A large majority of Americans say they don't trust a government run by the opposition party. So we must ask ourselves: Is it moral, just and wise to vest the ability to end other nations in the hands of one person? "As president, I carried no wallet, no money, no driver's license, no keys in my pockets — only secret codes that were capable of bringing about the annihilation of much of the world as we knew it," Ronald Reagan wrote in his autobiography. That's right. President Biden this very minute could unilaterally decide to launch a devastating nuclear strike anywhere in the world in minutes — without a requirement to consult Congress or the courts. The missiles would be in flight before even the most plugged-in Americans knew they'd been launched. This is an enormous amount of power to grant any single person. That's doubly true in undemocratic nations, several of which have nuclear arsenals of their own. It is time to explore what alternatives to the president's sole nuclear authority could be, and that's what my colleague W.J. Hennigan does in the latest installment of our series "At the Brink," published this morning. Mr. Hennigan offers readers a rare look into the U.S. Strategic Command, which operates a global system to ensure that, if a president orders the launch of a nuclear weapon, it will happen in minutes. Along with his compelling reporting and writing, the celebrated photographer An-My Lê captures the men, women and spaces that make up this military operation. Last year, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Ted Lieu of California introduced legislation that would prevent any American president from launching a first nuclear strike without congressional approval. Passing this bill or one like it is an obvious step. Yet the American public is owed a bigger plan on how countries around the globe can work together to reduce nuclear threats. Today nuclear weapons loom over international politics in ways not seen since the Cold War — a dynamic Times Opinion explored in the first installment of the series earlier this week. The phrase "serious debate" is often tossed around in campaign season. It's a way to insist on talking about something, even if in a nebulous way. Fortunately, there are chances for a substantive public discussion of nuclear weapons, and we invite the country and the world to join in the conversation. Americans might be surprised to hear what those in other nations think. Times Opinion has invited President Biden and President Trump to explain in our pages what their next administrations would do to reduce these risks. We hope they will do so. We also hope this will be a subject in the upcoming presidential debates. Reporters covering the president and his competitor should press them on their policies and thinking around sole authority and other nuclear policies.
Though Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden "will have to confront questions from voters about their mental acuity, competence and stamina to take on another four-year term," as Mr. Hennigan writes today, "regardless of who wins this election or the next one, the American president's nuclear sole authority is a product of another era, and must be revisited in our new nuclear age." That should be something that most Americans can agree on.
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, March 7, 2024
Opinion Today: Should either of these people have the power to end the world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment