Why Aren't Harris And Trump Talking About Nuclear Weapons?

The threat is real and at times the call is coming from inside our own house

By Shaghayegh Chris Rostampour

The stakes in any U.S. elections are high, but when it comes to nuclear weapons, they are existential.

American voters deserve to know how their future policymakers and practitioners would address threats posed by the world’s deadliest weapons. The United States possesses more nuclear weapons than any country except Russia. The cost of maintaining and modernizing this colossal nuclear arsenal has been estimated to be a massive $756 billion over the next decade, and this estimate grows by millions yearly.

Experts have asked many questions related to the presidential candidates’ nuclear policies, and how they plan to deal with external threats; all these questions remain unanswered. When it comes to nuclear weapons, however, the American public’s security has always been threatened, more immediately by the development, maintenance, testing, and modernization of the country’s own nuclear weapons.

The reality is that U.S. nuclear weapons have harmed American communities throughout history and the question is whether the main two political presidential platforms have acknowledged and addressed these issues and what measures would either of the candidates take to put an end to these threats and fulfill the United States’ long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament.

The American nuclear enterprise: A legacy of harm

The story of U.S. nuclear weapons harm to American people begins with uranium mining. Starting in the early 20th century, much of this took place on Navajo land, and continued for decades, leaving a toxic legacy that continues to affect the health of Indigenous communities to date. Thousands of abandoned uranium mines remain scattered across the American West, continuously leaching radiation into the soil and water, and causing devastating health effects like cancer and kidney disease for those living nearby.