Turning Back the Nuclear Threat: Some Practical Steps
by John Whitehead
The following is adapted from remarks given at the Vigil to End the Nuclear Danger, a peace witness outside the White House on March 8, 2025. The vigil was co-sponsored by the Consistent Life Network, as well as the American Solidarity Party of DC and Maryland, Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore, and Rehumanize International.
We’re here this morning to witness for peace and for the protection of human life. We’re here to witness for the protection of life against one of the greatest threats to life in the world today, nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to every human being on earth. If nuclear weapons were ever used on a large scale, or even on a relatively small scale, they would kill billions of people and probably wipe out human civilization as we know it.
Nuclear weapons have threatened humanity since their invention almost 80 years ago. Today, however, the nuclear threat is especially severe. The danger of nuclear war is probably greater today than at any time since the darkest days of the Cold War arms race in the 1980s.
Over the past three years, the war in Ukraine has pitted the nuclear-armed nations of NATO — the United States, Britain, and France — against the nuclear-armed nation of Russia. The Ukraine war has the potential to escalate to a nuclear conflict. Less severe but still significant is the danger from the ongoing rivalry and tensions between the United States and China, another nuclear-armed nation.
Amid these dangers, international limits on nuclear weapons have become all too frail. Important arms control agreements among nuclear nations have been cast aside in recent years.
Among the most significant remaining arms control agreements today is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START. New START places limits on how many nuclear weapons Russia and the United States can possess. The New START Treaty is set to expire in a little less than a year, in February 2026.
If New START expires, then there will be no international agreement limiting the Russian and American nuclear arsenals. This situation could set off an arms race as Russia and the United States each tries to increase its nuclear weapons stockpiles as much as possible.
Other nuclear-armed nations might take such a Russian/American arms race as an incentive to increase their nuclear weapons stockpiles as well. Such a situation, in which nuclear-armed nations build up their arsenals in a futile effort to “get ahead” of each other, would only heighten the already extreme tensions among nuclear-armed nations.
The situation today is dire. However, efforts are underway to turn humanity away from its present course of ever more nuclear weapons and ever greater dangers. I will highlight two significant efforts.
A Call to Renew Arms Control Negotiations
A resolution introduced in the US Congress calls for renewing nuclear arms control agreements. This resolution, House Resolution 100/Senate Resolution 61, condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s accompanying nuclear threats. The resolution also calls for the United States to pursue new nuclear arms control negotiations with Russia so that limitations on nuclear weapons will continue past 2026. The resolution also calls for the United States to pursue nuclear arms control negotiations with China, which would be another crucial step in checking a nuclear arms race.
House Resolution 100 and Senate Resolution 61, by calling for new negotiations to prevent an arms race among nuclear-armed nations, is an important measure for reducing the nuclear danger today. We should support these resolutions.
Back from the Brink Measures
The second important effort to lessen the nuclear threat is the Back from the Brink Campaign. Back from the Brink calls for the United States to pursue the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. As intermediate steps to this goal, Back from the Brink advocates crucial changes to the United States’ policies toward nuclear weapons that can decrease the dangers of nuclear war. The changes advocated by Back from the Brink include the following four measures:
The United States should officially adopt a policy of “no first use.” A “no first use” policy means the United States will pledge never to be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. While such a policy falls short of pledging never to use nuclear weapons at all, it does at least dramatically restrict the possible situations in which the United States might use such weapons.
The United States should take nuclear weapons off the high level of alert that enables these weapons to be launched in just a few minutes. Hundreds of American nuclear weapons (and about 2,000 nuclear weapons worldwide) are currently on this high level of alert. Having nuclear weapons ready to be used at a moment’s notice greatly increases the danger that they will be used impulsively and without reflection, perhaps in response to a false alarm or incomplete information. Taking nuclear weapons off high alert lowers the danger of their use.
The United States should end the policy that allows nuclear weapons to be used on the authority of a single human being, the president of the United States. Currently the president has the awesome power to order the use of nuclear weapons and no one else in the executive branch or any other branch of government has the legal power to stop him. The use of nuclear weapons rests entirely on the president’s decision. This policy of sole presidential authority makes it more likely that a trigger-happy, or erratic, or cognitively impaired president might initiate a nuclear war. Changing this policy and introducing legal checks on the president’s power to use nuclear weapons would decrease this danger.
The United States should cancel plans to spend a staggering $1.7 trillion over 30 years to build a new generation of nuclear weapons and related technologies. Such spending on new nuclear weapons is completely unnecessary since, as Back from the Brink notes, “The U.S.’s current nuclear arsenal is more than sufficient to deter an attack (and indeed sufficient to destroy life on this planet as we know it many times over).” Spending over $1 trillion on nuclear weapons is a colossal waste of money. Any politician concerned with reducing government spending should make cancelling these plans for more nuclear weapons his or her top priority.
Take Action
These changes advocated by Back from the Brink will not eliminate the nuclear threat, but they will greatly reduce it. Another resolution in the US Congress, House Resolution 77, calls for making these four changes to US nuclear policy. We should support this resolution as well.
American citizens should contact their elected representatives in the House and Senate to urge them to support House Resolution 100/Senate Resolution 61. The Arms Control Association provides a form for easily sending this message to elected officials.
In addition to or as an alternative to using the form above, people can contact their representatives and senators directly by phone or email to urge them to support these resolutions
Americans should also contact their representatives in the House to urge them to support House Resolution 77. Back from the Brink provides resources for contacting representatives on this issue.
Back from the Brink also offers recommendations on a variety of other actions people can take to promote efforts against nuclear weapons.
The nuclear danger today is very grave. We need to protect human life and humanity’s future from this danger. Let’s raise our voices in favor of efforts that reduce this threat to all of us.
==============================================
For more of our posts on nuclear weapons, see:
The Persisting Threat of Nuclear Weapons: A Brief Primer
Nuclear Disarmament as a Social Justice Issue
A Global Effort to Protect Life: The UN Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons
Leave a Reply