A third of a mile above the ground, it explodes. … A brilliant white flash envelops the sky for miles, briefly blinding everyone who witnesses it. … A roar equal to 10,000 tons of TNT quakes the ground below. A massive fireball blooms so quickly that it seems instantaneous. … Nearly everything flammable below ignites: wood, plastics, oil. Small animals burst into flame, then turn to ash. … Buildings, trees and other living things are torn apart and thrown at one another. … The wreckage — what once was asphalt, steel, soil, glass, flesh and bone — is suctioned into the roiling stem of a mushroom cloud rising for miles. These harrowing scenes, written by W.J. Hennigan and accompanied by evocative animated visuals by Tim McDonagh and Jil Tai, are from the first part of Times Opinion's latest series, At the Brink. They are meant to catch your attention, for the threat we face is urgent. As I write in my introduction to the project, the threat of nuclear war has dangled over humankind for much too long. We have survived so far through luck and brinkmanship. But the old, limited safeguards that kept the Cold War cold are long gone. Nuclear powers are getting more numerous and less cautious. We've condemned another generation to live on a planet that is one grave act of hubris or human error away from destruction without demanding any action from our leaders. That must change. This project is the culmination of nearly a year of reporting and research. We plan to explore the next arms race, where the present dangers lie and what could be done to make the world safer again. We begin that discussion today by laying out, in gripping detail, what's at stake in modern life if a single nuclear weapon were used. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, threatened in his 2024 annual speech that more direct Western intervention could lead to nuclear conflict. Yet an American intelligence assessment suggests the world may have wandered far too close to the brink of a nuclear launch even earlier in Mr. Putin's invasion. This is the first telling of the Biden administration's efforts to avoid that fate, and if they failed, how they hoped to contain the catastrophic aftermath. Mr. Hennigan explores what happened during that tense time, what officials were thinking, what they did and how they're approaching a volatile future. Within two years, the last major remaining arms treaty between the United States and Russia will expire. Yet amid mounting global instability and shifting geopolitics, world leaders aren't turning to diplomacy. Instead, they have responded by building more technologically advanced weapons. Over the past several months, I've been asked, including by colleagues, why I've wanted to raise awareness on nuclear arms control when the world faces so many other challenges — climate change, rising authoritarianism and economic inequality, as well as the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Part of the answer is that both of those active conflicts would be far more catastrophic if nuclear weapons were introduced into them. The other answer lies in our recent history. When the people around the world in the 1960s, '70s, '80s and early '90s began to understand the nuclear peril of that era, a vocal constituency demanded — and achieved — change. Fear of mutual annihilation last century spurred governments to work together to create a set of global agreements to lower the risk. But today, the nuclear safety net has become threadbare. The good news is that it can be built back up. American leadership requires that Washington marshal international support for this mission — but it also requires leading by example. There are several actions that the U.S. president could take without buy-in from a Congress unlikely to cooperate.
Throughout 2024, Times Opinion will report on such ideas and many others related to today's nuclear weapons, arms control and minimizing the threats ahead. Today's first offering will be followed by more essays in text, audio and video and by events, both on The Times's platform and off. We are grateful for philanthropic support for this effort from Carnegie Corporation of New York, Outrider Foundation and the Prospect Hill Foundation. None of these funders have any editorial input into Mr. Hennigan's or Times Opinion's journalism. Democracy rarely prevents war, but it can eventually serve as a check on it. Nuclear use has always been the exception: There is no scenario in which there is enough time for voters to weigh in on whether to deploy a nuclear weapon. Citizens, therefore, need to exert their influence well before the country finds itself in such a situation. We should not allow the next generation to inherit a world more dangerous than the one we were given. Explore the project:
Here's what we're focusing on today:
We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times. Games Here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle and Spelling Bee. If you're in the mood to play more, find all our games here. Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. If you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, March 4, 2024
Opinion Today: It’s time to protest nuclear war again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment