Given the short 41 days until the election, the deluge of political discussions has exhausted us all. Topics of abortion, immigration and the economy seem to live in the spotlight. But what about unaddressed issues like nuclear weapons? The nuclear threat looms large and deserves serious discussion in the upcoming presidential election. Nuclear weapons make our world extremely dangerous, and voters should elect candidates who will work toward nuclear disarmament.
Americans, especially young people, consider nuclear war an afterthought in comparison with larger day-to-day issues. High school courses rarely cover American nuclear infrastructure or the nuclear threat. College students must seek that knowledge proactively. Yet we are closer to nuclear war than ever — even compared to the height of the Cold War.
Global conflicts like the Israel-Gaza war, the war in Ukraine and North Korea’s ongoing provocations are made more precarious by the existence of nuclear weapons; Putin has threatened nuclear use in Ukraine and North Korea continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, the U.S. government also spends an exorbitant amount on their nuclear arsenal. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons reports that the “United States’ share of total spending, $51.5 billion, is more than all the other nuclear-armed countries put together and accounts for 80% of the increase in nuclear weapons spending in 2023.” These numbers will likely rise as the Department of Defense moves forward with nuclear arsenal modernization plans. Furthermore, the global number of nuclear weapons is staggering. As one of nine nuclear weapons states, the United States. owns 5,800 nuclear weapons, 43.25% of the world’s total, and Russia is home to 6,372 nuclear weapons (47.52%). The Union of Concerned Scientists writes that “the warheads on just one US nuclear-armed submarine have seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II.” The United States has historically been a leader in nuclear weapons development and policy. We must inform ourselves and understand this severe threat to humanity.
To discuss the nuclear issue, we must understand how the American atomic infrastructure functions. The president of the United States has sole authority over the nuclear arsenal; only they decide whether to use nuclear weapons. If the president cannot perform their duties, responsibility for controlling nuclear launch codes is transferred to the next in succession: vice president, speaker of the House, president pro tempore, and so on. With the president’s word, top military personnel in the Pentagon will prepare for a nuclear launch. A launch crew will receive the message from the president and deploy warheads. But should any leader have this much power? Considering the U.S. system places such power in the hands of a single decision-maker, the question of a leader’s character suddenly becomes paramount.
Nuclear disarmament remains distinctly nonpartisan; a nuclear attack would not distinguish Democrats from Republicans. While both Harris and Trump lack clear nuclear policy on disarmament — their campaign websites don’t mention nuclear weapons or policy once, failing to uphold Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — several distinguishing policy factors would place the United States in very different positions internationally. Trump supports modernizing and increasing the nuclear arsenal, while Harris favors rejoining arms control agreements. While it is important to note that Harris does not yet have a comprehensive policy plan for nuclear weapons on her campaign website, Harris discussed plans to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal and expressed that she favors using diplomacy to discuss conflict with adversaries during her 2020 presidential campaign. Within the last two decades, numerous arms control agreements have disintegrated, and with current conflicts and countries like China promising to increase their nuclear arsenal, these agreements are vital to securing international peace.
Many Americans believe nuclear weapons make us safer. The highly advertised deterrence theory is vaunted as creating a world balance where more nuclear weapons would deter attack. But we now have enough nuclear weapons globally to destroy the world as we know it, and one nuclear attack would create an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.
No country, even the United States, is equipped with a solid enough plan if attacked with a nuclear weapon. Today’s weapons go far beyond the horrific weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. In the last 80 years, we’ve seen numerous nuclear accidents or miscalculations with the potential to grow even more dangerous. Giving the power to end the world with the push of a button to nine people in the world is outrageous.
If you are an undecided voter, let this point convince you. Vice President Harris clearly offers a path to greater safety through her support for the United States to recenter international non-proliferation and her nuclear usage control treaties. We need a policy shift in the nuclear infrastructure; we should advocate for checks and balances on control of the nuclear codes. However, because sole authority is still in play, this election decision is about character. Whose finger do you want on the button? America and the world are clearly safer with Kamala Harris.
