A Nuclear Plan in Dangerous Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/opinion/nuclear-trump.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Pentagon Plan Would Expand Nuclear Policy” (front page, Jan. 17):

As we expand the circumstances that could precipitate nuclear war, the importance of a prudent, experienced president and government officials who influence his decisions becomes more apparent.

We should heed the warning of Andrew C. Weber, an assistant defense secretary in the Obama administration, who is quoted as saying, “Almost everything about this radical new policy will blur the line between nuclear and conventional.” If adopted, he said, the new policy “will make nuclear war a lot more likely.”

In the past, miscalculation has brought us to the precipice of war, as with the Cuban missile crisis, or actual war, as with the events that led up to World War I.

The recent false alarms in Hawaii and Japan should cause greater concern that misjudgment or rash judgment could result in nuclear catastrophe.

JOHN A. VITERITTI, LAUREL, N.Y.

To the Editor:

“Raising the Risk of Nuclear War” (editorial, Jan. 14) comes on the heels of yet another nuclear mistake with a false alarm in Hawaii, highlighting how luck remains our principal security policy.

If President Trump, with his “bigger button,” had chosen to launch an attack on North Korea in response to this false alarm, and if North Korea, detecting such a launch, decided to launch its entire arsenal so as not to lose it, we would today be waiting for the inevitable climate change that would follow, placing millions, if not billions, at risk and dwarfing the first bomb carnage.

This incident joins at least seven near-misses where either Moscow or Washington began the process of launching nuclear weapons in the mistaken belief that it was under attack.

These near-misses, coupled with the United States’ plan to start a new arms race with new low-yield weapons, make the probability of nuclear war even more likely as other countries follow suit.

The only way to be secure from nuclear attack is by the complete abolition of these weapons as required in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before our luck runs out.

ROBERT DODGE, OJAI, CALIF.

The writer is president of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles.

To the Editor:

Your editorial analysis of the dangers of the Trump administration’s nuclear policy indicates that it can lead only to higher risks of nuclear calamities, with global instability and proliferation of even more weapons of mass destruction.

President Trump’s new and clearly unbalanced and mystifying nuclear policy seems of a piece with much of his words, thinking and his acts as president. They are not based on any objective analysis of what is in the true security interest of the United States or, for that matter, the rest of the world. Mr. Trump seems to be enthralled with destruction of peacemaking and diplomatic options and sees, at home and abroad, destructive acts as his credo.

His strategy (if that is even the word) — from his opposition to the vital Iran nuclear deal, which is helping stabilize a region of conflict, to his approach to North Korea — is clearly aimed at increasing tension. He is almost gleefully and recklessly courting a major military cataclysm.

Trump nuclear policies recklessly encourage others to act in the same way, leading to even more calamitous outcomes.

Now more than ever, we need a strategy that aims at diplomatic and multilateral solutions. That means a reasonable posture of preventive acts or sanctions against aggression with a search for win-win peaceful outcomes.

The arms control and nonproliferation efforts of the past, which Mr. Trump abhors, remain a critical tool for lowering our risks and creating the space for more cooperation.

HARRY C. BLANEY III, WASHINGTON

The writer, a retired Foreign Service officer, is a senior fellow at the Center on International Policy.