The Fight for Nuclear Deterrence Goes Local
By Brenna Sullivan
In their article “The Fight for Nuclear Deterrence Goes Local” authors Sarah Holder and Alastair Boone report on local action being taken in the fight for peace and nuclear weapon disarmament.
The first critical point made by Holder and Boone is how centralized the power of making an offensive nuclear strike is. Typically, there are distinct checks and balances in place for the majority of presidential decisions. However, the process of a “first nuclear action” is less complex. The President is the sole individual who has his finger on the trigger, following a short Pentagon meeting and a “challenge code” being read by a senior military official, though disagreement by these individuals is unlikely. When all is said and done, Congress is the only body that has the potential to redistribute this power, recently introducing bills H.R. 669 and S.200. the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 that would prevent a sitting president from striking first without a declaration of war by Congress.
While Congress is the ultimate unit of change and decision-making, it is local government and their constituents who can pressure individual members of Congress to make decisions on their states’ and/or districts’ behalves. We are currently seeing states such as California, Georgia, Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Iowa push to prevent these strike-first powers through coalitions such as Mayors for Peace. It is this activism at the city and county level that are the most critical and impressive. Rather than pretending as if the effects of nuclear war can only be felt at an international, diplomatic level cities such as San Francisco, California and Northampton, Massachusetts, are beginning to create an awareness of places where nuclear testing is held, where weapons are stored, and how to be prepared in the event of a disaster. They also aim to provide concrete statistics of possible fatality and injury risks in an effort to make the issue of nuclear war more tangible and the risks more present.
Another important point made by Holder and Boone is the foundational involvement of women in anti-war and peace activism. Since the Cold War era, women have been the main trailblazers in the goal of nuclear disarmament, with Randall Forsberg leading the way with her Nuclear Weapon Freeze Campaign that provided the groundwork for many nationwide marches and protests. Though this campaign slowed with the election of Reagan, it provided the base for future groups such as Helen Caldicott’s Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND), later renamed Women’s Action for New Directions, that brought more women into the discussion about nuclear weapons. Though preventing and ending the possibility of nuclear war is an issue for all human beings, it has been reported by UN Women that peace processes and agreements that included women in the discussion had a 20 and 35 percent increase to last two and 15 years, respectively. With less women being involved in federal government than men, the correlation between women and grassroots organizing can and should be inferred. The push from community to the head decision-makers must continue to be led by women as statistically they invest more physically into their families and their communities than males tend to.
With all of this in mind, it is critical that we as citizens of the United States, of our individual states within our individual cities and districts continue to stay politically involved with international issues, especially those that risk great catastrophe and fatality as that of nuclear war. Though these abstract issues feel foreign, the possible effects of nuclear war are too significant to wait until tragedy occurs to start preventing future events. Let us in today’s modern age give ourselves and future generations a chance to say “never” rather than “never again”.
