Nukes are on the Ballot

The 2024 election comes nearly 80 years since nuclear weapons were created through the Manhattan Project, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer in the New Mexico desert. It also comes at a time of escalating nuclear threats. Experts agree that the risk that a nuclear weapon might be used—by accident, miscalculation, or on purpose—is higher than at any time since the Cold War.

State of Play

Today, 12,000 nuclear weapons are spread across nine countries. Some are 80 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and can reach their targets less than 30 minutes after launch. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made nuclear threats throughout the war in Ukraine and North Korean Leader Kim Jung Un has threatened nuclear use against the United States and our allies in Asia.

Meanwhile, the acceleration of cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence will increase the risk of state or non-state actors tampering with warning and command and control systems, increasing the possibility of a false warning of an attack and reducing decision time for leaders, all of which could trigger a nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.

Those elected to serve in Congress and in the White House will grapple with major questions about nuclear weapons in the coming years.

How much is enough? Nuclear weapons spending – up or down?

The United States and Russia have reduced nuclear arsenals by 80 percent since their Cold War peak, but for the first time in decades, the number of nuclear weapons globally is on the rise.  The only remaining limits on the number of deployed long-range strategic nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia—the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals by far—are set to expire in 2026 and there is no negotiation or even dialogue about maintaining any limits after 2026. At the same time, China is significantly increasing its nuclear arsenal.

Even one nuclear weapon could kill or injure millions and cause widespread destruction, lasting environmental damage, and global economic and societal disruption.

Some in the United States are calling for new nuclear capabilities and greater numbers of nuclear weapons, while others believe the thousands of nuclear weapons the United States has currently are more than enough to deter any adversaries and address emerging threats. The United States currently spends about $70 billion annually on our nuclear weapons arsenal, and leaders elected to the White House and Congress this November will decide how many nuclear weapons are enough and how much we will spend on them.

Those leaders will also decide whether we reduce reliance on nuclear weapons for national security and negotiate new arms control agreements or accelerate down the path of an arms race.

Whose finger is on “the button”?

In the United States, the president has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. There are no required checks and balances. At any given time, hundreds of U.S. and Russian weapons are ready to launch at a moment’s notice and capable of being delivered across the globe in less than 30 minutes.

We’re living in an age of disinformation and misinformation as tensions escalate and wars rage in regions with nuclear weapons. In the past, we’ve had dozens of close calls— times when systems failed, initial reports were wrong, people made mistakes, or leaders felt pressure to act. Cyber risks and uncertainty about how AI will be incorporated into nuclear weapons systems and decision-making will complicate complex systems further.

With stakes this high, should any one individual have the sole authority to launch weapons capable of annihilating humanity? Future leaders have the choice of establishing new policies to put more guardrails around the decision to use nuclear weapons.

To test or not to test?

There have been no U.S. nuclear weapons test explosions for more than 30 years; only North Korea has conducted explosive nuclear testing since 1998. Instead of underground nuclear testing, the United States has relied on the science-based “Stockpile Stewardship Program”—and data from more than 1,000 nuclear tests—to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Whether or not to return to explosive nuclear weapons testing is a live issue, with advocates on both sides publishing recent essays in Foreign Affairs.

If the United States resumes explosive nuclear testing, it will take place at the Nevada National Security Site 65 miles from Las Vegas. It is widely believed that other nuclear powers—including Russia and China—would follow the United States’ lead and resume testing.

Decisionmakers in a future presidential administration and in Congress will have to weigh any arguments in favor of resuming explosive nuclear testing against the potential environmental, safety, economic, and national security consequences.

This November, nukes are on the ballot. Keep the conversation going and tweet your questions or thoughts to @NTI_WMD using the hashtag #nukesonballot.