By John Erath
Thus far, nuclear weapons have not figured prominently into the issues playing a role in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election. They should. Whether involving Russian nuclear blackmail, China increasing its arsenal or questions about the future of the U.S. deterrent, how the President addresses nuclear issues between 2025 and 2029 will have a lasting influence on U.S. and global security. While both presumptive candidates have made headlines for their thoughts on nuclear weapons issues in the past, it’s unlikely that either will eagerly discuss these issues during the rest of the campaign season, and even less likely that they will actively campaign on substantive nuclear issues.
This hasn’t always been the case. During the Cold War, Lyndon B. Johnson’s nuclear-focused “Daisy” ad aired only once but played a major role in his 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. In 1980, Ronald Reagan declared in a campaign ad that his priority was establishing a “true peace.” Presidential debates — like those between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, Reagan and Walter Mondale in 1984, and George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004 — used to feature substantive conversations about how to reduce nuclear risks. But now, nuclear weapons issues have taken an unwarranted back seat both in the public conversation and in Presidential campaigns despite increasing nuclear threats. It’s common for nuclear issues not to come up across multiple debates.
In the absence of such a substantive conversation leading up to the 2024 elections, I have imagined what a Presidential debate on nuclear weapons issues could look like based on historic positions taken by members of each of the two major political parties. Having worked on nuclear weapons issues for four Presidents of both parties over more than a quarter century, I understand well the motivations behind and outcomes of critical nuclear policy decisions. While there are similarities and differences between how different people would seek to reduce nuclear threats, the conversation can still happen without the rhetoric and hyperbole that has come to typify American politics.
Regardless of whether the American public gets to hear debate on nuclear issues this election cycle, they should know that there is still room for a healthy discourse on these issues that allows for nuanced opinions and that, critically, both parties can work to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear threats. There should always be room for well-reasoned debate on issues of national security, and such exchange can, and often does, produce a stronger policy. During the Cold War, the idea of a treaty limiting intermediate-range nuclear forces was originally proposed during a Democratic administration but was eventually negotiated successfully by Republicans. In the present day, both sides agree that China’s nuclear buildup needs to be addressed by including Beijing in some form of arms control. The differences are in details, and that’s where there should be space, away from politics, for productive efforts.
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
- Would you each begin by briefly stating your position on nuclear weapons?
- Let’s turn to Russia. With Russian officials regularly making threats of nuclear war, how would you protect America from such action?
- Speaking of Russia, the last treaty limiting nuclear weapons, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, is set to expire in 2026. Is this important, and, if so, what would you do to replace it?
- China has reportedly suggested discussing a “no first use” pledge by the nuclear powers. What is your view of this?
- Nuclear danger is generally seen as increasing in 2024. What, in your view, presents the greatest threat to American security?
- What would you do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
- What would be your policy toward North Korea’s nuclear program?
- Many of your answers thus far have touched on China and its nuclear buildup. How should the U.S. respond? Do we need to build more of our own nuclear weapons?
- What is your view of the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Is it too much, too little or just about right?
- Clearly, the next President will have a lot of critical nuclear issues to tackle. As a final question, can you tell me how you would increase public attention to nuclear weapons issues and gain public buy-in, if elected?
Would you each begin by briefly stating your position on nuclear weapons?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
DEMOCRAT: President Barack Obama outlined a vision for a world without nuclear weapons in 2009. That should be our guiding principle. I prefer a diplomacy-first strategy to bring us closer to that goal. To get there, we should look to revive the instruments of arms control. While we are doing so, I believe in relying on a robust deterrent against others’ nuclear weapons.
REPUBLICAN: A world without nuclear weapons may be a fine goal, but in the present, we have to live in one where such weapons exist. As long as they do, my priority will be to maintain whatever deterrent is needed to protect the country, including building more nuclear weapons if our adversaries are doing so. It will be my priority to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons to the American people, particularly by taking action to ensure that more nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction.
Let’s turn to Russia. With Russian officials regularly making threats of nuclear war, how would you protect America from such action?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
REPUBLICAN: This is why we need a strong deterrent. Vladimir Putin will not risk the destruction of his country by starting a nuclear war. But we also need a flexible menu of responses, including nuclear and non-nuclear options, to allow the President to react appropriately and proportionally to any provocation. Finally, we need to preserve a strong NATO, despite what some members of my party have said, with Allies taking on their share of the burden, to deter Russia effectively.
DEMOCRAT: You talk about deterrence, but isn’t Russia deterring us with its threats? The important thing here is to ensure that Russia does not come out of the Ukraine war able to claim victory by means of nuclear blackmail. If Putin’s threats are seen as effective, he will use them again, and others, Kim Jung Un comes to mind, will follow suit. The best way to protect the country from nuclear threats in the future is to see to it that such blackmail does not work in the present by ensuring that Russia is not rewarded for its aggression.
Speaking of Russia, the last treaty limiting nuclear weapons, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, is set to expire in 2026. Is this important, and, if so, what would you do to replace it?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
DEMOCRAT: A world without limits on nuclear weapons is inherently more dangerous. I would seek to begin negotiations as early as possible on a replacement for New START. In the meantime, I would support mutual political commitments not to exceed New START limits while we figure out a new agreement. However, it takes two to tango, so we should not expect much with a hardline government in Moscow. We should remain open to talks with the Russians, and China as well; nuclear weapons are too dangerous not to have controls.
REPUBLICAN: We have seen Russia trample on the post-Cold War arms control regime by cheating on pretty much every agreement we’ve had. Although they have not violated New START limits, they have sought ways around them. Added to this is China’s unprecedented buildup. If we don’t want to be left feeling vulnerable to potential adversaries increasing nuclear capabilities, we have to be able to show them we are willing to increase our own. Only then will we have leverage to achieve real, verifiable limits. Although China currently has fewer nuclear weapons than the United States or Russia, it is their growth that is driving overall global numbers up and creating instability. Future arms control needs to address the concurrent challenges of Russian threats and Chinese buildup. As a confidence-building step, all nuclear powers could agree to maintain their current numbers to provide room for possible verifiable limits.
China has reportedly suggested discussing a “no first use” pledge by the nuclear powers. What is your view of this?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
REPUBLICAN: China has had a no first use policy for years. The problem is that it lacks credibility as Beijing periodically threatens Taiwan with military action. Every President since the Cold War has considered a no first use policy and rejected the idea, largely because major U.S. allies depend on U.S. deterrence when facing aggressive nuclear-armed countries such as Russia and North Korea. This is not the time to undermine U.S. deterrence. That said, we should take China up on the idea to begin discussion, however unrealistic it may be, as a way to open up talks on China’s rather opaque nuclear policy that could lead to actual arms control.
DEMOCRAT: It is correct that we do not have a no first use policy out of concern for alliance relationships. That should not mean automatic rejection of the concept. There should be extensive talks with Japan, Korea and other allies to see if adopting such a policy could make them safer. China has traditionally been against any arms control measures, and it would be a mistake to ignore an opening to dialogue. That’s what is significant here: dialogue on reducing nuclear weapons is the prize; no first use is a means to that end, not the goal in itself.
Nuclear danger is generally seen as increasing in 2024. What, in your view, presents the greatest threat to American security?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
DEMOCRAT: By far, the greatest threat is the probability of a new arms race. We should have learned from the Cold War that more nuclear weapons do not make us safer. The United States has sufficient capabilities to deter both Russia and China without building more. Doing so would only induce those countries to accelerate their own nuclear buildups, making us more vulnerable and increasing the possibility of accident or miscalculation. This cycle of fear, when coupled with the lack of constraints from arms control regimes, raises the possibility that nuclear weapons may be used with terrible consequences.
REPUBLICAN: There is no current arms race, or, if there is, China is the only runner at present. If it continues its buildup, we will have no choice but to increase our capabilities. The real threat comes from the possibility that nuclear weapons come to be perceived as facilitating military aggression, such as Russia’s against Ukraine, or a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan. U.S. policy is that nuclear weapons are for deterrence and defense, but if nuclear-backed aggression is tolerated, then we will see multiplication of nuclear threats.
What would you do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
REPUBLICAN: A nuclear-armed Iran would be a huge threat to international peace, and we need to consider whatever may be necessary to prevent this. We need to work with our regional partners and allies on containing not only Iran’s nuclear ambitions but its habit of exporting terrorism. This will require additional sanctions, cooperation with the IAEA and strong deterrence.
DEMOCRAT: We had an agreement in 2015 that effectively blocked Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. We should try to return to at least the monitoring from that agreement while negotiating a replacement. Iran should understand that there will be consequences should it weaponize, including diplomatic and economic measures. There isn’t a military solution here, but it will remain important to restore the coalition that existed before 2018 to counter Iran.
What would be your policy toward North Korea’s nuclear program?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
DEMOCRAT: North Korea represents a significant challenge to security in the Asia-Pacific region and requires a regional approach. I would work closely with South Korea and other partners, including China, on creating conditions under which North Korea could denuclearize, in particular a negotiation to end the Korean War officially. We have tried engaging the DPRK directly, and that doesn’t work. We need a collective approach.
REPUBLICAN: The regional engagement approach has also been tried and failed. So has appeasement. We should, after consultation with Seoul, take a hard line and seek to isolate the North further. This would mean strengthened sanctions and other measures designed to present Kim Jong-un with a choice between collapse of his regime and halting his nuclear program. This has been tried before, but not in a comprehensive way. Doing nothing is not an option. Kim’s ongoing nuclear threats entail higher risk.
Many of your answers thus far have touched on China and its nuclear buildup. How should the U.S. respond? Do we need to build more of our own nuclear weapons?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
REPUBLICAN: Should China continue to increase its arsenal, we will need to review all aspects of U.S. deterrence to ensure we can respond to two near-peer competitors. We should be building coalitions to oppose Chinese adventurism on the Pacific Rim and beyond. We need to show China another path, different from military confrontation, which would be in no one’s interests, but be ready to respond should China choose military options. Remember that China ramped up its nuclear capabilities in the wake of Russia’s seizure of Crimea. There may be some in Beijing who believe in military means to accomplish their goals. We need to deter such thinking with all the means at our disposal.
DEMOCRAT: A war with China would be catastrophic for all involved; therefore, our policy should be to avoid one by seeking opportunities for engagement, rather than confrontation. We need to establish a dialogue among nuclear powers to prevent an arms race and use it to understand better why China is building more nuclear weapons. There is no need for additional U.S. weapons at this time. We still have many times more than China and can deter aggression effectively.
What is your view of the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal? Is it too much, too little or just about right?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
DEMOCRAT: One look at the numbers will tell you it’s too much. Yes, there are systems dating from the Cold War in need of updating, but the thing has got out of control. We should be able to deter potential adversaries with existing forces. Deterrence, after all, is psychological, not mathematical. As it is, the modernization costs are way too high. DoD has reported this year that the Sentinel ICBM has breached legal limits for cost overruns with no end in sight. If elected, I will conduct a complete reevaluation of all nuclear modernization with an eye toward getting value for money and dropping what is no longer necessary.
REPUBLICAN: You’re asking the wrong question. It’s about maintaining a strong deterrent, not the money. Of course it’s expensive; we put off modernization in hopes that there would be deeper cuts in the arsenal, which never materialized. Now we must replace significant elements of our forces to preserve deterrence. We also need to update our conventional forces to preserve our qualitative advantage. By doing so, we can decrease the reliance on nuclear deterrence, but we cannot allow either conventional or nuclear forces to erode. European governments learned this the hard way when they gutted their militaries following the Cold War and could do little more than protest feebly when Russia seized Crimea in 2014. The United States should not make a similar mistake.
Clearly, the next President will have a lot of critical nuclear issues to tackle. As a final question, can you tell me how you would increase public attention to nuclear weapons issues and gain public buy-in, if elected?
The positions expressed below are not intended to coincide with those of the actual candidates but rather represent a somewhat idealized dialogue between potential Democratic and Republican hopefuls.
REPUBLICAN: The issue is not so much public awareness. Everyone saw Oppenheimer, and there have been lots of well-publicized studies on the dangers of nuclear weapons. The real issue is that we tend to look at nuclear weapons in isolation, without considering the totality of the international security picture and how such weapons fit in. There is no way to simply get rid of nuclear weapons, and it would be irresponsible to try until we resolve some of the other threats to our security. The public will support steps that improve their perception of their own security. When it comes to nuclear issues, there is currently concern about how other countries are building their nuclear forces and the threat this poses. The next President will have to take this into account when shaping a national security strategy.
DEMOCRAT: I saw Oppenheimer as well. One of the reasons that film made an impact was that people had gotten out of the habit of thinking about nuclear dangers. The next President will have an obligation to keep the nuclear threat prominent. We see a great deal of material on climate change and the ways it could change the world over the next 50-100 years. Nuclear weapons could irrevocably change the world tomorrow. If elected, I would invite organizations working to limit nuclear dangers to the White House for a high-profile brainstorming session and make sure that the results enter the policy debate. I would seek the counsel of leaders of both parties on a commonsense strategy to make the country safer. Our interests are not served by the politicization of the issue.
