A group of people protest against the Trump administration and demand immediate diplomatic talks with North Korea to prevent nuclear war, August 9, 2017.(Eduardo Munoz / Reuters)
The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists stands at two minutes to midnight, yet risks of the arms race and the costs of militarism are notable for their absence from the presidential campaign. Groups like 350 Action and the League of Conservation Voters are rightly insisting that candidates debate climate change. Activists should also insist they address the arms race. Determined bird-doggers, especially in early primary states, can bring this studiously neglected issue to the attention of candidates and the nation. Here is a starter:
1. Do you support the Trump administration’s $1.2 trillion program to “modernize” US nuclear weapons?
2. Do you support the concept of “usable” nuclear weapons for “limited” nuclear war?
3. Do you support the so-called “low yield” Trident nuclear warhead, the W76-2?
4. Should the United States declare that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict?
5. Should the US nuclear arsenal be restricted to deterrence of a nuclear attack on the US, or should it be used any time the US is at a military disadvantage?
6. Do you agree with President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
7. How would you ensure that ongoing tensions with Russian President Vladimir Putin do not threaten cooperation with Russia to reduce nuclear risks? Would you support deep nuclear-weapons reductions in a treaty with Russia?
8. Would you support cutting the $61.5 billion US nuclear-weapons budget and using the money to fund unmet human needs?
9. Should the president have to seek specific congressional authorization before ordering a nuclear strike, other than in response to a direct nuclear attack on the US?
10. Would you reaffirm the nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)?
Between the reemergence of right-wing red-baiting and Donald Trump’s use of the chilling National Security Presidential Memorandum–7 to criminalize left political organizing, we’re seeing McCarthyism reborn before our eyes.
This assault on democracy cannot be ignored or wished away. Resisting it requires bravery in the face of threats and repression, a steadfast commitment to the truth, and the unwavering belief that we can—and will—overcome this darkness.
We must have an independent media that sets the record straight, unearths corruption and abuses of power, and advances a politics of justice and dignity for all if we’re to win this fight.
That’s why I’m writing to you today. This September, The Nation needs to add 100 monthly donors to sustain our progressive journalism. Your contribution makes the next investigative report, the next truth-speaking column, and the next pathbreaking essay all possible.
I hope you’ll support our work with a recurring donation today. If you donate $10 or more a month, we’ll send you a brand new “Hands Off the Free Press!” sticker to recognise your commitment to our cause. Please, donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
11. Would you reaffirm the goal stated by President Obama in Prague of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons? How should the US honor its commitment in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work toward nuclear disarmament, in exchange for nonnuclear states’ abstaining from the bomb?
12. Would you pledge not to take campaign contributions from nuclear-weapons makers such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon?
13. What does the concept of “shared security” mean to you?
David KeppelDavid Keppel has been a peace activist since serving on the Strategy Committee of the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign in the 1980s. Currently living in Bloomington, Indiana, he is writing a book, Creative Uncertainty: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Not Knowing.