Category: Sustainability

Nuclear abolition, climate change, environmental degradation, nature, peace and justice.

Categories
Sustainability

Small Modular Reactors And Iowa

Google Maps Image of Duane Arnold Energy Center
Google Maps Image of Duane Arnold Energy Center

A joke is circulating on the internet that SMR stands for Spending Money Recklessly. It isn’t funny because it is true, even if big money investors have a plan to recoup their investment in Small Modular Reactors with interest. Regular folks like me don’t want new nuclear power when renewable projects that include solar and wind power generation can meet much of our needs.

Here’s the rub with my way of thinking: renewables are clean, cheap, and safe for the first 70-80 percent of meeting our electricity needs. Something needs to fill the gap so the grid can reliably deliver exactly the amount of electricity customers use. What fills that gap? Nuclear energy is a candidate for that, yet it is beset with problems, especially in the United States, like some I mentioned last week.

In her new book, Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers, author Hannah Ritchie has four on nuclear power:

  1. Q: Isn’t nuclear power dangerous? A: Nuclear power is not risk-free, but it’s one of the safest energy sources we have.
  2. Q: Doesn’t it take too long to build a nuclear plant? A: Nuclear plant in the West often have long delays., but some countries can build plants in six to eight years.
  3. Q: Isn’t nuclear power too expensive? A: Nuclear power is expensive, especially in the U.S. and Europe, but some countries are building it much cheaper.
  4. Q: What about radioactive waste? A: We know how to handle radioactive waste safely in deep geological sites, but countries need to prove it.

Ritchie points out there is almost no case for fossil fuels to fill the mentioned 20-30 percent gap in our electricity needs going forward because they are unsafe compared to other forms of electricity generation. When we recognize all their external costs, they are too expensive.

SMR stands for Small Modular Reactor. These nuclear reactors are designed to be factory-built and transported to the installation site as modules, allowing for streamlined construction, scalability, and potential integration into multi-unit configurations, according to Wikipedia.

According to Ritchie, one of the problems of U.S. construction of nuclear power plants is there are not enough experienced workers. We need to build a good number (maybe 10-12) of identical nuclear power plants to train workers in these jobs. Changing government regulations regarding nuclear power have created an environment where each plant is different and that variation is part of the reason construction is delayed. Controlling the design characteristics of Small Modular Reactors by building them in a factory could possibly address the worker issue by standardizing non-site specific differences between nuclear power plants.

As I write this, Eastern Iowa does not have a confirmed commercial SMR project, nor does anyone in the country. There is talk about installing one or more at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo. By “talk” I mean there is policy activity in the Linn County Board of Supervisors, and discussion of existing infrastructure to handle nuclear materials at Palo. Last month, in both the Iowa Senate and House, legislation (HSB 767/SSB 3181) moved to provide sales and use tax exemptions for nuclear energy projects. If enacted into law, it would encourage development of nuclear power projects in Iowa. So far, Iowa is at jump street regarding new nuclear power.

The idea of implementing new SMRs in an environment where there are zero of them in commercial operation in the U.S., seems a bit unlikely. It would be if I were the investor. The role of the federal government is critical in advancing this form of electricity generation.

There is also the legacy to deal with. While nuclear power is safer, by orders of magnitude, than fossil fuel electricity generation, when a problem happens as it did in Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, it receives global attention. There are other, real-world issues.

Any discussion of nuclear power in the U.S. carries the weight of our earlier nuclear history. Civilian nuclear reactors are distinct from weapons programs, but they share regulations, institutions, supply chains, and a legacy of radiation policy shaped during the Cold War. Uranium mining for both weapons and fuel exposed workers and nearby communities. Atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site spread fallout across the country, including in Iowa, and as far away as Rochester, New York, where radioactivity ruined film being produced by Kodak. These experiences led to compensation programs and continue to influence public trust, particularly when new projects or waste sites are proposed. The relevance is not technological equivalence between power generation and weaponry, but the role that historical exposure plays in how communities assess risk today.

One might ask, isn’t the president eliminating regulations to enable the nuclear power industry? Yes and no. While the administration shifted policy direction toward evaluating nuclear reactor proposals more quickly, reducing the regulatory burden, and treating nuclear power as a strategic national priority, it does not mean there are no regulations at all. In fact, the changing regulatory environment is one reason why it takes much longer to build a new nuclear power plant here than in other countries. Every regulation change demands design changes for accommodation. One expects post-Trump administrations to make more regulatory changes.

Small Modular Reactors are no silver bullet, although no form of electricity generation is without issues. Whether SMRs move from planning to commercial use is an open question in 2026.

Categories
Sustainability

Stories About Forests

Part of the forestry preserve at Lake Macbride State Park.

I was taken aback by the administration’s decision to dismantle the U.S. Forest Service. Jim Pattiz outlined what happened in his substack post, “Trump Administration Orders Dismantling of the U.S. Forest Service.” What they are doing is bad. While the news broke suddenly, and agreements were signed quickly, the future of roughly 193 million acres of forests and grasslands not carved up with roads or clear cut logging has been up in the air for decades. With this administration, loggers and anti-government agents appear to be getting their way.

In 1970, Joan Didion opened her celebrated book The White Album by saying, “We tell ourselves stories in order to live.” The U.S. Forest Service action reminded me of this and the competing stories it represents.

One story, summarizing Scott Russell Sanders in A Conservationist Manifesto, goes like this. The national forest represent a wilderness with something to teach us. We are part of a living biome. We should protect these wild places as a habitat for wildlife, as a reservoir of natural processes, and as a refuge for the human spirit. The U.S. Forest Service adds a layer by being a research arm of the federal government.

Another story , according to Sanders, asserts that to “lock up” these acres from development would cost jobs, handicap economic growth, and “threaten the American way of life by denying us access to fuel and timber.” We Americans should be free to go into the warehouse that is nature and do whatever we want, regardless of consequences. It is squandering resources to not harvest timber from national forests and refrain from building roads there.

My story is we lie to ourselves by saying we can lawsuit our way out of this. Already, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club filed lawsuits challenging the USDA’s “interim final rule” that removed public comment and environmental review procedures for forest projects, arguing the fast-track rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. I wish them well. But shouldn’t we be able to agree that the 8.5% of land these acres represent should be set aside and preserved? It is very American to settle this in courts rather than in the hearts and minds of citizens.

In typical fashion for this administration, they are moving very quickly to dismantle the U.S. Forest Service, using the playbook developed to change the Bureau of Land Management during Trump 1.0. The headquarters will move from Washington, D.C. to Utah, and much of the research into how to prevent forest fires, and related issues will apparently end. Many employees will resign because they can’t support what the administration is doing or leave because moving to Utah is not a pleasant prospect. This is the change Republicans seek.

On my daily walks through the woods on a gravel trail, I consider the quiet and beauty of place. The sounds of bird life fill the air, and the air breathes fresh and clean, that is, unless a wind blows in from a concentrated animal feeding operation. We all need this type of solace from time to time.

We do what we can to survive in a Republic. Lawsuits are part of that as are competing stories about our experiences with the same things. I seek to be part of the biome and contribute to its well being: At the same time, I seek to understand all these stories and more, to contribute more than I take, while taking only what I need to survive and protect the commons for future inhabitants of Earth. That is a just path.

Categories
Sustainability Writing

A Madman Without a Strategy: Trump’s Latest Threats Are Unacceptable

For Immediate Release: April 7, 2026

(Washington, D.C.) — President Donald Trump’s April 7 threat that he might escalate U.S. attacks on Iran so that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” should profoundly alarm every U.S. and global citizen. 

Whether Trump is threatening a massive conventional bombing campaign or making a veiled threat to use nuclear weapons to try to coerce Iran into submission, leaders of nuclear-armed states cannot, must not, threaten the end of “a whole civilization.” 

Such threats are unacceptable and following through would be a massive war crime and humanitarian disaster. In addition, an attack on Iran’s Busherer Nuclear Power Plant would risk a radiological disaster in the region.

The only type of weapons in the U.S. arsenal that could destroy “a whole civilization” in a day would be nuclear weapons. Any use by the United States of nuclear weapons against Iran would permanently damage the United States’ reputation, shred its alliances, and would constitute a war crime for which everyone in the chain of command could be prosecuted.

Even if Trump is not considering the use nuclear weapons, but “only” intends to launch a massive conventional bombing against civilian targets in Iran, the effect would be the opposite of Trump’s ostensible goal: preventing Iran’s leaders from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

Rather, it would reinforce the belief that the only way a nation can deter attack from an aggressive nuclear-armed state is to possess one’s own nuclear weapons. A further escalation of this war would thus provide further incentive for Iran – and possibly other states – to develop nuclear weapons.

During the course of the nuclear age, past U.S. presidents have issued veiled nuclear threats against smaller, less powerful but very determined nations only to learn that such threats do not lead them to capitulate. U.S. nuclear threats during the Korean War and later against China and the Soviet Union, as well as Nixon’s “madman” strategy, which involved a nuclear threat against North Vietnam and a massive strategic bombing campaign, failed to bend adversaries to U.S. goals.

We call on rational voices inside Trump’s circle of formal advisors, informal confidants, members of Congress from both parties, and global leaders to remind Mr. Trump that responsible leaders do not threaten to commit war crimes, that a further escalation of his illegal war would undermine U.S. and global security and risk the lives of innocent people in Iran and the Middle East, and that the responsible path forward and out of this war is to immediately end the hostilities.

Categories
Sustainability

Nuclear Power In A Wind State

Iowa Windmill

If Iowa is a net exporter of electricity, why the push for new nuclear reactors?

I get it. Duane Arnold Energy Center has infrastructure to add/renew generating capacity: connections to the electrical grid, access to water for cooling, and transportation in and out. Compared to the new Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, re-starting DAEC would be quicker and less expensive than building a new reactor. If an investor were to pick new nuclear capacity, they can do it on the relative cheap by re-starting old nuclear reactors.

When investors found Google, who was willing to enter a 25-year contract to buy electricity from the Palo plant to support a data center, it resolved a main issue with nuclear power: financial risk. While re-starting DAEC for a single large customer resolves one issue, it isn’t scalable. How many more deals like this are possible at DAEC given that specific infrastructure has a limit: grid capacity, and how much water for cooling can be drawn from the Cedar River?

The president has engaged in nuclear policy and changed priorities in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even so, certain things still have to happen for real-world reasons to approve a new nuclear power plant. It takes time, despite entreaties to speed the project approval process. Why the president’s interest in nuclear power? It appears to be self-serving.

The parent company of Truth Social has announced a multibillion-dollar merger with fusion developer TAE Technologies, giving it a stake in this still-experimental form of nuclear energy. At the same time, the administration pushed to accelerate nuclear power licensing and reorganize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as mentioned. Critics argue this overlap raises potential conflict-of-interest concerns, although no direct evidence has emerged that regulatory changes were made specifically to benefit the Trump family. In a March 27 article in CounterPunch, Karl Grossman and Harvey Wasserman detail Trump’s potential interest in the nuclear regulatory environment. Read it here. Is the Reynolds administration close enough to the president to be influenced by his self-serving interest in nuclear power? You know they are.

If electricity generation development proceeded on a logical basis, we wouldn’t be talking about new nuclear power. Not only is it very expensive, and subject to implementation delays, it doesn’t fit our state. The build out of wind generating capacity in Iowa makes baseload power like nuclear less desirable. Grid operators like MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator) value the flexibility found in natural gas, battery storage, and reduced usage when demand drops. That isn’t what nuclear does well.

Who would want nuclear power when the costs are so high? Each unit of electricity produced from the proposed new technology of small modular reactors would be far more expensive that the same unit from solar or wind power generation, even when the cost of storage technologies and other means of accounting for renewable energy’s variability are included. The answer to my question is no one would want it.

It is also important to note there are no commercial nuclear fusion or small modular reactors operating currently in the United States. The work the legislature (HSB 767/SSB 3181 both advanced this week) and Linn County are doing to promote nuclear power may be good in some respects. I remain unsure the “build it and they will come” philosophy will work here because grid operators need flexibility, not baseload.

There is a lot more to say about Iowa’s current infatuation with nuclear power. Watch this space for more.

Categories
Environment

The Cusp of Spring

Pelicans lifting from the lake surface before dawn.

Pelicans have been on the lake for a few weeks now. For the moment, they gather overnight on the east end, a loose white raft in the shallows, then lift off just before dawn to find better fishing. In time, they will move on, continuing north. It is another sign that, despite the odd turns in this year’s weird weather, spring has arrived.

These are American White Pelicans, and they are everywhere—far more than one might expect. On clear days, when flying into or out of the Cedar Rapids airport, the landscape below reveals why: it is patterned with reservoirs, river backwaters, sand pits, and lakes, all of them inviting to birds in transit. From the ground, one can see them gather into long, shifting V formations, angled north toward Minnesota and the Dakotas. For now, though, they are here — resting, feeding, and reminding us, in their numbers and movement, that the season is turning.

During the day, the pelicans scatter. Across the open water, individuals and small groups spread out, each bird taking up its own stretch of lake or backwater, like a sentinel. They are not simply feeding at random, but searching — reading the surface, the light, and subtle signs of fish below. Only later, when something is found, do scattered birds begin to draw together. The distances close, the spacing tightens, and the loose geometry of the day gives way to purpose. They gang up on fish for dinner.

It took me years to recognize these patterns. I have a lot more to understand about this seasonal guest. For now, I just see them lifting from the lake in the predawn light. Heading out for better feeding areas: the way I would if one of them.

Categories
Sustainability

Keeping Up On The Climate Crisis

Pre-dawn hour on Lake Macbride, March 19, 2026.

Good people are working to address the climate crisis… just not in the Trump administration. The dominance of the president and his minions runs throughout the federal government to promote energy solutions that make climate change worse. More specifically, discussion about loosening the regulatory environment blocks needed conversations about addressing the climate crisis.

Since January 2025, the Congress held hearings that mention climate change. However, they hear mostly from industry representatives. Which industries? Groups like the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Industry is urging Congress to create a more predictable, streamlined regulatory environment, emphasizing faster permitting, lower compliance costs, and clearer rules. They argue current regulations hinder investment, energy development, and competitiveness. They often frame climate policy in economic and security terms rather than scientific urgency. They do not address climate change, nor will they.

Few people I know don’t see the urgency of addressing the climate crisis.

Absent action by our federal government, there are voices we should recognize, beginning with Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist. Global warming exists and Hayhoe doesn’t accept it on faith. According to her website, she crunches data, analyzes models, and helps engineers and city managers and ecologists quantify the impacts. She is everywhere on social media and tells the scientific truth about where our priorities should be.

Another person to follow is Bill McKibben, a prominent American environmentalist, author, and co-founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org. He is also founder of Third Act, which organizes people over the age of 60 for action on climate and justice, according to his website.

There are others, yet Hayhoe and McKibben are in the middle of what is currently happening regarding the climate crisis. Follow them.

Blog for Iowa also recommends the handy climate change BS guide I first posted in 2015, “Is That Climate Change Article BS?” It’s a bit dated, yet still has good advice:

  • Skip climate articles by people who think the problem is hopeless or intractable — because it most certainly is not.
  • Skip articles written by George Will and his ilk.
  • Skip articles — especially longer climate essays — by authors who don’t explicitly tell you what temperature target or CO2 concentration target they embrace and how they’d go about attaining it.
  • Skip articles embracing Orwellian terms like “good Anthropocene.”

“One of the most important things we all need to know when it comes to climate action is this: we are not alone.,” Katharine Hayhoe recently said. I invite readers to follow Hayhoe and McKibben on social media if you are not already.

Categories
Sustainability

Iowa Into Spring

Pre-dawn light on the first day of Spring.

In Iowa we pay attention to the weather. On the first day of spring, unseasonably warm temperatures — climbing into the 70s and even 80s — were part of a broader “heat dome” pattern influencing much of the United States. Record-breaking heat hit the West, and the same atmospheric setup is pushing milder air into the Midwest, giving us an early, almost summer-like start to the season. Is it climate change? Yes — but not in a simple, one-to-one way. The high temperature today is forecast to be 83°F.

These conditions are unusual for March, yet they offer a timely opportunity to begin transitioning work outdoors. As the jet stream shifts and warmer air settles in, now is a good moment to prepare for seasonal tasks, adjust routines, and take advantage of this early stretch of favorable weather — keeping in mind that spring in Iowa rarely settles in all at once.

I’m awaiting arrival of a batch of seeds. When they are in hand, I’ll plant them indoors, followed by peppers, tomatoes and cucurbits over the next couple of weeks. I will use the warm weather to clear the space for the portable greenhouse. By Good Friday, potato tubs and onion and leek starts should be in the ground, the greenhouse assembled and in use. I am simply waiting for the soil to hit that perfect window of friability — crumbly, loose texture that breaks apart easily — and then, game on!

The bed near the front steps has Bluebells. They were a transplant from my in-laws’ home and thrived without me doing anything. They are just budding in the ground on March 20. I carefully cleared the surface and planted a number of old flower seeds, some dating to 2022. The idea is to have something else grow here after Bluebells are done. With old flower seeds, one never knows.

In the garage, I opened the box of onion sets only to find they were leeks. I looked at the order form and indeed, I had not ordered onions. These several weeks, I had been planning how to plant onions, but now the ship steers to starboard in order to make a new plan. Luckily my supplier still had some onion sets left, so I ordered them.

Days like this, I put on special clothing and just go to the garage. No plan, no urgency. Just me interacting with my environment and home. Things get done.

While moving the potato tubs to the designated plot, I found the ground too wet for digging, or even walking on it. Don’t want to compress soil, so I delayed for a few days until it dries out. Spring is off to a good start.

Open for business on the first day of Spring, March 20, 2026.
Categories
Sustainability

War With Iran Without Congress

Talk to Iran.

On Monday I sent emails to U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst as well as to U.S. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks on the subject of the U.S. aggression against Iran.

My message was simple: “I urge you to support the Kaine-Paul Senate resolution, S.J. Res. 104, the bipartisan war powers resolution that would prohibit strikes against Iran. Thank you for reading my message.” The email to Miller-Meeks referenced the House companion, the Massie-Khanna House resolution, H. Con. Res. 38.

The referenced resolutions are also simple: “Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The vote was scheduled for Wednesday in the Senate and the votes for a simple majority were not there. The House also voted no. Now what?

Senator Grassley responded on March 6, 2026. Read his response here.

I reject the Iowa Republican position exemplified by gubernatorial candidate Brad Sherman, who wrote in part, “I support President Trump’s action against Iran. These actions are not an initiation of war, they are a response to a war already declared by Iran. This is the inevitable response to an evil regime that has openly and continually stated its goal is to destroy America and has actively sought the means to do so.” Was Iran attacking the United States? No. Is Iran an imminent threat to the United States? No. This position abandons the caution about foreign wars that once defined Iowa Republicans.

The president failed to address with the American people the reasons for attacking a sovereign country. On Monday, he said 49 top Iranian leaders had been killed, according to CBS News. The joint operation with Israel did kill key Iranian leaders. Anyone familiar with Iran’s political system knows new leadership can be approved quickly. No one I know gave the aging Ayatollahs high marks. They were easy targets for Israeli ordnance. The younger Iranian replacements will be formidable and could be worse. There has been insufficient public discussion of this.

Is the motivation to address the risk of a nuclear armed Iran with delivery systems? Give me a break. While Republican opponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the Iran Deal, felt it was insufficient, the agreement placed verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program. When the president tore up that deal, he lost standing to claim this action was about nuclear weapons.

Is the president part of God’s plan, being anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation reports receiving complaints from non-commissioned officers who say their commanders told them the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Donald J. Trump was ‘anointed by Jesus’ to trigger Armageddon.” Read more about this here. They logged similar complaints across more than 40 different units located in at least 30 military installations. One NCO said their commander’s remarks “destroy morale and unit cohesion and are in violation of the oaths we swore to support the Constitution.” The Pentagon has not responded publicly to these allegations. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth should consider John Prine’s message, “Now Jesus don’t like killin’, no matter what the reason’s for. And your flag decal won’t get you into heaven any more.”

Is the Iran aggression solely to take attention away from the Epstein files? More than a few people are saying so, yet I don’t know that this war will accomplish that for the president. Maybe people in the administration can’t walk and chew gum at the same time but the American people can.

When the president admonished the people of Iran, “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations,” he washed his hands of the consequences of this conflict. That is typical for Donald J. Trump.

Categories
Environment

Open Water

Canada geese on the margin between open water and ice.

Things are happening in Big Grove Township. Songbirds are migrating, the ice cover on the lake is melting, and parts of the ground are thawing. Ambient temperatures hit 68 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday — it was shirt sleeves weather. Due to high winds and combustible material everywhere, the National Weather Service issued a special weather statement with elevated fire danger in the mix. Welcome to the new winter.

Each day I spend an hour or so outdoors clearing the garden. Once the ground thaws it will be more time than that. There is a lot to do, yet I’ve been to this rodeo. Steady work as the ground is ready gets the garden in.

Frost in the ground on Feb. 16, 2026.
Categories
Sustainability

When the Last Nuclear Limits Expire, Silence Is a Choice

B-61 Nuclear Bombs

For the first time in more than half a century, the world’s two largest nuclear powers are no longer bound by a treaty limiting their strategic arsenals. Last week, New START — the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia — expired.

What does that mean? It means that even countries long considered peaceful and stable, like Canada, are now openly debating whether to break with the post-war consensus and acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

This outcome is no surprise. The arms control community sounded the alarm throughout last year. Their concerns are consistent and grounded: Russia and the United States possess roughly 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, and without a binding arms control agreement, both nations are positioned for renewed competition in strategic forces. After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the drive to reduce — and eventually eliminate — nuclear weapons was strong, producing decades of treaties and norms. Over time, that momentum weakened, leaving us where we are today.

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley has long been skeptical of New START. In a recent email addressing the treaty’s expiration, he wrote, “I remain concerned about the effectiveness of the New START Treaty. I had reservations about the treaty when it was negotiated under President Obama and remain concerned today. From the beginning, the New START Treaty lacks the robust verification mechanisms that previous arms agreements imposed upon the Russian Federation, previously the Soviet Union.” His views reflect long-standing concerns about verification and enforcement.

While we do not agree on every point, Senator Grassley and I have maintained a dialogue on nuclear arms control going back to at least 2009. Where the senator could play a constructive role is in legitimizing concern about arms control beyond the small circle of activists who often take center stage, and into the offices where decisions about war, peace, and federal spending are actually made. I asked him directly to encourage the president to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public proposal to extend New START for one year while a follow-on treaty was negotiated. Perhaps Senator Grassley’s influence is limited. Still, he takes arms control seriously, and that makes engagement worthwhile.

The financial consequences of abandoning arms control are also significant. According to the Congressional Budget Office, current U.S. government plans to operate, sustain, and modernize nuclear forces — and acquire new ones — would cost an estimated $946 billion between 2025 and 2034. The absence of a treaty increases pressure on nuclear states to expand or hedge their arsenals, even as both Russia and the United States pursue costly modernization programs. As nuclear budgets grow, they inevitably crowd out other national priorities.

A renewed arms race would not make us safer. The danger of unconstrained nuclear competition is not confined to Washington and Moscow. In a recent letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Dr. Tim Takaro of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War warned that even a limited nuclear war could leave billions dead and civilization in ruins. Deterrence, he argued, is not insurance — because failure is catastrophic. A world with more nuclear-armed states is not a safer one.

Senate Resolution 323 offers lawmakers a chance to state plainly whether they support renewed arms control or are willing to accept a future without limits. It calls on the United States to pursue new agreements with Russia and to reassert leadership in reducing nuclear risk.

When our collective resolve to pursue arms control wanes, silence itself becomes a choice. This moment calls not for resignation, but for engagement.

~ A version of this post appeared as a guest column in the Feb. 13, 2026 edition of the Cedar Rapids Gazette.