The initial assessments of Trump’s win have primarily concentrated on the growing disconnect between the working class and an increasingly corporate-driven Democratic Party. Trump and Vance’s platform resonated deeply with those feeling abandoned by the global economy and rising societal inequalities.
Additionally, the ongoing culture wars have been a factor in the analysis. However, beyond these concerns, Trump managed to capture another position typically associated with the Democrats: anti-war sentiment, which undeniably played a role in his victory.
U.S. leadership’s neoconservative approach in recent decades, eagerly continued under Biden’s administration, has brought the world to a perilous state. With Ukraine devastated, the Middle East in greater turmoil than in decades, the Indo-Pacific on the brink of conflict, and the threat of nuclear war higher than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, the situation remains dire.
Vice President Harris’ support for aggressive strategies draws increasing criticism
However, Vice President Kamala Harris’ unwavering support for this aggressive stance, including her praise of America’s military capabilities and alliances with figures like Liz Cheney, has reinforced this war-driven perception.
There is widespread concern in America about the ongoing destruction in Gaza, the spread of conflict beyond Israel and Palestine, and the prolonged war in Ukraine, which many were promised would result in Russia’s defeat. Despite these assurances, there has been a glaring absence of diplomatic efforts to resolve these crises, and the public is increasingly aware of this failure.
The key question remains: can Trump fulfill his promises to pursue diplomacy and swiftly end both conflicts? While striving to save lives in Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, and beyond, can Trump also channel his inner Ronald Reagan to lead the charge in nuclear disarmament, safeguarding not only the U.S. but all of humanity?
Trump often speaks of his love for America, but if that is truly the case, how can he leave the nation vulnerable to nuclear threats not only from Russia and China but also from North Korea? Despite its small size and struggling economy, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and intercontinental missiles could pose a devastating threat to the United States.
The decades-long discourse on nuclear deterrence, combined with vast investments in the development, maintenance, and modernization of nuclear arsenals, has failed to provide a satisfactory answer to a fundamental question: what happens if nuclear deterrence fails? This topic is often avoided, yet the consequences are so catastrophic that they are deemed unthinkable. President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev considered this risk during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy famously responded to his military advisors’ calls for military action, warning, “none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong” if they proceeded with their plans.
In 1986, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev nearly reached an agreement to eliminate U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons, which at the time had peaked at 70,000 warheads—capable of annihilating millions of people. However, the deal faltered when Reagan insisted on testing his Star Wars missile defense system.
Today, despite billions spent, the U.S. only possesses 44 interceptor missiles, with a success rate of just 50% in intercepting incoming threats. These defenses would be ineffective against Russia’s arsenal, particularly when facing the added complexity of decoy warheads.
Public concerns grow over prolonged wars and the lack of diplomatic efforts
Trump has a rare opportunity to abandon not only the Star Wars missile defense system but also the entire nuclear weapons strategy. He could take the bold step of pursuing the nuclear disarmament that Gorbachev proposed and many of Reagan’s advisors recommended.
We have already suggested that President Biden extend an invitation to the winners of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize— the Japanese organization of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Nihon Hidankyo. If Biden does not act, this is an initiative that Trump should champion after assuming office.
This would be a historic opportunity for a U.S. president to engage with Nobel Laureates who bear the painful legacy of America’s nuclear actions. Their testimonies of the suffering caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could provide a crucial moment of reflection, guiding the shift away from the reckless nuclear policies initiated in 1945.
Kennedy and Khrushchev both confronted the terrifying possibility of nuclear war and recoiled from its implications. Khrushchev expressed the shared sentiment when he told peace activist Norman Cousins, “Peace is the most important goal in the world.
If we don’t have peace and the nuclear bombs start to fall, what difference will it make whether we are Communists or Catholics or capitalists or Chinese or Russians or Americans? Who could tell us apart? Who will be left to tell us apart?”
A sincere commitment to nuclear disarmament would be a remarkable achievement for Trump’s presidency, the United States, and the entire world. It would not only secure humanity’s future but also unlock critical resources for the social and economic programs that would benefit many of the people who supported the Trump-Vance ticket.
