The Rational End of Rational Men

Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable

In 1963, in the heat of the Cold War, President Kennedy gave what I believe was his most important speech. In front of American University’s graduating class, the former President expounded on the importance of peace and de-escalation in an age where the fear of nuclear annihilation was still ever-present. The drums of war were fierce in Washington and in Moscow, as both sought to establish global hegemony. As we enter a needlessly dangerous Cold War against China, it’s important to reflect and remember that the forces for peace will always make more sense than the urge to slaughter. I’ve included excerpts from the speech throughout this piece.

The need for a global movement against the usage of nuclear weapons is more necessary now than it has ever been. The forces that have kept the world from the brink are decaying at a rate far faster than they can be repaired. Nuclear brinkmanship has returned with Russia’s war in Ukraine, which has been met with dangerous rhetoric from members of Congress who wish to wage direct war with Russia. The Trump Administration seems open to leaving the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which would reignite nuclear proliferation across the world. States like Japan, South Korea, and Germany may begin to create their own nuclear arsenals as faith in the United States dwindles.

To say this is “dangerous” is true but too vague. To be clear, we are talking about the end of humanity. A nuclear war means that you will never see the light of modern life if you survive. Your children won’t either. Nor will their children. Nuclear war is damning humanity to a “life” of pure survival and violence, worse than any plague, war, or famine in human history. There will be no safety or security for any human who is unlucky enough not to be incinerated in the bombs. It would be hell in its truest form. There can be no confusion about this. It must be acknowledged that this would be the end of our species. Part of what sparked the advancement of nuclear arms control was the global fear that at any moment you would hear the haunting sirens that signaled our collective end. Nuclear proliferation isn’t the only issue that we need to be concerned about. Russia and the United States still have not signed onto a no-first-use policy regarding their nuclear arsenal, a move that China has agreed to since 1963.

Still, while Biden had seemed open and even favorable to promising a no-first-use policy, he has since backtracked on that. In Russia, nuclear brinkmanship has become the norm, which has led the West to dangerously ignore the warnings of Vladimir Putin, a man they themselves see as an existential and unstable danger to Europe. The Biden administration has repeatedly refused to entertain the prospect of peace in Ukraine, which endangers the lives of innocent Ukrainians and Europe as a whole. The popular sentiment among America's commentating class is that the U.S. isn’t doing enough to help the Ukrainians fight back against the Russians. They clamor for a hot war against Russia that would end in only complete and total disaster for both the Russians and NATO. This must, at all costs, be resisted.

Moving from Europe to Asia, we see similar dangers. The United States is determined to see China as a critical threat to American superiority. We are falling into the exact same trap as during the first Cold War. China does not have to be an enemy of the United States, and it’s, in fact, crucial for a stable global order that the United States and China coexist. China helped back Russia down from its nuclear rhetoric in 2022 and still wields considerable influence with North Korea. They stand to lose just as much as the United States in a nuclear situation, which should provide some hope for an eventual thawing of relations.

This, however, can only happen if U.S. political and military leadership stops seeing China as fundamentally threatening to U.S. dominance. Public sentiment on China must also shift on a more national level. Americans across the political spectrum are buying into the notion that China is a direct challenge to our national security interests. It doesn’t have to be. Both the Democratic and Republican parties seem committed to outdoing each other on China. When Nancy Pelosi visits Taiwan, Trump proposes a 60% base tax on all Chinese goods. There will be no productive end to this cycle of escalation. We will only return to the same level of distrust that the U.S. harbored against the Soviet Union. This distrust, magnified by the issues of climate change and artificial intelligence, will prove considerably more dangerous than the first Cold War. We can only hope that the national rhetoric on China cools in four years.

The word “appeasement” has increasingly been used as a derogatory attack on those who wish to see an urgent end to conflict in Europe. The idea that peace now means war later is completely antithetical to the nature of humanity and the structure of the global order. The same voices that decry negotiations to begin in Ukraine would likely also denounce the mechanisms of peace that kept the world alive during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The pride of war will always trump the conciliation of peace. In order to take the smallest step back from our current geopolitical situation, we must acknowledge that our adversaries also possess the ability to end the world as they wish. A failing Russia or embarrassed China is something that no American should want, regardless of the views of their specific political leadership. Diplomacy must prevail in Ukraine and in Taiwan.

“We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.”

We need, now more than ever, a movement among America’s youth against the use of nuclear weapons. Young people like myself stand to lose the most from a nuclear war. Individually, we are too young to affect substantive change and too old to blissfully ignore our dire straits. Together, however, we can work to achieve the peace that President Kennedy aimed for. Acknowledging our clear and present dangers is not, in any way, succumbing to them. We must accept that we are truly at the brink of extinction and that only together can we protect against the forces of war that will try to take advantage of our national pride. Those who profit from the slaughter and bloodshed of young people across the world will never cease in their complete pursuit of total conflict.

If you’re under the age of fifty, you likely haven’t had to fear the use of nuclear weapons with the same intensity as those in the 1950s and 60s. We have enjoyed the fruits of diplomacy that leaders like President Kennedy helped cultivate. Yet, young people are more likely than any other demographic to approve of the use of nuclear weapons. We have failed in educating our youth on why exactly these menacing weapons can never be underestimated or ignored. If this trend continues, we will only see more nuclear acceptance from the common people, serving to embolden those who wish to use these weapons.

I’m glad to see that the success of movies like ‘Oppenheimer’, books like ‘Nuclear War: A Scenario’, and articles like ‘At The Brink’ have at least somewhat brought the use of these weapons back into the national dialogue. Films like ‘The Day After’ and ‘Threads’ helped instill the average American with a sense of what these weapons can really do. ‘The Day After’ even helped change the mind of President Reagan, who went against his party and entered nuclear arms control talks with the Soviet Union. We need a national discussion about these weapons as we enter into a more turbulent global climate. We cannot wait until the moment of danger is upon us to press for disarmament.

Weapons are created to be used. It is impossible to imagine that another nuclear weapon will never be detonated again. The risk of miscalculation is still far too high to sleep comfortably at night. We went through enough near-misses during the Cold War, and prevailing theories about deterrence are flawed at best. Talk of building an “Iron Dome” over the United States will embolden leaders to believe they are largely safe in a nuclear attack. Mutually Assured Destruction is only a viable theory when both sides believe they are not already destroyed. “Peace through strength” is a failed model of national security still parroted by Reaganites looking at the Cold War through rose-colored glasses. The only permanent solution is total nuclear disarmament through a global body like the United Nations.

It’s hard, personally, for me to believe we will not see another nuclear detonation in the next eighty years. I fervently hope that when the moment comes, we will come together as one species and reject further escalation. We must remain level-headed and free of our desire to extract revenge at the cost of our children and ourselves. When the moment comes, which it will, and our nation descends into nuclear crisis, I can only hope that the President will be as thoughtful as President Kennedy was in 1962. Peace is not the usual state of humankind. For centuries, we have spilt blood for land, families, and egos. To assume that our current peace is guaranteed will only lead us into the final war of our collective existence—a war that will shred each and every one of us.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.