Tag: nuclear weapons

When the Last Nuclear Limits Expire, Silence Is a Choice

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date February 10, 2026

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.

Tags nuclear weapons, Sustainability

Sustainability

Nuclear Testing Again?

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date November 14, 2025

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

Tags nuclear weapons, Sustainability

Sustainability

Will the U.S.-Russia Extend New START?

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date October 29, 2025

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.

Tags arms control, nuclear weapons

Sustainability

Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date August 6, 2025

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.

Tags Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuclear weapons, Sustainability

Sustainability

Today’s Nuclear Times

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date July 12, 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.

Tags arms control, nuclear weapons, Sustainability

Sustainability

Bunker Busted… or Not?

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.”

Tags Foreign Affairs, Iran, nuclear weapons, Sustainability

Sustainability

Nuclear Weapons Update

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.

Tags nuclear weapons, politics, Sustainability

Sustainability

Hiroshima Day 2024

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.

Tags nuclear weapons, peace, Sustainability

Living in Society

Agency to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

Post author By Paul Deaton
Post date May 7, 2024
1 Comment on Agency to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons

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 is the 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.

Tags nuclear weapons, Sustainability