Showing posts sorted by date for query Lawrence S. Wittner. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Lawrence S. Wittner. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2026

 

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

With the deadline for paying federal income taxes fast approaching, the thoughts of American taxpayers turn naturally toward the age-old question: Why isn’t there a fairer tax system? 

Currently, in fact, campaigns for state tax-the-rich legislation are flourishing in California, Colorado, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia, and have already succeeded in getting such legislation adopted in Massachusetts and Washington. Similarly, in Congress, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Pramila Jayapal have introduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, while Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna are sponsoring the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. The tax-the-rich proposals range from increasing the tax rate for the very highest annual income earners, to instituting an annual wealth tax on the very richest Americans, to a combination of both.

Although the most affluent Americans, like other Americans, have always paid taxes to fund public services, the dispute has been over how much they should pay. Sales taxes and property taxes place a heavy burden on people of modest means, but a much lighter burden on the wealthy. Therefore, the wealthy have tended to favor these generators of public revenue and to oppose a progressive income tax, under which the rich would pay at a higher rate than the poor. A lengthy political battle for a tax system based upon ability to pay led to passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which empowered Congress to levy an income tax.

Initially, the new income tax, though progressive, was rather small-scale. But as the federal government took on new and costly tasks―particularly funding U.S. participation in two world wars and the Cold War―the federal income tax grew accordingly. By 1944, the official tax rate for the highest income earners stood at 94 percent―although, thanks to deductions, loopholes and the rate’s confinement to the top increment of their income, the richest Americans actually paid at a much lower rate. 

Like their well-heeled predecessors, many wealthy Americans were outraged at funding public services that benefited people whom they often regarded as their inferiors. Why, they wondered, was their money being “wasted” on things like public schools, public housing, and public healthcare, when “the best people” went to private schools, lived in private mansions or gated communities, and employed private “concierge doctors”? While chatting with their friends over lunch on their yachts or at their tennis clubs, they complained of “welfare queens” and the “ungrateful poor.”

Consequently, Congress―badgered by the wealthy, their corporations, and conservative ideologues―cut the progressivity of the federal income tax. In 1964, the top marginal tax rate was reduced from 91 percent to 70 percent, in 1981 to 50 percent, and in 2018 to 37 percent.

Given these dramatic cuts in the federal income tax rate, plus preferential tax treatment for dividends and appreciation in the value of stock, bonds, and other investments―the wealthiest Americans managed to secure a much lower tax rate than most Americans. According to a ProPublica investigation, the 25 richest Americans, who had $401 billion in income from 2014 to 2018, paid taxes on it at a rate of just 3.4 percent. Indeed, during some years, the world’s top billionaires―including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, and Carl Icahn―paid no federal income taxes at all.

When it came to corporate income, the federal government slashed the corporate tax rate from 53 percent to 21 percentbetween 1969 and 2025. And this, too, produced enormous benefits for very affluent Americans, who own most stock market wealthAccording to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 23 of the largest and most profitable U.S. companies paid no federal corporate income taxes at all from 2018 to 2022. And 109 corporations paid no federal tax in at least one of those years.

The Trump administration’s tax policies lifted the fortunes of the wealthy to unprecedented heights. According to a September 2025 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, the wealth of the 15 richest U.S. billionaires increased by over 300 percent after the passage of the first Trump-GOP tax cut in December 2017. The wealth of the very richest of them, Elon Musk, grew 20-fold. In the first year of Trump’s second term, marked by another huge tax cut for the rich, U.S. billionaire wealth jumped from $6.7 trillion to $8.2 trillion.

Not surprisingly, government taxation policy―coming on top of low wage rates, corporate outsourcing, assaults on unions, and government subsidies for big business―has resulted in rising economic inequality in the United States. By late 2025, the richest 1 percent of Americans possessed some $55 trillion in assets―roughly equal to the wealth held by the bottom 90 percent. “Household wealth is highly concentrated and becoming steadily more concentrated,” reported the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, a major financial research firm.

This rising economic inequality enhances the growing power of the wealthy in public affairs. Increasingly, in politics, big money talks―and on behalf of Republicans. Federal election contributions from the nation’s 100 richest Americans averaged $21 million between 2000 and 2010, but rose beyond $1 billion in 2024. In that year, contributions to Republicans surged from roughly $300 million to just under $1 billion, while donations to Democrats dropped from roughly $300 million to less than $200 million. A rightwing political party, led by a demagogic billionaire promising more tax cuts, proved irresistible.

By contrast, most Americans support proposals to raise taxes on the rich. According to a March 2025 Pew Research Center poll, large majorities of Americans surveyed favored increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. In January 2026, an Economist/YouGov poll reported that 80 percent of American respondents viewed wealth inequality as a problem, 80 percent said the rich had too much political power, and 78 percent said taxes on billionaires were too low.

It’s time to tax the rich. Or, as Pete Seeger used to sing: “Take it easy, but take it.”Email

avatar

Lawrence ("Larry") Wittner was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, and attended Columbia College, the University of Wisconsin, and Columbia University, where he received his Ph.D. in history in 1967.  Thereafter, he taught history at Hampton Institute, at Vassar College, at Japanese universities (under the Fulbright program), and at SUNY/Albany.  In 2010, he retired as professor of history emeritus.  A writer on peace and foreign policy issues, he is the author or editor of twelve books and hundreds of published articles and book reviews and a former president of the Peace History Society.  Since 1961, he has been active in the peace, racial equality, and labor movements, and currently serves as a national board member of Peace Action (America's largest grassroots peace organization) and as executive secretary of the Albany County Central Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.  On occasion, he helps to fan the flames of discontent by performing vocally and on the banjo with the Solidarity Singers.  His latest book is Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual (University of Tennessee Press).  More information about him can be found at his website:  http://lawrenceswittner.com.

Sunday, March 08, 2026

International Law Needs International Enforcement

Donald Trump’s war of choice in the Middle East is but the latest indication that the system of international law―which provides guidelines for the behavior of nations in world affairs―is crumbling.

In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, after thousands of years of violent international conflict, efforts to establish global norms for nations in connection with war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights accelerated. These efforts resulted in the founding of the United Nations (which develops, codifies, and enforces international law), the International Court of Justice (which settles legal disputes among nations and provides advisory opinions on legal questions), and the International Criminal Court (which investigates and tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community).

Of course, the current U.S. military attack on Iran flies in the face of the UN Charter, which, in Article 2, states that “all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means” and that they “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Furthermore, contemptuous of the United Nations, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. government from dozens of UN agencies and blocked the U.S. government’s payment of billions of dollars in mandatory dues to the world organization.

Other nations are also clearly out of line with international law. The Russian government’s over four years of war and occupation of Ukrainian territory are flagrant violations of the UN Charter, as attested to by a ruling of the International Court of Justice and numerous overwhelming condemnations by the UN General Assembly. The Israeli government is also a prominent transgressor, having joined the U.S. military assault on Iran and conducted an illegal occupation of conquered Palestinian territory for decades while violating international humanitarian law in its treatment of the civilian population.

Disgusted by the ability of these and other nations to act with impunity, Majed al-Ansari, Qatar’s foreign policy advisor, remarked bitterly in 2025:  “We are moving into a system where anybody can do whatever they like. . . .  As long as you have the ability to wreak havoc, you can do it because no one will hold you accountable.”

This lack of accountability is striking. Within nations, there is usually effective enforcement of law. But, on the global level, law enforcement is weak, indeed. When the International Criminal Court announced warrants for the arrests of Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes, a former Russian president threatened the judges with a hypersonic missile attack and the U.S. government imposed heavy sanctions on the judges. Meanwhile, Putin and Netanyahu remain at large.

Scornful of international law, some national officials openly champion a return to the traditional might-makes-right conduct of international affairs. “You can talk all you want about international niceties,” sneered Stephen Miller, Trump’s influential White House aide, “but we live in . . . the real world . . . that is governed by strength, that is governed by power.  These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

Naturally, officials of militarily powerful nations find a power-politics approach appealing, as do people with militarist and nationalist views.  Trump recently announced, “I don’t need international law.”

Conversely, officials of less powerful nations are dismayed by the resurrection of a might-makes-right standard, as are people with peace-oriented and internationalist views. They argue that what the world needs is not the abandonment of international law, but its more effective enforcement. Furthermore, they contend that a return to great power imperialism in a world bristling with modern weapons, including nuclear weapons, is a recipe for catastrophe.

But if effective enforcement of international law is preferable to a power-politics approach to world affairs, can that effective enforcement be attained?

There are certainly feasible, small-scale actions along these lines that could be taken. One is to increase the number of nations that accept the International Court of Justice’s compulsory jurisdiction. Currently, only 75 nations of the 193 UN member states do so. Another is to increase the number of nations that are parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.  The current number is 125, and does not include the United States, Russia, China, or Israel.

Even the use of the veto in the UN Security Council―employed most frequently by the U.S. and Russian governments―could be limited to some degree.  One way is to simply enforce Article 27 in the UN Charter providing that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting on that dispute.  Another―championed by France and Mexico―is to exclude the veto in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Also, of course, deadbeat nations could be pressured into paying their UN dues―for example, by denying them their vote in the UN General Assembly.

More thoroughgoing action would be difficult to secure, but not impossible. Perhaps the leading obstacle to a substantial strengthening of the United Nations and the international law it seeks to develop and enforce is the provision in the UN Charter that all five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) must agree to any change in the Charter.  Nevertheless, the Charter also provides that a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly and by any nine members of the Security Council can produce a Charter review conference. Consequently, there is now a significant campaign underway to call for one. And, if such a meeting is held, perhaps after the current crop of aging, reactionary officials has passed from the scene, who really knows what will occur?

Admittedly, the prospects aren’t good for halting the return of nations to their traditional practices of war and imperialism.

Even so, if people can create the scientific and technological marvels of the modern world, they might also be able to develop ways to stop killing one another.

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press). Read other articles by Lawrence, or visit Lawrence's website.

Thursday, February 26, 2026

 

Should Billionaires Have It All?


California politics is currently being shaken up thanks to a drive, led by the Service Employees International Union, to enact a one-time wealth tax on the state’s billionaires to offset federal cuts to healthcare and support public education and food assistance programs. Campaigning for the measure, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders told an enthusiastic crowd that “never before have so few people had so much wealth and so much power.” In a democratic society, he thundered, “the billionaire class cannot have it all.”

It’s a message that’s particularly relevant in today’s world.

In January 2026, as the World Economic Forum opened in Davos, a report by the charity Oxfam revealed increasingly stark economic inequality. One-fourth of the world’s population was afflicted by hunger and nearly half lived in poverty. Meanwhile billionaire wealth jumped by over 16 percent in 2025 to $18.4 trillion―its highest level in history. The world’s 12 richest billionaires, noted Oxfam, had more wealth than the poorest half of humanity, more than four billion people.

According to Forbes, the number of billionaires in the world rose from 140 in 1987 to a record 3,028 in March 2025. Moreover, they continued growing ever richer, with the wealth of the top 15 U.S. billionaires increasing during 2025 by over 31 percent. They included Elon Musk ($729 billion), Larry Page ($262 billion), Larry Ellison ($247 billion), Jeff Bezos ($243 billion), and Sergey Brin ($242 billion).

Although Americans constituted the largest number of billionaires in 2025 (902, up from 813 in 2024), most hailed from other countries. China―despite its ostensible commitment, as a Communist nation, to economic equality―had 450, up from 406 in 2024. If Hong Kong and Macau are included, China had 516 billionaires. China was followed in billionaire numbers by India (205), Germany (171), and Russia (140).

Why, it might be asked, does anyone need billions of dollars? After all, as Oxfam pointed out in January 2024, before the surge in billionaire wealth of the last two years, if each of the five richest billionaires were to spend a million dollars a day they would take 476 years on average to exhaust their combined wealth.

In the case of billionaires, though, needs are easily overwhelmed by desires. According to Forbes, “the number one must-have item of the super-rich” is the private, luxury jet plane. Although purchase costs usually run no higher than $110 million, Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov reportedly spent between $350 and $500 million to buy his private jet.

“Superyachts” are also in demand among the billionaire class. Business Insider observed in late 2025 that “palaces at sea have long been a status symbol for the masters of the universe, a place to live a life of excess and network, far removed from the prying eyes of ordinary people.” And “as the rich get richer . . . their boats are getting longer.” Brin, who has a flotilla of yachts, boats, and water toys, cared for by 50 full-time employees, recently purchased Dragonfly, a 466-foot superyacht with a glass-bottomed pool, cinema, spa, gym, business deck, and helicopter hangar. Similarly, Bezos recently purchased Koru, a $500 million, 417-foot superyacht.

Billionaires also maintain multiple homes. Although Bezos’s two houses covering 28,000 square feet on a Seattle lakefront have provided him with his primary home, they constitute just one of his numerous residences. He also owns residential properties in New York City, Washington, DC, Maui, Hawaii, several large estates in California, a 30,000-acre ranch in Texas, and other homes elsewhere—all told, worth more than $578 million. One of his most recently-acquired residences is located on what is called the “billionaire bunker,” a luxury island near Miami.

Indeed, the lives of billionaires are often quite different from those of their less affluent contemporaries. Superyachts played a very important role in Ellison’s life, and he has purchased several of themHis latestMusashi, acquired for a reported $160 million, boasts amenities such as an elevator, swimming pool, beauty salon, gym, and basketball court. According to Business Insider, Ellison “is known for his extravagant spending . . . and yachting is among his favorite and most expensive hobbies.” He purportedly bought 98 percent of the Hawaiian island of Lanai (for $300 million), has a real estate portfolio of $1 billion, and has been married five times.

Billionaires have also been noted for driving $4 million Lamborghini Venenos, acquiring megamansions for their horses, taking $80,000 “safaris” in private jets, purchasing gold toothpicks, creating megaclosets the size of homes, covering their staircases in gold, and building luxury survival bunkers. Even as people around the world struggled to afford basic necessities, Bezos’s Blue Origin company launched the super-rich and their friends on joyrides into space, while billionaires funded schemes to extend their lives and secure immortality.

Given their immense wealth, billionaires have enormous influence in politics. During the U.S. federal elections of 2024, 100 billionaire families poured a record-breaking $2.6 billion into the campaigns―one out of every six dollars in total contributions. As the super-rich usually desire to safeguard or enhance their wealth, some 70 percent of this billionaire funding went to the Republicans and only 23 percent to the Democrats. Symptomatically, Elon Musk, the world’s richest individual, donated a record-breaking $268 million to the Republican campaign. This proved an excellent investment, for after Donald Trump returned to the White House, he not only appointed Musk a sort of co-president, but instituted policies to aid the wealthy that made U.S. billionaires $1.5 trillion richer.

Numerous billionaires―authoritarian, convinced of their innate superiority, and eager to acquire further wealth and power―direct national governments. In late 2025, they included Donald Trump (USA, $6.1 billion); Vladimir Putin (Russia, $70 billion); Kim Jong Un (North Korea, $5 billion); Xi Jinping (China, $1.5 billion); Mohammed bin Salman (Saudi Arabia, $25 billion); and other assorted potentates, mostly from oil-rich nations.

Should billionaires have it all? Not if we want a democratic society.

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press). Read other articles by Lawrence, or visit Lawrence's website.

Saturday, February 07, 2026

The Doomsday Clock 80-Year Low



 February 6, 2026



Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1945. The famous Doomsday Clock was created two years later and reset every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with the Board of Sponsors, including eight Nobel laureates.

Manhattan Project scientists felt obligated to educate the public about the catastrophic implications of nuclear weapons, especially after US bombings of Hiroshima (Aug.6, 1945 – 80,000 instant deaths, 140,000 by year end) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9, 1945 – approximately 40,000 instant deaths, 80,000 by year end).”Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima was 15-kilotons. Today’s thermonuclear weapons are well over 100-kilotons up to a megaton (a megaton equals 1,000 kilotons).

According to data provided by ICAN, one thermonuclear weapon detonated over NYC would ignite a fireball wider than one mile instantly vaporizing people and buildings on initial impact within that radius. Additionally, the thermal pulse or intense flash of light and heat would cause third-degree burns and inflame infrastructure 7-8 miles away. Then a firestorm would consume the city for as much as 150 square miles.

The initial setting for the iconic clock in 1947 was seven (7) minutes to midnight. The world-famous clock symbolizes the vulnerability to global catastrophe via human-made technology. The scientists were hopeful of preventing a nuclear arms race. Oops! As of 2026, nine nations possess approximately 12,330 nuclear warheads (Russia 5459; US 5277; China 600; France 290; UK 225; India 180; Pakistan 170; Israel 90; No. Korea 50).

Risks never looked so ominous. In plain English, as of January 27th, 2026, the new clock setting is more foreboding than ever before at 85 seconds to midnight. Accordingly, since the onset of the clock in 1947, world affairs have succumbed to the lowest level in generations. It’s as if the world is trapped in a vortex of blundering, ineptitude, and clownishness.

The Board’s Summary of World Affairs

“A year ago, we warned that the world was perilously close to global disaster and that any delay in reversing course increased the probability of catastrophe. Rather than heed this warning, Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic. Hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers. Far too many leaders have grown complacent and indifferent, in many cases adopting rhetoric and policies that accelerate rather than mitigate these existential Risks.”

By setting the famous clock at 85 seconds to midnight, the Board recognizes the failure of leadership of the world as the principal reason for the lowest reading ever. World leadership lacks vision and horribly deficient in historical perspective of missteps among nations often leading to unnecessary combativeness with nuclear in the hotseat.

Nuclear Risks

From day one, nuclear risks have been paramount. Living up to that concern, 2025 experienced three regional conflicts involving nuclear powers, all threatening to escalate (1) Russia-Ukraine (2) India-Pakistan (3) US/Israel-Iran.

However, according to the Board, the biggest turn of events is the onset of a full-blown arms race. China has dramatically increased nuclear warheads, in 2025 China completed or was near completing around 350 new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos across multiple desert and mountain sites, and the US, Russia, and China have modernized their nuclear delivery systems. But none of the big three appears to feel as threatened as does the United States, which plans to build a Golden Dome, including space-based interceptors. This defensive maneuver by the US guarantees a new space-based arms race that’s certain to spread alarm around the world.

Of additional concern, the nuclear weapon countries are not talking about strategic stability or arms control. The US commitment, or lack of commitment, for allies in Europe and in Asia is pushing countries sans nuclear weapons to acquiring them. Indeed, this enhances an incipient new arms race across the world.

Making matters even worse yet, the two biggest gorillas in the room the US and Russia START agreement that limits the number of nuclear weapons is set to expire after 60 years  The treaty is set to end on February 5, and without it there will be no constraints on long-range nuclear arsenals for the first time since Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed historic agreements in 1972 on the first-ever trip by a U.S. president to Moscow

Climate Change on Bad Footing

The Board sees climate change on a downhill trajectory that threatens civilization: “The national and international responses to the climate emergency went from wholly insufficient to profoundly destructive. None of the three most recent UN climate summits emphasized phasing out fossil fuels or monitoring carbon dioxide emissions. In the United States, the Trump administration has essentially declared war on renewable energy and sensible climate policies, relentlessly gutting national efforts to combat climate change.”

The graph below demonstrates the post-industrial trend in greenhouse gases, which are the primary drivers of global warming: The steeper/ the longer/ the more Earth heats up. Trump administration focus on fossil fuels at the expense of renewables steepens the vertical ascent eventually to Hot House Earth, unless CO2 is stopped and also removed to a certain extent. Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is extremely challenging as current technology is anemic.

A graph with red line and blue line AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Synthetic Biology “Mirror Life” Threatens All Life

The past year witnessed a life sciences artificial development that threatens all life. Scientists from nine countries have warned about the creation of “Mirror Life” via laboratory synthesis, consisting of “mirror bacteria” and other “mirror cells” that scientists warn should not be allowed to continue. Mirror Life is composed of chemically synthesized molecules that are “mirror-images” of molecules naturally found on Earth. According to the Board: “A self-replicating mirror cell could plausibly evade normal controls on growth, spread throughout all ecosystems, and eventually cause the widespread death of humans, other animals, and plants, potentially disrupting all life on Earth. So far, however, the international community has not arrived at a plan to address this risk.”

AI

“The AI revolution has the potential to accelerate the existing chaos and dysfunction in the world’s information ecosystem, supercharging mis- and disinformation campaigns and undermining the fact-based public discussions required to address urgent major threats like nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change.” AI-aided design of new pathogens harmful to humans is of concern as state-sponsored biological weapons.

US Degradation of Public Health

The Board takes special aim at the US: “Perhaps of most immediate concern is the rapid degradation of US public health infrastructure and expertise. This dangerously reduces the ability of the United States and other nations to respond to pandemics and other biological threats.”

Autocratic Trends

Overlaying the above-mentioned flash points, the ongoing autocratic trend of world governments impedes international cooperation. It reduces accountability. And it acts like a “threat accelerant.” Autocrats are not reliable negotiators and can easily upset the proverbial apple cart, triggering unforeseen domino-effect disaster scenarios.

In the final analysis, eighty-five (85) seconds to midnight doesn’t leave much room for error.

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com

On the Road to Nuclear War

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

On January 27, 2026, the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of their famous “Doomsday Clock” to 85 seconds to midnight―the closest setting, since the appearance of the clock in 1946, to nuclear annihilation.

This grim appraisal has impressive evidence to support it.  

The New Start Treaty, the last of the major nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties between the United States and Russia, expired on February 5, without any serious attempt to replace it.  New Start’s demise enables both nations, which possess about 86 percent of the world’s 12,321 nuclear weapons, to move beyond the strict limits set by the treaty on the number of their strategic nuclear weapons (the most powerful, most devastating kind), thus enhancing the ability of their governments to reduce the world to a charred wasteland.

Actually, a nuclear arms race has been gathering steam for years, as nearly all the governments of the nine nuclear powers (which, in addition to Russia and the United States, include China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) scramble to upgrade existing weapons systems and add newer versions.  China’s nuclear arsenal is the fastest-growing among them.  “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world . . . is coming to an end,” observed Hans Kristensen, a highly regarded expert on nuclear armament and disarmament.  “Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric, and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”  

The U.S. government is currently immersed in a $1.7 trillion nuclear “modernization” program that President Donald Trump has championed and repeatedly lauded.  As early as February 2018, he boasted that his administration was “creating a brand-new nuclear force.  We’re gonna be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you’ve never seen before.”  In late October 2025, to facilitate the U.S. nuclear buildup, Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare to resume U.S. nuclear weapons testing, which had ceased 33 years before.  In line with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, signed by 187 nations (including the United States), no nuclear power (other than the rogue nation of North Korea) has conducted explosive nuclear testing in over 25 years.

Another sign of the escalating nuclear danger is the revival of implicit and explicit threats to initiate nuclear war.  Such threats, which declined with the end of the Cold War, have resurfaced in recent years.  When angered by the policies of other nations, Donald TrumpKim Jong Un, and Vladimir Putin have repeatedly and publicly threatened them with nuclear destruction.  According to the U.S. government’s Voice of America, the Russian government, in the context of its invasion of Ukraine, issued 135 nuclear threats between February 2022 and December 17, 2024.  Although some national security experts have discounted most Russian threats as manipulative rather than serious, in November 2022 Chinese leader Xi Jinping thought the matter serious enough to publicly chide his professed ally, Putin, for threatening to resort to nuclear arms in Ukraine.

Underlying this drift toward nuclear war are the growing conflicts among nations―conflicts that have significantly weakened international cooperation and the United Nations.  As the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists put it, rather than heed past warnings of catastrophe, “Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic.”  Consequently, “hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war.”

But this is not necessarily the end of the story―or of the world.

After all, much the same situation existed in the second half of the twentieth century, when conflicts among the great powers fueled a dangerous nuclear arms race that, at numerous junctures, threatened to spiral into full-scale nuclear war.  And, in response, a massive grassroots campaign emerged to save the world from nuclear annihilation.  Although that campaign did not succeed in banning the bomb, it did manage to curb the nuclear arms race, reduce the number of nuclear weapons by more than 80 percent, and prevent a much-feared nuclear catastrophe.

Furthermore, in the early twenty-first century, there have been new and important developments.  The worldwide remnants of the nuclear disarmament movement regrouped as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and, joined by farsighted officials in smaller, non-nuclear nations, drew upon the United Nations to sponsor a series of antinuclear conferences.  In 2017, by a vote of 122 to 1 (with 1 abstention), delegates at one of these UN conferences adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).  Although all nine nuclear powers strongly opposed the TPNW―which banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons―the treaty secured sufficient national backing to enter into force in January 2021.  Thus far, it has been signed by 99 countries―a majority of the world’s nations.

In addition to the efficacy of public pressure for nuclear disarmament and the existence of a treaty banning nuclear weapons, at least one other factor points the way toward a non-nuclear future:  the self-defeating nature—indeed, the insanity―of nuclear war.  With even a single nuclear bomb capable of killing millions of people and leaving the desperate survivors crawling painfully through a burnt-out, radioactive hell, even a nuclear “victory” is a defeat.  In the aftermath of a nuclear war, as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev is believed to have said, “the survivors would envy the dead.”  It’s a lesson that most people around the world have learned, although not perhaps the lunatics.  

Lunatics, of course, exist, and some of them, unfortunately, govern modern nations and ignore international law.  

Even so, although we are on the road to nuclear war, there is still time to take a deep breath, think about where we are going, and turn around.Email

avatar

Lawrence ("Larry") Wittner was born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, and attended Columbia College, the University of Wisconsin, and Columbia University, where he received his Ph.D. in history in 1967.  Thereafter, he taught history at Hampton Institute, at Vassar College, at Japanese universities (under the Fulbright program), and at SUNY/Albany.  In 2010, he retired as professor of history emeritus.  A writer on peace and foreign policy issues, he is the author or editor of twelve books and hundreds of published articles and book reviews and a former president of the Peace History Society.  Since 1961, he has been active in the peace, racial equality, and labor movements, and currently serves as a national board member of Peace Action (America's largest grassroots peace organization) and as executive secretary of the Albany County Central Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.  On occasion, he helps to fan the flames of discontent by performing vocally and on the banjo with the Solidarity Singers.  His latest book is Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual (University of Tennessee Press).  More information about him can be found at his website:  http://lawrenceswittner.com.