“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.” –John F. Kennedy, Address Before the General Assembly of the United Nations, New York City, September 25, 1961.
The path to arms control began with John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. In contrast to his predecessors—one of whom is the only president to order a nuclear strike on another country, and the other who adopted a policy of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction—Kennedy argued for de-escalation or at the very least stabilization of the nuclear situation. His policies saw the adoption of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), the first true restriction on the nuclear arsenal, which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater, but did not place any restrictions on underground testing.
“…reason and sanity have prevailed to reduce the danger and to greatly lessen the fear…The conclusion of this treaty encourages the hope that other steps may be taken toward a peaceful world.” –Lyndon B. Johnson on the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, June 30, 1968.
Kennedy’s policies were continued by Johnson, concerned with averting the specter of nuclear war. He made efforts to reduce tensions in Europe between the United States and the Soviet Union, and his administration signed both the Outer Space Treaty—banning the placement or use of nuclear weapons in outer space or on any celestial body—and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT was a landmark agreement, which sought to restrict the advent of nuclear weapons to only five countries—the US, USSR, UK, France, and China—and prevent any others from acquiring such weapons.
“Today may well be remembered as the beginning of a new era in which all nations will devote more of their energies and their resources not to the weapons of war, but to the works of peace” –Richard Nixon in a televised announcement on SALT I, May 20, 1971.
Though Nixon was viewed as a hawkish negotiator, he too sought détente on the topic of nuclear weapons, and his administration saw the signing of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT I). SALT I saw both countries agree to maintain their nuclear arsenals at current capabilities, though the ABM maintained the ideal of mutually-assured destruction by limiting the number of missile defenses each country could maintain. (Both Nixon and his Soviet counterpart believed that the fragile balance of peace could be disrupted by one side developing an adequate defense against ballistic missiles).
“I believe it is far better to seek negotiations…than to permit a runaway nuclear arms race and risk a nuclear holocaust.” –Gerald Ford, February 10, 1976.
Ford continued Nixon’s policies with the Vladivostok Summit on Arms Control, largely seen as a continuation of SALT I. During the summit, the US and the Soviet Union agreed to a limit on the number of aggregate weapons—SALT I had limited the total number of ballistic missiles but not other types of nuclear deployment, and a framework had to be created to account for the fact that the US and USSR had developed different types of nuclear strike systems. However, Ford faced political pushback at home for the summit—Ronald Reagan accused him of yielding to Soviet pressure, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated that many believed “agreement with the Soviets was more dangerous than stalemate, even after a successful summit”.
“Between nations armed with thousands of thermonuclear weapons – each one capable of causing unimaginable destruction – there can be no more cycles of both war and peace. There can only be peace.” –Jimmy Carter, on the signing of SALT II, June 18, 1979
Though Carter called for a reduction in defense funding, his administration worked to modernize and develop the US nuclear arsenal in response to Soviet deployment of new missiles. His largest accomplishment in terms of nuclear weapons and treaties was his negotiation of SALT II, which sought to reduce, rather than simply maintain, the number of nuclear weapons the US and the Soviet Union maintained. Though both nations agreed to abide by SALT II, the agreement was never signed, as it was opposed by Republicans and conservative Democrats, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan forestalled any talk of agreement.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” –Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Nuclear Weapons, April 17, 1982
Reagan came into office as a critic of arms control, describing the above SALT II talks as “fatally flawed,” but he gradually amended his positions as a result of public opinion and concern about the possibility of nuclear war. He oversaw the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, backed by most European states, which banned weapons with a range of 500-5500 kilometers (as Heather Hulburt states, “The trick about missiles with that range is that, launched from the continental U.S., they don’t hit Russia; launched from Russia, they don’t hit the U.S. Launched from either, they target Europe”).
“For the first time in 35 years, our strategic bombers stand down. No longer are they on ’round-the-clock alert. Tomorrow our children will go to school and….they won’t have, as my children did, air raid drills in which they crawl under their desks and cover their heads in case of nuclear war…the long, drawn-out dread is over.” –George H.W. Bush, in the 1992 State of the Union Address, January 28, 1992
The first Bush oversaw the programs known as the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, which were unilateral steps to reduce nuclear weapons systems at a scale never seen before: bombers were taken off alert, short-range missiles and artillery were withdrawn and destroyed, most naval nuclear weapons were withdrawn, and several nuclear programs were canceled. Bush announced these steps as the Cold War came to an end and the Soviet Union dissolved, though he also signed START I, called the most complex arms-control treaty in history, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by both the USSR (once it dissolved, the signatories were Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan) and the United States.
“We need to continue the negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals…We need to stop this proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” –Bill Clinton, in the 1992 Presidential Debates, October 11, 1992.
Clinton’s tenure was marked by a deep opposition to nuclear treaties from a hostile Senate. He signed START II, which prevented the use of potentially destabilizing MIRV weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, but by the time the Russians ratified it, the United States would not pass it. He also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prevented all signatory nations from conducting nuclear tests. Though the Senate once again opposed ratification, Clinton pledged that the United States would abide by its terms and refuse to conduct any nuclear tests—a policy which has been in effect since 1992.
“Our nations must spare no effort at preventing all forms of proliferation” –George W. Bush on the signing of SORT, May 24, 2002
In contrast to his father, the second Bush had a much more mixed approach to nuclear policy. As a candidate, he called nuclear missiles “obsolete weapons of dead conflicts” and pledged to make reductions in the US and nuclear arsenals, continuing the push started by H.W.’s Presidential Nuclear Initiatives. He signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which implemented some of that reduction, though it was criticized for having few benchmarks by which the reduction in nuclear arms could be measured. His most drastic departure from previous policy, however, was the withdrawal of the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the recommendation by his National Strategies that opened the door for the United States to conduct a pre-emptive strike, rather than using nuclear weapons only as deterrence.
“The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War…I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” –Barack Obama, speaking to the citizens of Prague on April 5, 2009
In the early years of his presidency, Obama was criticized as ‘idealistic’ for his calls for a world without nuclear weapons, that trying to maintain deterrence and convince other nations to give up their own missiles was an impossible task. And it proved to be. Though he signed New START, which replaced SORT and was seen as a continuation to START I, START II, and START III (the third never left the negotiations stage) that limited the number of warheads the US and Russia could contain, many have concluded that his administration fell short on its goal of non-proliferation. Instead, and in response to Russia’s own actions, the US spent much of the budget allocated to nuclear weapons on modernizing the arsenal rather than pushing for de-armament. And like Clinton before him, he faced serious opposition from Congress, who opposed his 2015 deal with Iran that halted the country’s progress towards obtaining nuclear materials.
“My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before…there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!” – Donald Trump on Twitter, August 9, 2017
Against this half-century of bipartisan opposition to nuclear weapons, the multilateral efforts from the United States, Russia, Europe, and other nuclear-armed or -aspiring countries to reduce the arsenals, Trump has dismantled treaties and once again sparked worries of a nuclear conflict with his threats to countries like Iran and North Korea.
As a presidential candidate, Trump was contrasted with Hillary Clinton, who many feared (or at least claimed) would lead the US into another war. His statements on nuclear weapons during the campaign were ever-shifting, but seemed to favor at least some form of disarmament: he stated that “I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons,” and that the biggest problem facing the world was nuclear proliferation; in separate interviews, though, he stated that he “could not take anything off the table”, and would be prepared to use a nuclear bomb in Europe if necessary.
In terms of policy, his administration has withdrawn from many of the treaties his predecessors worked to achieve—allowing the US to upgrade and expand its nuclear arsenal, but also pushing the world towards a more dangerous form of brinksmanship that the Cold War characterized. Early in his administration, he withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran—the country has since expanded its nuclear capabilities and enlarged its stockpile of enriched uranium. The Trump administration has also left the INF treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, both times claiming that Russia was already violating its terms, and that leaving the treaty would allow a new agreement to be negotiated that would include China as well. So far, no negotiations have begun.
Most recently, the Trump administration has indicated a willingness to move forwards with nuclear testing in violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Once again, it follows as-yet unsubstantiated claims that Russia and China are conducting their own low-yield tests and that the US’ ability to conduct rapid tests is necessary to intimidate rivals into renegotiating any deal between the three powers.
Trump has drawn heavy criticism from congressional Democrats for these moves: Adam Smith, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, has called for a policy which reduces the number of nuclear weapons and the probability of conflict, and representatives from many Western states where new testing is likely to take place have moved to ban any sort of funding being used for explosive testing; ranking Senate Democrats on the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence Committees called for the administration to remain in the INF; and the president’s 2020 opponent, Joe Biden, has called the new proposal by the administration “as reckless as it is dangerous.”
The United States has long been seen as the largest arbiter of nuclear policy among countries—and as Senators Jack Reed and Carl Levin wrote in 2004, “the US is more often imitated than obeyed.” Backing out of these treaties gives the US more space to expand weapons capabilities, but it gives that same freedom to all other nations—freedom that, as previous presidents can attest, cannot be easily contained.
