We cannot back-burner concerns about nuclear war

To The Daily Sun,

The Union of Concerned Scientists ran a full-page newspaper ad / question for our presidential candidates, asking, “Where do you stand on nuclear weapons?” signed by 28 thoughtful New Hampshire people. It takes me back to 1980s activism when Barry Bruce Briggs of (then) Brookings Institute sat at a seminar table with some of us, in Hanover, and left us with two (at least) revelations about nuclear war. 1) We can’t assume it was the Russians if the U.S. were suddenly attacked — the first task would be to learn who actually did it, in a situation of total chaos; 2) A missile could be aimed at Boston but hit Manchester. Maybe “accuracy” is improved now — but who knows? We don’t want to find out.

Carl Sagan said: “The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.” Math may pass for an element of control, with nuclear weapons — we have this many; they have that many. It doesn’t in any way alter nuclear weapons’ destructive force to be able to count them.

I taught English at Mascoma High School when the TV movie “The Day After” aired. Kansas City was focused on, with missiles incoming and outgoing. Our high school principal forbade next-day discussion of the movie, but all the students were talking about it.

Here’s something from Ronald Reagan on this topic: “Our moral imperative is to work with all our powers for that day when the children of the world grow up without the fear of nuclear war.” Very sweet to hear, in these days of vaping calamity and high school shootings and teen suicides — but we too easily back-burner our concern for nuclear-war annihilation.

Thank you to UCS for running their ad and asking this question, now, with 2020 elections upon us. The ad ends: our children and grandchildren are counting on us. Oh, yes.

Lynn Rudmin Chong

Sanbornton