"There's no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war." (Photo: Shutterstock)
Don't Arm This President With These Nukes
As President Trump gave a belligerent address at the UN, lawmakers rolled out legislation to ban “low-yield” nukes that raise the risk of conflict
On September 26, the global community celebrated International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, a day designated by the United Nations (UN) to draw attention to one of its oldest goals: achieving global nuclear disarmament.
By unhappy coincidence, September 26 was also the day President Donald Trump addressed the UN Security Council, and total nuclear disarmament wasn't exactly high on his agenda. As expected, he wants North Korea to fully abandon its arsenal (and Iran, though it doesn't have one) -- without the United States reducing its own in return.
Trump's aggressive, bullying rhetoric was on full display throughout his remarks when he addressed the UN General Assembly the previous day. (He did dial it back a bit from last year's UN address, when he said the United States would "totally destroy" North Korea and referred to Kim Jong Un as "Rocket Man," but maybe that's a low bar.)
Trump has made it abundantly clear that he's not committed to nuclear disarmament. Like other presidents before him, he has the power to unilaterally order a first nuclear strike. Rather unlike others, he's previously asked, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?
But Congress has the power to act to avert a nuclear catastrophe. In fact, a few champions in Congress have recently taken critical steps to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war.
On September 18, Representatives Ted Lieu, Adam Smith, John Garamendi, Earl Blumenauer, and Senator Ed Markey introduced a bill called the "Hold the LYNE Act," which stands for Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive. It would "prohibit the research, development, production, and deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles."
So-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons actually lower the threshold for nuclear war and increase the risk that they may actually be used.
"There's no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war," said Lieu in the joint press release announcing the bill. "Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing. It opens the door for severe miscalculation and could drag the U.S. and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict."
We've come very close to nuclear war in the past. On September 26, 1983, Soviet military officer Stanislav Petrov made a split-second decision and deemed a supposed missile attack from the United States to be an error, refusing to carry out an order to counterattack and thus averting a nuclear war.
If Petrov hadn't made that judgment, we might not even be here to advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Let's take the lessons we've learned from the past and use them to create a healthier, safer future for young people and future generations, so they won't have to worry about the looming threat of nuclear war.
The president of the United States may not have marked the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The rest of us still can.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
On September 26, the global community celebrated International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, a day designated by the United Nations (UN) to draw attention to one of its oldest goals: achieving global nuclear disarmament.
By unhappy coincidence, September 26 was also the day President Donald Trump addressed the UN Security Council, and total nuclear disarmament wasn't exactly high on his agenda. As expected, he wants North Korea to fully abandon its arsenal (and Iran, though it doesn't have one) -- without the United States reducing its own in return.
Trump's aggressive, bullying rhetoric was on full display throughout his remarks when he addressed the UN General Assembly the previous day. (He did dial it back a bit from last year's UN address, when he said the United States would "totally destroy" North Korea and referred to Kim Jong Un as "Rocket Man," but maybe that's a low bar.)
Trump has made it abundantly clear that he's not committed to nuclear disarmament. Like other presidents before him, he has the power to unilaterally order a first nuclear strike. Rather unlike others, he's previously asked, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?
But Congress has the power to act to avert a nuclear catastrophe. In fact, a few champions in Congress have recently taken critical steps to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war.
On September 18, Representatives Ted Lieu, Adam Smith, John Garamendi, Earl Blumenauer, and Senator Ed Markey introduced a bill called the "Hold the LYNE Act," which stands for Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive. It would "prohibit the research, development, production, and deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles."
So-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons actually lower the threshold for nuclear war and increase the risk that they may actually be used.
"There's no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war," said Lieu in the joint press release announcing the bill. "Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing. It opens the door for severe miscalculation and could drag the U.S. and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict."
We've come very close to nuclear war in the past. On September 26, 1983, Soviet military officer Stanislav Petrov made a split-second decision and deemed a supposed missile attack from the United States to be an error, refusing to carry out an order to counterattack and thus averting a nuclear war.
If Petrov hadn't made that judgment, we might not even be here to advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Let's take the lessons we've learned from the past and use them to create a healthier, safer future for young people and future generations, so they won't have to worry about the looming threat of nuclear war.
The president of the United States may not have marked the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The rest of us still can.
On September 26, the global community celebrated International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, a day designated by the United Nations (UN) to draw attention to one of its oldest goals: achieving global nuclear disarmament.
By unhappy coincidence, September 26 was also the day President Donald Trump addressed the UN Security Council, and total nuclear disarmament wasn't exactly high on his agenda. As expected, he wants North Korea to fully abandon its arsenal (and Iran, though it doesn't have one) -- without the United States reducing its own in return.
Trump's aggressive, bullying rhetoric was on full display throughout his remarks when he addressed the UN General Assembly the previous day. (He did dial it back a bit from last year's UN address, when he said the United States would "totally destroy" North Korea and referred to Kim Jong Un as "Rocket Man," but maybe that's a low bar.)
Trump has made it abundantly clear that he's not committed to nuclear disarmament. Like other presidents before him, he has the power to unilaterally order a first nuclear strike. Rather unlike others, he's previously asked, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?
But Congress has the power to act to avert a nuclear catastrophe. In fact, a few champions in Congress have recently taken critical steps to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war.
On September 18, Representatives Ted Lieu, Adam Smith, John Garamendi, Earl Blumenauer, and Senator Ed Markey introduced a bill called the "Hold the LYNE Act," which stands for Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive. It would "prohibit the research, development, production, and deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles."
So-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons actually lower the threshold for nuclear war and increase the risk that they may actually be used.
"There's no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war," said Lieu in the joint press release announcing the bill. "Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing. It opens the door for severe miscalculation and could drag the U.S. and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict."
We've come very close to nuclear war in the past. On September 26, 1983, Soviet military officer Stanislav Petrov made a split-second decision and deemed a supposed missile attack from the United States to be an error, refusing to carry out an order to counterattack and thus averting a nuclear war.
If Petrov hadn't made that judgment, we might not even be here to advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Let's take the lessons we've learned from the past and use them to create a healthier, safer future for young people and future generations, so they won't have to worry about the looming threat of nuclear war.
The president of the United States may not have marked the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The rest of us still can.