Back from the Brink

 The United States president has the legal power to order a nuclear missile attack without consulting Congress or other government officials, regardless of whether the United States is attacked. As soon as one country fires nuclear bombs, the entire conflict could escalate into a devastating nuclear war. No matter where on earth it happens, the use of nuclear bombs threatens American security.

The 2013Nuclear Famine Report from The Physicians for Social Responsibility identifies the catastrophic climate effects after a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

'Back from the Brink' is a campaign to pull the U.S. back from beginning a catastrophic nuclear war, and calls upon our federal officials to endorse the following:

1. Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first

A policy that the U.S. would initiate a nuclear war (first use) increases the fears of a surprise attack, puts pressure on other nuclear-armed countries to keep their nuclear arsenals on high alert, and increases the risk of unintended nuclear war. We can raise awareness and eventually pass legislation to make us safer.

2. End the sole unchecked authority of any U.S. president to launch a nuclear attack

Since only Congress can adopt a declaration of war, any U.S. president should not have the authority to launch nuclear weapons.

3. Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert

Political miscalculations and human mistakes should not trigger an immediate launching of nuclear weapons. This will lower the risk of starting a nuclear conflagration. The bottom line is this would increase U.S. security.

4. Cancel the plan to replace its entire nuclear arsenal with enhanced weapons.

The U.S. is planning to spend about 1.7 trillion dollars to build new nuclear bombs and missiles to replace the old ones over the next thirty years. That amount is unimaginable. It is about $5,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

5. Actively pursue a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as we are obligated under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since the end of the Cold War, both Republican and Democratic administrations have worked to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Republican presidents have actually gotten rid of more nuclear weapons than have Democrats.

What Americans Want

Most  Americans actually reject former-President Trump's 'America First' policy, reports veteran Peace Action member Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner in an April 25, 2019 article in "Foreign Policy in Focus."

Large majorities of Americans support arms control, curbs on military spending, and support international institutions. In the aftermath of Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, 'modernization' of our nuclear arsenal, and withdrawal from the International Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement, most Americans want the United States and Russia to come to an agreement to limit nuclear arms.

What Can We Cut?

Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities, has identified cuts of $300 billion annually from Pentagon spending.

* We can stop using supplemental monies for funding wars, which are unwinnable and not making us safer, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Savings: $14 billion a year.

* We can close half or more of our 800+ overseas military bases in more than 90 countries. Most of these bases are in non-combat or non-crisis zones. Savings: $90 billion.

* We can cut the Obama- and Trump-supported $1.7 trillion program to "modernize," and upgrade our nation's nuclear weapons and delivery systems. A total nuclear weapons ban could save $43 billion a year.

* Over its lifetime, the F-35 jet fighter, which can be equipped with nuclear bombs, is estimated to cost $1.5 trillion -- more than the G.D.P. of Australia:

     - A 2019 government report lists 900 performance deficiencies, including a dangerous night-vision           defect in the high-tech pilot's helmet, which costs $400,000 -- four times more than a typical                   fighter helmet like on the head of a F-16 pilot.

    - Proposed cuts to production and operation of the F-35 will save a  total of $14.7 billion -- more              than  the military budget of Iran.

Cutting $300 billion from the Pentagon budget would bring it down to about $400 billion per year, and that would keep it aligned with Pentagon spending during much of the 1990s. A Pentagon budget of $400 billion would still leave us with a military budget larger that the military budgets of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea combined.