There is no acceptable rationale for the United States to conduct more nuclear weapons testing. I was surprised when I heard the president took to Truth Social on Oct. 30, to post he had “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons…” The president says a lot of crazy stuff, yet I was scratching my head over this one.
The global moratorium on nuclear testing is a mainstay against the dangers inherent in the existence of nuclear weapons. The question should be whether the world can bring a complete end to nuclear testing by ratifying and putting into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The president would take us in the opposite direction.
Mine is not the position of a few activists. Literally millions of people, around the globe, have stood up and fought to bring a complete end to nuclear testing.
According to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, “The journey has been long and difficult, from the citizen-led campaign that prompted Kennedy and Khrushchev to sign the 1963 ban on atmospheric blasts… to the campaign to push Congress to halt testing in 1992… and secure the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996.”
Nuclear testing should remain “taboo.” We should resist the president by contacting our U.S. Senators and Members of Congress and telling them so.
No other nation is testing nuclear weapons. Nor should the United States.
~ Submitted as a letter to the editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette
Oct. 28 marked 100 days until the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between Russia and the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin said publicly he would like to extend it. President Trump said it sounded like a good idea. We have gone nowhere since. Here is a source for this paragraph from an Oct. 6, Associated Press story. It fills in some details.
MOSCOW (AP) — The Kremlin on Monday welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments about Russia’s offer to extend the last remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States, saying it raises hope for keeping the pact alive after it expires in February.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared his readiness to adhere to nuclear arms limits under the 2010 New START arms reduction treaty for one more year, and he urged Washington to follow suit. When asked about the proposal, Trump said Sunday it “sounds like a good idea to me.”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed Trump’s statement, noting that “it gives grounds for optimism that the United States will support President Putin’s initiative.”
While offering to extend the New START agreement, Putin said its expiration would be destabilizing and could fuel proliferation of nuclear weapons. He also argued that maintaining limits on nuclear weapons could also be an important step in “creating an atmosphere conducive to substantive strategic dialogue with the U.S.”
The Russian leader reaffirmed the offer Thursday, noting that Russia and the U.S. could use the one-year extension to work on a possible successor pact.
New START is the last major remaining bilateral, U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement.
The president should support a U.S.-Russian agreement to respect New START limits after the treaty expires, then use the time to negotiate a new framework to slash the massive Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals. Likewise, the parties should call on other nuclear-armed states, including China, to immediately freeze the number of their long-range nuclear launchers. It used to be the case the U.S. would lead.
Will Trump act, put America first, and do what is best for the United States? Who knows? In the meanwhile, tick tock on the last remaining arms control treaty.
Hiroshima, Japan after U.S. Nuclear Attack. Photo Credit: The Telegraph
The anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9), found me without useful things to say. Enter President Trump on July 25, “(New START is) not an agreement you want expiring. We’re starting to work on that.” He added, “It’s a problem for the world when you take off nuclear restrictions, that’s a big problem.” This from the president who dismissed the New START arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia as too favorable to Russia during his first term in office.
Talk is cheap. Despite Trump’s statement, no plan or policy to reduce nuclear arms has emerged, according to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. The president spoke with Russian President Putin at least six times this year. According to call readouts, the topic of nuclear arms control was not broached. Meanwhile, the recently passed budget reconciliation calls for almost $1 Trillion in nuclear complex spending.
Without clear and sustained efforts by world leaders to prevent nuclear war, our luck in avoiding one may run out.
My worries about nuclear attacks began as a child. Gathered with family in the backyard, we watched the Soviet satellite Sputnik fly over. If they could launch Sputnik, could they send a nuclear bomb to Iowa? In school we performed drills on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. Today we pray the president will stop talking about nuclear arms control and do something. It is an open question whether he will.
~ First published by the Cedar Rapids Gazette on Aug. 3, 2025.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility April 8, 2008 Photo Credit: Reuters
I remember watching one of the Soviet Sputnik satellites flying over the back yard of our Iowa home. Besides launching a “space race” between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Sputnik heightened tensions between the two countries over potential use of nuclear weapons. Back in the 1960s, we graders practiced school drills for a nuclear attack. This period of competition became known as the Cold War. To this day, the U.S. and Russia own most of the nuclear weapons that exist. The NASA website makes a point:
The Sputnik launch changed everything. As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world’s attention and the American public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than (the U.S.) Vanguard’s intended 3.5-pound payload. In addition, the public feared that the Soviets’ ability to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Europe to the U.S. Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched, carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika. (NASA website).
Our life of living with nuclear weapons changed dramatically since Sputnik. The public is vulnerable to being caught off guard again because few are paying any attention to nuclear weapons proliferation. Last year, Annie Jacobsen published Nuclear War: A Scenario, which provided an update on where the country stands regarding our nuclear weapons complex. Jacobsen’s work is part of the picture.
Our compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which commits all parties to negotiate in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament, is at a stand still. The story of how that happened is less interesting than the diversion from this core compliance issue caused by attention to North Korea and Iran’s development of nuclear technologies. It avoids the basic question of when will the U.S. and Russia comply with Article Six of the treaty?
Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, addressed the recent bombing of Iran by Israel and the U.S. He argues, “U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel’s illegal military attacks against Iranian scientists and safeguarded nuclear sites represents an irresponsible departure from his earlier pursuit of diplomacy. It will increase the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran and erode confidence in the nuclear nonproliferation system.”
The nuclear deal that Trump unilaterally abandoned in 2018, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), imposed limits, prohibitions and intrusive inspection requirements on Iran that were to last for 10 or 15 years, with some being permanent, Kimball wrote. He expressed hope that the negotiating framework can still be salvaged, even if it has been severely damaged by this year’s U.S. military operations in Iran.
In the meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our nuclear complex. We don’t hear much about that, except when it’s federal budget time. Ann Suellentrop, vice chair of the PeaceWorks Kansas City board and a member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility Board, noted in the Kansas City Star, “Kansas City’s nuclear bomb parts plant is ramping up significantly.” She provided details:
There is a new federal government plan to increase production of plutonium pits — the trigger that starts the bomb explosion in nuclear weapons — to 80 pits per year in each of the next 50 years. This is in comparison with the current production of fewer than 30 per year. The sites that are supposed to work together on what amounts to a new nuclear arms race include Kansas City’s federal nuclear bomb parts plant, managed by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies. That is the Kansas City National Security Campus located in the south part of the city. The recent allocation of taxpayer funds for this National Nuclear Security Administration site reveals a huge jump from the 2025 budget from $1.3 billion to $1.7 billion in 2026. The plant is now doubling in size as it produces electrical and mechanical parts for seven new nuclear weapons programs simultaneously. (Kansas City Star, July 9, 2025).
Despite the efforts of Suellentrop and others, the nuclear weapons spending issue gains little media traction. “We need a mass movement of people to speak up and hold the government accountable,” Suellentrop said. The fact is we need a mass movement to speak up and hold the government accountable in many areas. If such a thing exists, it hasn’t ramped up fast enough.
The irony with the war between Israel and Iran is we appear to be returning to the days of Sputnik. Joe Cirincione recently opined, “we look at the unintended consequences of this 12-day war: the risk of dragging us back to the nuclear anarchy of the 1950s, when many nations — friends and foes — sought nuclear weapons.” The 1950s may be a fond memory for some of us. We definitely don’t want to go back, especially as it pertains to proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Morning of a new day, filled with potential for good.
The hubris of the United States is on clear display on a day like today, where late Saturday, we used so-called bunker buster bombs to attack the uranium enrichment capacity of Iran at three sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The president said in an address Saturday night, “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” I’m calling bullshit. So are a lot of folks who know more than I do.
“It is impossible to know at this stage whether this operation accomplished its objectives,” ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Jim Himes (D-Conn.), said in a statement.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a news conference Sunday that the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities “sustained extremely severe damage” but it was too early to tell the scale of destruction, according to the Washington Post.
Dr. Ira Helfand addressed the question at the heart of this:
What if the United States attacks Fordow with a GBU-57 “bunker buster” bomb and the bomb does not take out the deeply buried site? Does the United States escalate up to the use of a nuclear weapon?
A 2005 report issued by Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the effects of an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility in Isfahan with a 1.2-megaton B-83 thermonuclear warhead, then under consideration for use in a Robust Earth Nuclear Penetrator (the “bunker buster”). The study used software known as the Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability—developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency—to model nuclear weapons explosions’ effects. The study found that the attack could kill 3 million people—half of them from radiation sickness—and that the radioactive fallout would spread over a wide area of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
The population near Fordow is much smaller than in Isfahan, but the death toll and radioactive contamination resulting from the use of a nuclear weapon there would still be catastrophic. (“Why Congress and the people should stop Trump from attacking Iran,” by Dr. Ira Helfand, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 19, 2025).
The American hubris to which I referred is our decades long failure to comply with Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Both we and Iran are parties to the treaty. The idea the U.S. could escalate this situation to include use of nuclear weapons would not be an option if we were in compliance with the treaty.
The irony of Saturday’s bombing is it may cause Iran to withdraw from the treaty and develop a nuclear program which includes nuclear weapons. This is something that according to people who read the intelligence before the bomb-dropping, was not previously on the table.
As Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association put it, “The U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, including the deeply fortified, underground Fordow uranium enrichment complex, may temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program, but in the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy.”
My initial reaction to news of the bombing persists: “The bombing of Iran’s fuel enrichment sites was an illegal, useless act that makes the world less safe.”
Editor’s Note: On Friday, FOX News mentioned President Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, seeking a new deal with Tehran to restrain its rapidly advancing nuclear program and replace the agreement he withdrew America from in his first term in office. Iranian state media immediately picked up on Trump’s acknowledgment, though there was no confirmation from Khamenei’s office that any letter had been received. This seems largely a head fake. The real issue is the nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia.
When the president mused about all the money the United States was spending on refurbishing our nuclear weapons complex, he can’t be taken seriously. This is what he said:
There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons, we already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.
What motivates this comment? Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I plan to view it with a skeptical eye until the discussion gets beyond the type of public brainstorming the president is known for. This is what he meant:
The U.S. House is having trouble coming up with enough savings to fund my $4.5 Trillion in tax cuts, so maybe we could use some of the nuclear complex monies.
Cognizant there is a national security issue around the use of nuclear weapons, the president’s team developed a policy. Invoking the failed Reagan missile defense policy, the administration proposes we try it again under the aegis of an “Iron Dome for America.” As Stephen J. Cimbala and Lawrence J. Korb point out in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the plan has serious technology and policy problems. What needs to happen is renewal of discussions between Russia and the United States concerning arms control. If nuclear arms are eliminated, there would be no need for a missile defense system by any name.
Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association said, “a dialogue between Moscow and Washington could lead to negotiations to maintain or lower current limits on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals before the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires in February 2026.” If the president is serious about reducing the number of nuclear weapons, this is a reasonable approach. I don’t think reason can be applied to the current administration when they lust after tax cuts for the wealthy.
While public oxygen is taken up by the uninformed chopping away at the federal government by Team DOGE, the country could be working on arms control. In a recent substack, Joe Cirincione opined that to keep Europe safe, two things were needed:
For over seven decades, there have been two basic frameworks that have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in Europe. One is NATO, founded in 1949, that provided positive security assurance to Europe. America assured European NATO members that if they were attacked, the United States would defend them, including with our nuclear weapons. So, these countries did not need to get their own nuclear weapons. America would protect them.
That extended deterrence, as it is called, was not, by itself, enough to stop countries from considering their own nuclear arsenals. The United Kingdom got nuclear weapons in 1952 and France in 1960 despite the security assurances. Another framework was needed: the arms control and disarmament commitments embodied in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), negotiated in 1968 and ratified by the Senate under Richard Nixon in 1970.
We all know how the president feels about NATO. He doesn’t care for treaties any better. As we have seen, he appears to be forsaking Europe for his new relationship with Vladimir Putin.
So what is the administration doing to control nuclear weapons? Short answer: Nothing. He should be doing more, and elected officials need to hear from us on this topic. The U.S. Capitol Switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
Never again should humans detonate atomic munitions. It is 90 seconds to midnight according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock. Read what you can do to mitigate the dangers in our nuclear armed world by clicking here.
Hiroshima, Japan after U.S. Nuclear Attack. Photo Credit: The Telegraph
George Will’s May 6, “Voters, think about the menace of nuclear annihilation,” makes me wonder what Gazette editors are up to when they select outside articles for re-publication. Will wrote, “Talk of ‘banning the bomb’ is pointless. These weapons are here forever.” Good grief! Hath a citizen no agency to effect change? The editors must just want to stir things up.
The optimist in me would say “nuts” to Will and engage in the effort to step back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. 83 nations are already on board with such an effort, which calls on the US to acknowledge that the continued existence of nuclear weapons isthe greatest security threat we face and to actively pursue their elimination. In addition, nuclear weapons-armed states already agreed to eliminate nuclear weapons in Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. A simple, missed truth is most of the world’s nuclear weapons have already been dismantled. All that remains is to finish the job.
Is seeing George Will in the Gazette a blessing or a curse? I had not heard of Annie Jacobsen’s book before reading about it here. However, Will represents a Cold War mentality when he wrote, “Humanity’s survival depends on statesmanship and luck–as much the latter as the former.” When we adopt that view, our luck will run out sooner than we think. We can and will do better.
~ Published on May 7, 2024 as a letter to the editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
There is not much traction in Iowa for nuclear disarmament causes. Iowans are occupied with a state government taking public money away from public school systems and giving it to private ones. In several important ways Iowa is becoming a paternalistic, uneducated, and cruel place to live and that occupies a lot of our bandwidth. All the same, Iowans know the risk posed by nuclear weapons. If used, they could disrupt society all over the globe. Few, if any, people want that.
“Presidential leadership may be the most important factor that determines whether the risk of nuclear arms racing, proliferation, and war will rise or fall in the years ahead,” Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association wrote. Most Iowans are aware of the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. However, they don’t vote for a president based on nuclear weapons policy positions. In fact, Republicans no longer write a national platform, so who knows what their policies are? Elections today have become more tribal in nature and much less issue oriented.
A lot is at stake regarding nuclear weapons proliferation during the 2024 election. As the primary season began in Iowa, the expected nominees for president are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. We have a good idea how they will address nuclear weapons related issues based on their past behavior. Biden would follow time-tested methods of controlling nuclear weapons at home and abroad: through negotiations, treaties and agreements with nuclear armed states and with those like Iran and North Korea that develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Trump is belligerent and it’s hard to know what he would do. The uncertainty about his potential actions if elected president is itself a nuclear risk. A crucial factor in whether one of today’s nuclear challenges erupts into a full-scale crisis, unravels the nonproliferation system, or worse will be the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and threats of nuclear use have raised the specter of nuclear conflict,” Kimball said. “To his credit, Biden has not issued nuclear counter threats and has backed Ukraine in its struggle to repel Russia’s invasion.”
Well before Putin’s nuclear rhetoric regarding Ukraine, Trump engaged in an exchange of taunts with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2017. In response, North Korea pursued its own nuclear weapons program, creating more risk of a nuclear detonation.
Trump hasn’t seen a long-standing international agreement he likes. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires in 2026. Trump didn’t agree to an extension in 2021 when he was in office. Biden extended it by five years just under the wire. If elected, Trump seems unlikely to sign a new agreement with Russia. Biden, on the other hand, proposed new talks with Russia on a post-2026 nuclear arms control framework.The war in Ukraine seems likely to delay progress on such talks.
In November, senior Chinese and U.S. officials held the first arms control talks in years. Progress seems possible with Biden. Trump? Not so much.
Iranian leaders continue to increase capabilities to produce weapons-grade uranium in response to Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw unilaterally from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He proposed imposing tougher U.S. sanctions to pressure Iran into negotiating a new deal. They now are threatening to pull out of the NPT if the United States or other UN Security Council members snap back international sanctions against Iran, according to Kimball.
The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Trump administration did not help when in 2018 it declared the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty, and in 2020 when senior Trump officials discussed resuming explosive testing to intimidate China and Russia. Biden, on the other hand, has reaffirmed U.S. support for the treaty; and his team proposed technical talks on confidence-building arrangements at the former Chinese, Russian, and U.S. test sites.
How do nuclear disarmament activists get a grip on the need to disarm, both in the U.S. and abroad? Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty already called for elimination of nuclear weapons. The question is one of political will. On that, we look to the November elections to see if the country will have any.
~ This article was first published in the February 2024 edition of The Prairie Progressive.
A person wouldn’t know it in Big Grove Township yet today has been designated a Global Day of Action Against Nuclear Weapons by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). This is in advance of the upcoming Second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which convenes tomorrow in New York.
All around the world, people will be taking action to demonstrate to meeting delegations that we expect them to be bold, courageous and use the TPNW to dismantle nuclear deterrence, and make sure the rest of the world is paying attention to this crucial opportunity. “Your action can take whatever shape you can pull off,” ICAN said in a statement.
Absent interested others near me, this post is what I can pull off.
While the TPNW entered into force on Jan. 22, 2021, it has not been ratified by the countries that possess nuclear weapons. The United States has turned a blind eye to TPNW. It does not appear any of the nuclear states will break the silence and ratify the treaty any time soon.
During negotiation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, it was agreed by the parties nuclear weapons should be eliminated and the parties should work toward that end. If anything, the risk of detonation of nuclear weapons is as great as it has been. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East created risk that one of the players (Russia and Israel particularly) will use nuclear weapons. People forget the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 so we may be bound to repeat that error.
While our lives are complex and possess numerous challenges, nuclear abolition should be on our radar. One single activist won’t bring about the change we need. Working together, we might. It is worth the effort.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.