Opinion: No president should have the sole authority to launch a nuclear first strike

To the editor: It is perplexing that The Times Editorial Board favors a policy that could kill millions of people. (“Yes, Trump with the nuclear codes is terrifying. But the threat of a first strike is a vital deterrent,” editorial, Nov. 18)

Any use of nuclear weapons would have unacceptable humanitarian consequences. You “shudder” to think about this, but promote the president’s ability to threaten first use of nuclear weapons anyway. The International Committee of the Red Cross has categorically stated that no effective humanitarian response would be possible in the event of a nuclear detonation.

Nuclear deterrence is a concept created in the minds of men and followed by those who gamble our collective future. This idea does not “defend the nation,” but rather puts the nation — and indeed all nations — at risk of catastrophic annihilation.

Deterrence will only work up until the moment that it fails. Once it fails, we will only have a moment to regret not taking action when we had the chance.

Rick Wayman, Santa Barbara

The writer is director of programs for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

..

To the editor: The Times’ argument against limiting the president’s authority to launch a nuclear first strike is based on the assumption that the president may have to act in a very short time to use nuclear weapons to protect the U.S. against foreign aggression.

This argument is based entirely on assessments of foreign powers’ military capabilities that have been greatly inflated to justify the procurement of a massive arsenal of weapons.

Removing the president’s first-strike nuclear option does not limit his authority to deploy nuclear weapons defensively. The U.S. has operational detection systems fully capable of giving adequate warning of a nuclear attack for us to retaliate in kind. At the same time, the U.S. has more than sufficient conventional forces to defend against any kind of non-nuclear attack.

The only reason for allowing the president to keep the first strike nuclear option is to intimidate, terrorize and force other nations to comply with U.S. foreign policies. This is not morally justifiable and the president should not have this authority.

W.R. Knight, McLean, Va.

..

To the editor: Current U.S. policy defines the sole purpose of our nuclear weapons as being to deter a nuclear attack. This is in effect a “no first use” policy, and it is completely appropriate in an age of smart bombs and cyber weaponry. It is difficult to imagine any scenario where a first nuclear strike by the U.S. would be appropriate.

The legislation you oppose retains the president’s ability to respond to a nuclear attack without congressional approval, so deterrence is retained.

Regardless of which administration is in power, there is concern that the executive branch has gained too much power in authorizing the use of military force. The proposed legislation seems like a good idea at any time.

Ed Salisbury, Santa Monica

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook