Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
5. Should the US nuclear arsenal be restricted to deterrence of a nuclear attack on the US, or should it be used any time the US is at a military disadvantage?
Mutually assured destruction has been the basis for nuclear policy for decades. The idea is that each country has sufficient retaliatory capacity to strike back at an enemy after a full-scale nuclear attack. So even though an enemy might totally destroy an opponent, it would be totally destroyed in return. Having tactical nuclear weapons that could be used in a limited way on a particular battlefield might be attractive to a military planner but, in reality, it invites escalation to a full-scale nuclear war. Nuclear weapons should never be seen as a reasonable alternative to conventional weapons in a limited conflict.
6. Do you agree with President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?
This was a huge mistake. Although there are problems with the current treaty, it has been useful in preventing or at least slowing the development and deployment of intermediate range nuclear weapons. Now that we are withdrawing from the treaty, the Russians will be emboldened to continue development and deployment of such weapons in Eastern Europe. The U.S. will be motivated to go ahead with the development of new nuclear weapons that would have violated the treaty. We should not have withdrawn, and we should be working on improving the treaty instead of abandoning it.
7. How would you ensure that ongoing tensions with Russian President Vladimir Putin do not threaten cooperation with Russia to reduce nuclear risks?
Unfortunately, Russia has been very belligerent recently and has threatened to deploy and use tactical nuclear weapons if they are losing a conventional ground war in Eastern Europe. The best we can do is to apply diplomatic and economic pressure against Russia while maintaining open communications. We also need to repair our relationship with our former allies and get them onboard with applying pressure to Russia.
Would you support deep nuclear-weapons reductions in a treaty with Russia?
Both the U.S. and Russia have over four thousand nuclear warheads deployed and ready to launch. It has been estimated that the detonation of as few as one hundred nuclear warheads could bring about a nuclear winter that would destroy human civilization. This means that the U.S. and Russia each have enough warheads to destroy our world forty times. It is obvious that the U.S. and Russia could and should drastically reduce their nuclear arsenals. This could be done without any threat to our national security.
8. Would you support cutting the $61.5 billion US nuclear-weapons budget and using the money to fund unmet human needs?
Sixty billion dollars represents about ten percent of our military budget. The Pentagon has lost track of trillions of dollars spent on military projects. If we cannot stop the modernization program, we could easily find funds for it by reducing waste and fraud in military spending. The sixty billion dollars allocated for nuclear weapons should be repurposed to address serious “unmet human needs.”
Please read Part 3