A group of people protest against the Trump administration and demand immediate diplomatic talks with North Korea to prevent nuclear war, August 9, 2017.(Reuters / Eduardo Munoz)
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)?
With a hostile incoming administration, a massive infrastructure of courts and judges waiting to turn “freedom of speech” into a nostalgic memory, and legacy newsrooms rapidly abandoning their responsibility to produce accurate, fact-based reporting, independent media has its work cut out for itself.
At The Nation, we’re steeling ourselves for an uphill battle as we fight to uphold truth, transparency, and intellectual freedom—and we can’t do it alone.
This month, every gift The Nation receives through December 31 will be doubled, up to $75,000. If we hit the full match, we start 2025 with $150,000 in the bank to fund political commentary and analysis, deep-diving reporting, incisive media criticism, and the team that makes it all possible.
As other news organizations muffle their dissent or soften their approach, The Nation remains dedicated to speaking truth to power, engaging in patriotic dissent, and empowering our readers to fight for justice and equality. As an independent publication, we’re not beholden to stakeholders, corporate investors, or government influence. Our allegiance is to facts and transparency, to honoring our abolitionist roots, to the principles of justice and equality—and to you, our readers.
In the weeks and months ahead, the work of free and independent journalists will matter more than ever before. People will need access to accurate reporting, critical analysis, and deepened understanding of the issues they care about, from climate change and immigration to reproductive justice and political authoritarianism.
By standing with The Nation now, you’re investing not just in independent journalism grounded in truth, but also in the possibilities that truth will create.
The possibility of a galvanized public. Of a more just society. Of meaningful change, and a more radical, liberated tomorrow.
In solidarity and in action,
The Editors, 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.