Inside the Arms Control Association

The risk of nuclear conflict is higher than at any point since the end of the Cold War, and it appears to be growing. Major states are engaged in a qualitative arms race. At the same time the rules, norms, and treaties protecting us from the world’s most dangerous weapons, and against unconstrained nuclear buildups and the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states, are under increasing stress.

Early voting has already begun and millions of American voters will register their choices at the ballot box by November 5. The outcome of the 2024 election will have far-reaching impacts on a wide range of issues, including the growing dangers posed by nuclear weapons.

Since the outset of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s illegal, unprovoked, all-out invasion of Ukraine, the specter of nuclear weapons use has grown. Putin has tried to use nuclear threats to try to coerce and intimidate, and at one point in late-2022 he seriously considered the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.  But Russia’s nuclear arsenal and threats of nuclear first use have failed to prevent Western military assistance to help the people of Ukraine resist Russian aggression.

For the first time in more than 35 years, there is serious talk about increasing the size and diversity of the already massive and costly U.S. nuclear arsenal. Such an expansion would increase global nuclear dangers and reverse decades of progress in slashing U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Mainstream campaign news coverage has paid scant attention to how the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees plan to address one of the most serious threats to U.S. and international security. Given what is at stake, the candidates’ approaches to the nuclear weapons threat deserve more scrutiny.