Connect with us

Viral News

Elizabeth Warren wants to ban the US from using nuclear weapons first



Two weeks ago, a major national security bill was introduced in both houses of Congress — and hardly anyone noticed. That bill, introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith, was the No First Use Act, and it aims to transform US nuclear weapons policy.

The text of the bill is a single sentence: “It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.” But that single sentence might be a really big deal.

Proponents argue that it’s the first step toward a better nuclear posture that will reduce the risk of an accident killing hundreds of thousands or spiraling into a global catastrophe. Nuclear weapons remain one of the biggest threats to human life. But opponents argue that it could instead destabilize international nuclear policy, driving arms races in countries that currently count on the US to protect them.

Taking either side at face value, it seems like one of the most important conversations we can be having. But nuclear security policy hasn’t featured much in mainstream politics, no matter how significant its implications — or maybe because they’re so significant, they feel a little ridiculous to engage with.

A nuclear war could kill billions. Nuclear weapons have nearly been deployed by mistake, more than once. Yeah, sure, the Cold War’s over. But the conversation about safe nuclear policy really, really shouldn’t be. The No First Use Act won’t do much by itself, but if it’s a sign we’re ready to have a real conversation about how US policy can reduce the risk of a nuclear war, it’s a welcome one.

The roots of No First Use

The one time the United States used nuclear weapons in war, it was to end a conflict being fought with conventional weapons. Since then, we’ve stopped thinking of nuclear weapons as just another tool in our toolbox in a conventional fight.

“When we initially had the bomb, there were lots of questions about whether this was just something you could integrate into your arsenal,” Alex Wellerstein, who studies the history of nuclear weapons at the Stevens Institute of Technology, told me.

As the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear capabilities, and as expanding capabilities and early speculation about nuclear winter made it more obvious that the use of nuclear weapons could wipe out both countries, it stopped making any sense to treat nuclear weapons like just a bigger bomb.

That’s when people first started pressing for US commitments not to use the bomb except in retaliation, if the Soviet Union bombed us. During the Cold War, this was a fringe stance. “People have advocated since the 1960s that people adopt a no first use policy,” Wellerstein said. “It’s usually been groups from outside the mainstream of policy.”

The mainstream stance was — and still is — that we’d use nuclear weapons under extreme circumstances. It’s a deliberately nebulous position. Some experts worry that if we clarified, then enemies would feel emboldened to plan attacks, knowing our retaliation would be restrained to conventional weapons. Historically, we’ve also planned to use nuclear weapons in response to biological weapons. In the famous tapes released of his private White House conversations, President Nixon was uncommonly candid on why we can sign bioweapons treaties: “We’ll never use the damn germs. So what good is biological warfare as a deterrent? If someone uses germs on us, we’ll nuke ’em.”

When the Cold War ended, that posture didn’t change. “There were efforts in the ’80s, the ’90s, the Obama administration to push the US toward a no first use policy,” Wellerstein said. The closest we came was under Obama, who put unusual emphasis on nuclear policy for a post-Cold-War president. But his administration ended up deciding against no first use.

“That had more to do with acclimating allies to the idea,” Alexandra Bell, the senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told me. Even if the Obama administration’s strategists thought that no first use was the way to go, nuclear policy is so fraught that it’s important to have world leaders on board, and that takes some time. So the administration didn’t go that far.

The one-sentence bill that might change everything — or nothing

Is changing US nuclear policy really as straightforward as passing a one-sentence bill declaring, “It is the policy of the United States not to use nuclear weapons first”? Well, no.

On its own, a declaration about US nuclear policy won’t be taken that seriously by anyone. In fact, critics of the bill argue, it might be taken seriously by our allies (making them nervous) and not by our enemies (making them bolder), which would be the worst of all possible worlds.

Proponents of the bill agree that it won’t be taken seriously on its own. (The bill has been introduced before, and died without much discussion.) But they say that a change in official US policy would lead, down the road, to changes in which nuclear weapons we build and how we deploy them. That, unlike the bill itself, will be taken seriously. “It’s a political commitment,” Bell told me. “It signals to the world about where we want to go toward a deterrent-based posture. You need the policy and the force behind it.”

But some worry that passing the bill won’t lead to the real changes — and, as a result, could actually cause harm. “A declaration, without any attendant changes to the US’s ability to actually use nuclear weapons promptly, absent changes to the actual posture, alert levels, etc. — your adversaries won’t believe it,” Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT, argued.

“There’s a real concern here that your allies might. A big nonproliferation tool we’ve had at our disposal is extended deterrence. And for our allies, at least, not declaring one way or another that we might use nuclear weapons in their defense in a conventional attack against them may help reassurance at the margins,” he added.

To proponents of no first use, all of that means it’s finally time to make it happen. “We’ve come to a place where the US can adopt this kind of policy,” Bell told me.

And, perhaps more importantly, we’ve come to a place where the public is perhaps interested in thinking about nuclear security again. To a significant extent, interest in nuclear weapons as a topic died when the Cold War ended. The public doesn’t rank nuclear security among their top considerations. It rarely gets much consideration in political campaigns or party platforms. Nuclear weapons could still kill us all — we just don’t think about this much.

Having Donald Trump in the White House might have changed that. “No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons. That’s by design,” Wellerstein pointed out at the Washington Post three weeks after Trump was elected. That’s always been true, of course. Any US president has the authority to order a nuclear strike on their own, though some experts argue that the military would disobey an illegal order. But with the president historically unpopular, and regarded by many as erratic, this longstanding truth has suddenly seemed especially troubling.

“The silver lining of the Trump administration,” Bell told me, “is that people are reengaging in the conversation” about what the best policy for use of US nuclear weapons is.

“We’re resurrecting an old conversation that has never really gotten that far,” Wellerstein said. “And we’re doing it not to address an old problem — Can we lower the tensions of the arms race? — but to address a new problem, which is that we aren’t sure we can trust the US to do the right thing with its nukes.”

In other words, many conversations about nuclear policy assumed that our own leadership would be thoughtful and careful, and that we would use nuclear weapons only under the right circumstances. We’ve historically treated the important considerations in nuclear policy to be the reactions of our allies and adversaries. We haven’t put as much thought into how our nuclear policy could be better designed to hold our own leadership back from a terrible mistake.

Stopping a president from using nuclear weapons too soon

Of course, if our real goal is reining in our own leadership, there might be even better ways to get there than no first use. No first use has a few major advantages as a national security stance. The first is its sheer simplicity — the bill is one sentence long. It reflects the understanding of US policy that many people already have — we don’t expect our government to be the first to escalate a conflict to nuclear weapons. It’s a starting point for “trying to get the legislative branch back in the business of nuclear policy,” Bell told me, and it’s particularly well-suited to that.

But the policy with the best odds of getting traction probably isn’t the same as the ideal policy, and there are probably policies that address what Wellerstein calls the “bad president problem” better than no first use. If your aim is to prevent misuse, it might make more sense to add oversight — taking away the authority of the president to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons. It might make sense to explicitly set conditions — to decide, as a society, under what conditions we’d accept the use of nuclear weapons, and embed them into law.

But if those are unachievable — and they certainly look it — then we might realistically need to answer the question of whether no first use is better than nothing. If we can convince our allies that it doesn’t reflect a decrease in the American commitment to their safety — a real challenge, and the one that held Obama back from pursuing it — I think it could be. It represents one fewer way our world could descend into a nuclear war.

Ultimately, a national security policy like our current one, which aims to confuse people about when we’ll use nuclear weapons, is one that might result in our using nuclear weapons when our adversaries didn’t mean to escalate that far and when there were other options on the table. Taking that possibility away is not without downsides, but it’s also easy to underestimate the upsides — better odds that, in a shocking catastrophe of merely conventional scale, no one makes the mistake of turning the fight into a nuclear one.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Viral News

26 Photos Proving That Happiness Is Not About iPhones




Some people are chasing their future so fast that they stop noticing how great their lives today actually are. And truly happy people don’t need to chase anything: they are happy to have a comfortable bed, a loyal friend who is always there for them, a present from their grandmother, and for every small achievement on their life path.

These people are more effective than any coach at teaching us to be happy right here and right now and we at Bright Side were inspired by their ability to be happy no matter what.

1. His person just got home after a few months of work. That’s the look of pure happiness.

2. Soap bubbles are absolutely necessary for a happy childhood.

3. These 4 guys agree.

4. “My son has struggled with autism, Tourette’s, agoraphobia, severe anxiety, and OCD. He found solace in writing and just published his book on Amazon! Here he is giving a copy to one of his teachers that helped him along the way.”

5. “The photo my sister sent me of her dog and the new puppy they just got”

6. “My mom made my girls one Pom-Pom rug each. They took 80 hours, 320 Pom-Poms, and she let them choose their favorite colors. Just missed Christmas, but they are ecstatic nevertheless.”

7. “After years of sleeping on the floor and then on an air mattress, I finally own a bed!!! ”

8. I call this one “Pure Happiness.”

9. “My niece has always loved pumpkins. Today, we took her to a pumpkin farm for the first time…”

10. “10 months ago I decided to start learning to love myself. I moved states, got a new job, and have surrounded myself with amazing friends (some new & old). This photo has captured exactly how I feel… Pure happiness! I am so proud”

11. “My wife captured a moment between my daughter and I on the train while she was ‘booping’ my nose with hers. Pure happiness.”

12. “Makes me weak in the knees to see the happiness in my 8-year-old yellow Lab’s eyes, as well as the happiness in the eyes of my 81-year-old Mom.”

13. He is genuinely happy.

14. When your friend is with you and you’re happy:

15. Weee… that was fun.

16. With age, people are more likely to find harmony with themselves and with the world.

17. “My boyfriend got me a lemur experience for my birthday!”

18. Snow. This is all these guys need to be happy.

19. There is no such thing as pure happiness… Or is there?

20. “My mother had wanted a miniature poodle for over 30 years. This is the day Zoe came home.”

21. “My dad got married this past weekend after being single for 13 years and raising 3 girls alone. This is what happiness looks like.”

22. “Here’s another shot of my 101-year-old grandfather with our new puppy! This is pure joy if I’ve ever seen it!”

23. “Me and my girlfriend were in a car accident in which her arm had to be amputated. A week later we adopted Lola, I don’t know who’s happier… I’m going with Lola.”

24. “After an 8 month apprenticeship, and numerous clean downs and set ups, this is me doing my first tattoo on some fake skin. It is what it is but I couldn’t be happier. I earned this.”

25. “My parents split up when I was a baby. Even though they didn’t get along, they maintained a healthy relationship so they could equally raise me. This is our first picture together in a decade. I’m thankful to be proof that parents who are separated can still work together.”

26. Happiness is a state of mind.

Which of these photos seems the most uplifting to you?

Continue Reading

Viral News

Read Viral Immunity: A 10-Step Plan to Enhance Your Immunity Against Viral Disease Using Natural




Read here

Read Viral Immunity: A 10-Step Plan to Enhance Your Immunity Against Viral Disease Using Natural

View at DailyMotion

Continue Reading

Viral News

Dan Brock’s Viral Traffic Optimizer | Dan Brock’s Viral Traffic Optimizer




“For Information Just Click The Link Below :

Related Search:
dale brock, brock lesnar supplements, brock golf course, bob brock ford, brock services, brock art, elizabeth brock, brock houston, brock lee, don brock, brock of baseball, brock baseball, brock construction, brock teachers college, james brock, lisa brock, timothy brock, susan brock, brock tv, brock lesner wwe, wwe brock lesner, ann brock, brock lester, brock tx, brock residence, brock texas, wwe brock, brock wwe, wwe brock lesnar, brock ford, victoria brock, anthony brock, brock turner, pok émon, brock pokemon trainer, peter brocks cars, kenneth brock, brock swimming, brocks real estate, barry brock, brock book store, brock lesnar costume, brock homes, the brock house, linda brock,

View at DailyMotion

Continue Reading