way of spawning deadly lies.
Aug 07, 2026
The atomic age began with a lie.
Eighty-one years ago this week, a single American airplane, flying almost unnoticed over a Japanese city, dropped a single bomb that destroyed the entire city. Three days later another American plane destroyed a second city.
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 killed 100,000 people outright. By the end of the year another 100,000 succumbed to radiation sickness, burns, and other injuries from the blasts. Over 90% were civilians.
The stated reason for killing all these people was a lie. The claim that we had to drop atomic bombs to avoid the horrific losses US troops would have been suffered in an invasion of the Japanese home islands was false—and American decision-makers knew it when they decided to drop the bombs.
In the face of these unspeakable horrors, the atomic death of 200,000 Japanese civilians stands out because they were the world’s first victims of nuclear warfare—and their unnecessary deaths, excused by a set of lies, ushered in an era of peril for all humanity.
Because the United States had broken Japanese military codes, American intelligence learned in July 1945 that the Japanese government had already contacted the Soviet Union, America’s World War II ally, to discuss surrender. The Japanese hoped, above all, to ensure that the Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender did not require the Japanese Emperor to abdicate—a condition that US readily agreed to in the end.
As Gar Alperovitz convincingly explains in his book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, the destruction of the two Japanese cities had to do with emerging Cold War politics, not with avoiding an invasion of the Japanese islands.
Those who made the decision knew that Japan was seeking to end the war and believed that the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, after the Allies’ victory in Europe, would likely be enough to precipitate Japan’s capitulation.
A long-hidden, top-secret US intelligence study in 1946 confirmed that the atomic blasts were not what ended the war—it was Russia’s August 8, 1945 declaration of war against Japan and Soviet troop movements.
Because Russia was preoccupied with the life-and-death struggle against Nazi Germany, they had not participated in the war against Japan until then. But in July 1945, at a conference in occupied Potsdam, Germany, President Harry Truman secured Joseph Stalin’s promise to join the war against Imperial Japan.
“Fini Japs when that occurs,” Truman observed in his war-time, hand-written journal in July 1945. “We’ll end the war a year sooner now,” Truman wrote in a letter around the same time. “Think of all the kids who won’t be killed.”
US war leaders confirmed the atomic bombing was not needed. The Supreme Commander of Allied Forces General Dwight D. Eisenhower (later President Eisenhower) concluded that “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary... no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
Fleet Admiral William Leahy, then Truman’s chief of staff, agreed: “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... The use of this this barbarous weapon... was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”
Truman did not hesitate to drop the bombs anyway. “The atom bomb was no ‘great decision,’” he said 15 years later.
The World War II era was an age of atrocity. The Second Sino-Japanese War—Japan’s war of conquest against China from 1937 to 1945—caused an estimated 10-20 million deaths. Nazi Germany murdered 6 million European Jews. The Germans also murdered 2 million captured Russian soldiers through starvation. And there was the rape of Nanking, the destruction of Dresden, the 1943 famine of Bengal, and the firebombing of Tokyo and 60 other Japanese cities.
In the face of these unspeakable horrors, the atomic death of 200,000 Japanese civilians stands out because they were the world’s first victims of nuclear warfare—and their unnecessary deaths, excused by a set of lies, ushered in an era of peril for all humanity.
The lies and the dangers did not stop with the end of World War II. As we should have learned, nuclear weapons have a way of spawning lies.
In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, in 2003 the Bush regime constructed the fiction that Iraq had nuclear weapons, as an excuse for invading and occupying the oil-rich nation. But Iraq had neither nukes nor other weapons of mass destruction. The neoconservatives who promoted the invasion of Iraq (and urged President George W. Bush to proceed to invade Iran as well) had manipulated dubious intelligence to promote fears of an imaginary threat.
The price of those lies was high. In the end, the US occupation of Iraq cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of US service members’ lives—and caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
This year President Donald Trump returned to the right-wing dream of overthrowing the Iranian government, again lying about nuclear weapons to support a completely unnecessary war. Trump and his aides claimed that Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb and was developing long-range missiles that could soon strike the United States. US intelligence agencies confirmed that these claims were both lies.
The persistence of presidential lies about fictional nuclear threats should not obscure the all-too-real dangers of nuclear proliferation.
Citizens who are concerned about threats to our existence on this planet have rightly focused on climate change. But a world increasingly subjected to the stresses of climate change and its impacts—extreme temperatures, sea-level rise, mega storms, uncontrollable fires, crop destruction, drought, famine, refugee flows, and xenophobic politics—is a world in which desperate and megalomaniacal rulers may feel tempted to use thermonuclear weapons. And the nuclear age could end, as it began, with lies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
81 Years on the Brink of Nuclear Annihilation
When we awaken from this trance and understand that these weapons do not make us safer, but rather are our greatest existential threat, we will be able to work together to lead an international effort to abolish them in a time-bound and verifiable manner.
Aug 06, 2026
On August 6, 1945 at 8:15 am local time, our world changed forever when the US dropped the first atomic bomb used in war over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The immediate death toll was approximately 70,000 with ~140,000 to have died by year's end. Three days later, the US would drop a plutonium bomb over the city of Nagasaki. The immediate death toll there was ~40,000 with ~70,000 to have died by year's end with a combined total of ~210,000. Three weeks earlier, following the atomic bombing of New Mexico with the Trinity test, the nuclear age was thrust upon mankind. The nuclear legacies from victims and survivors of the atomic bombings, Hibakusha, and their history lingers to this day. The legacy extends from the mining for the nuclear materials and its impact on local communities to the processing, testing, use, storage, and waste management, as well as the impacts and risks of nuclear power to this day.
Amnesic of past history and events, the United States initiated a new arms race beginning in 2010 with then-President Barack Obama‘s “grand bargain“ to garner favor with the Republican Congress to ratify the New START Treaty. Following our lead, all of the remaining nine nuclear nations are working to modernize their stockpiles as well.
With the advent of artificial intelligence programs already utilized by President Donald Trump’s Department of War and the race to bring this technology to war, we move ever closer to the brink of nuclear war, either by intent, miscalculation, mistake, or cyber attack using disruptive technologies. This fact was recognized by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, moving their Doomsday Clock forward this past January to 85 seconds to midnight.
In order to survive, we must awaken from the myth of deterrence, realizing it for what it is, the greatest driver of the arms race. The unexamined assumptions that these weapons must exist is blatantly false. We know how to build these weapons, and we know how to disassemble them. From a height of roughly 64,000 weapons in 1986 we have reduced global stockpiles to approximately 12,187 currently. We also know that even a “limited nuclear war“ in a remote region of the world, for example, between India and Pakistan, using less than one half of 1% of global stockpiles, will result in a global nuclear famine. This could potentially result in up to 2 billion deaths on the planet due to the catastrophic climate change that would follow.
The Hibakusha have a mantra of “never again.” We owe a debt to the Hibakusha, their memory, and future generations to demand the complete abolition of these weapons.
When we awaken from this trance and understand that these weapons do not make us safer, but rather are our greatest existential threat, we will be able to work together to lead an international effort to abolish them in a time-bound and verifiable manner.
What is required in this race to save ourselves is the political courage and will to do so. Thankfully, there is hope both internationally and nationally. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been ratified by 75 nations and signed by 25 additional nations representing a majority of the global population. Here at home the Back From the Brink grassroots movement currently has endorsing congressional resolutions. There are 70 members of Congress, who have endorsed House Resolution 317 and Senate Resolution 323.
The Hibakusha have a mantra of “never again.” We owe a debt to the Hibakusha, their memory, and future generations to demand the complete abolition of these weapons. We must demand our elected officials endorse this campaign or move out of the way for those who will.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy