At a time where the U.S. is plagued by a legion of challenges, from economic recession to environmental degradation, the threat of nuclear warfare scores low on the American public’s radar. The public recognizes the threat posed by nuclear proliferation from Iran and North Korea, but in general, accepts nuclear weapons as part of our fundamental security doctrine while remaining oblivious to the danger of maintaining a large nuclear arsenal. As a result, it is crucial to our domestic security to raise public awareness about the dangers of nuclear weapons. It does not matter which states possess nuclear weapons—the mere existence of nuclear weapons is the primary threat to global security.

Nuclear weapons pose a multitude of threats to international security. Countdown to Zero spotlights the emerging threat of nuclear terrorism, resulting from large quantities of unsecured nuclear material and a widespread black market. There is also the risk of miscalculation, as both the U.S. and Russia maintain large nuclear arsenals on hair trigger alert. With new states entering the nuclear club outside of the international nonproliferation and disarmament framework (e.g. Iran, North Korea), the risk of regional or global nuclear war still exists. While arguments have been made that maintaining large nuclear arsenals deters attacks from other nuclear powers, the reality is that the risks from nuclear weapons far outweigh any benefits. It only takes one nuclear explosion to start a regional or global war. Furthermore, the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) is not applicable to emerging threats such as nuclear terrorism. Many terrorist groups are not concerned with second-strike capabilities, and it is impossible to target non-state actors without also targeting civilians.

To reduce the threat of nuclear annihilation, it is essential to reduce the number of nuclear weapons throughout the world as part of a process to achieve the final goal of zero nuclear weapons. While it is unrealistic to expect immediate and complete disarmament, reducing the legitimacy of nuclear weapons as part of our security policy and shifting to a policy of gradual disarmament would provide a variety of benefits to the U.S. This would also serve to strengthen international non-proliferation norms. A number of non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) feel that limited U.S. disarmament contravenes their Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, thus decreasing the legitimacy of the treaty and encouraging NNWS to break their pact not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Currently, one of the most important steps the U.S. can take to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons is ratification of the new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (START) between the U.S. and Russia. The original START expired in December of 2009, and we have now gone eight months without a treaty. The longer the U.S. Senate waits to ratify New START, the longer we go with thousands of Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us on hair trigger alert, without any of the information that monitoring provides us about the Russian nuclear arsenal.

In the current state of economic turmoil, it also makes sense from an economic standpoint to make deep cuts to our nuclear arsenal. It is estimated that the U.S. spends on average $40 billion annually to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile. Our current nuclear arsenal of over 5,000 active nuclear weapons is enough to destroy the globe several times over, yet the deterrence value does not increase exponentially. The billions of dollars spent to maintain our nuclear stockpile would be better served to reduce our national debt and contribute to rebuilding the American economy.

I strongly urge U.S. citizens to make reducing the nuclear threat to global peace and security their top priority. We have seen the devastation caused by nuclear weapons, and the risk of nuclear annihilation grows greater every day. This is an issue that should be in the forefront of every American’s mind, so that the world we pass on to the next generation is a safer world.