During the Cold War years, the United States and the Soviet Union built nuclear bombs. By 1986, the U.S. arsenal included 23,000 such bombs with the Soviet arsenal reaching 40,000. Each of these bombs was, at minimum, several times more powerful than the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1946. The yield of some of the larger bombs was 1,000 times more powerful than the ones used at the end of World War 11.

These national security policies of the two states were insane, morally bankrupt. An all out war between the two countries would have ended human life on the planet. And we came so close!

US government officials during the Cold War claimed we needed such an arsenal to deter the Soviet Union. Nuclear deterrence is achieved when a country can survive a nuclear first strike and retaliate with devastating consequences. These claims by government officials were untrue. Nuclear deterrence can be achieved with one Trident 11 submarine which has enough nuclear firepower to totally destroy twenty-four Russian cities.

The United States nuclear arsenal was designed for war fighting. Our weaponry was organized in such a way as to “decapitate” the Soviet Union with a first strike. Such a strategy meant attacking Soviet command and control centers as well as their missile silos and air bases. In launching the attack, enough weapons were to be held in reserve to threaten Soviet cities if they fought back.

There are three horrible problems with this strategy. First, the Soviets might respond with a launch on warning. The arsenals on both sides were on hair-trigger alert. Second, submarine commanders and those commanding missile sites the U. S. failed to destroy may calculate that their country was destroyed already and retaliate in anger. The result of these first two problems is general war and the end of human life on the planet.

The third problem assumes we succeed. Such an attack would kill hundreds of million people living in Russia, neighboring Europe and China from the blasts themselves, from firestorms resulting from the blasts, and from radiation fallout. Most of the dead would be innocent civilians. I don’t know how any sane person could pull the trigger on such an attack.

Nuclear war fighting was planned to be used to protect Europe from a Russian invasion. Very soon after the invasion, U.S. policy was to counterattack with nuclear weapons. This policy remains in place. The reason for the policy is to save money. Deploying sufficient troops to deter an attack is expensive. The problem with such an approach is that it places the lives of millions of innocent Europeans at risk.

Use of nuclear weapons was threatened against North Korea and China in 1953 in an attempt to end the Korean War. A similar threat was made against China in 1958 in the Quemoy and Matsu crisis, two islands claimed by Taiwan which China threatened to occupy. First use was also threatened against the Soviet Union during the Berlin crisis in 1961, and by Nixon during the Vietnam war. The world was lucky nobody called our bluff.

In a fascinating book on the subject entitled The Doomsday Machine, Daniel Ellsberg points out another scary problem. The idea that only the President can decide to use nuclear weapons is a myth. Beginning with the Eisenhower administration, theater commanders were given the right to initiate the use of nuclear weapons under certain conditions. This policy was put in place to guarantee deterrence in the event Washington was destroyed and theater commanders were unable to receive a Presidential order.

The Soviet Union also had such a policy which came close to producing Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. The Kennedy administration quarantined Cuban waters to prevent further missile related equipment from the Soviet Union reaching the Island. The administration warned the Soviet Union that their four submarines would have to leave the area. An official explained to Moscow that American destroyers would drop hand grenades into the water to signal the subs to surface. The four submarines never received that message. Upon hearing the exploding hand grenades, one sub commander believed he was under attack and that the war had started. Because he was unable to communicate with Moscow, he and the other officer holding the nuclear keys wanted to attack with a nuclear armed torpedo to defend the honor of the Soviet navy. By chance the squadron commander was on board holding a third key, and he refused. That refusal to initiate a nuclear strike saved the world.

Since the end of the Cold War some rationality has returned to this madness. The START 1 treaty, signed by the United States and Russia on July 31, 1991, set a limit of 6,000 nuclear warheads for each side with a limit of 1,600 ICBMs and bombers. The treaty reduced the number of operational strategic warheads by 80%. The New START treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011 following Senate ratification. This treaty limits the number of deployed launchers (ICBM, submarine, and bombers) to 700. A total of 1,550 nuclear warheads can be deployed on these launchers.

Amazingly Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, all prominent members of our national security elite, called for much deeper cuts and the eventual establishment of a nuclear weapons free world. In contrast, President Trump recently called for a one trillion dollar investment in modernizing our nuclear force over a ten year period. His administration will try to sell this reckless policy as important for deterrence, but it’s really about war fighting. Remember: one Trident 11 submarine is all that is necessary for deterrence, and we have fourteen of them. I mention the Trump plan only to suggest that convincing our national security elite and the US Congress to dismantle our nuclear arsenal will not be easy.

The first step in achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons free world is for Christians to recognize this threat as the paramount right to life issue. All Christian groups need to ban together and demand their governments take responsible actions to achieve this goal. The Russian Orthodox church has a close relationship with the Russian government. I am confident they would make responsible partners in this endeavor.

The next step is to get governments to end their first use or war fighting policies. President Obama considered taking such a step, but was strongly opposed by his foreign policy team. Once governments have made such a commitment, they must be encouraged to make significant further reductions to their arsenals so that a first strike is no longer a realistic strategic option. Nuclear arsenals with a hundred warheads or less can only be used for deterrent purposes.

The final step is to create an international agency which will provide second strike deterrence to any state that joins. The agency will most likely be attached to the United Nations in some way. A state could then totally dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal and give over second strike deterrence protection to the international agency. Member states would finance the nuclear force under the agency. The International Atomic Energy Agency would meticulously inspect all member states to insure they were keeping their commitment to remain nuclear weapons free. Cheating would be deterred by the new weapons possessing agency. Once all states join, the genie will be back in the bottle.

If you believe a first strike strategy is morally bankrupt and that fourteen Trident 11 submarines provide more than enough deterrence, the United States can proceed with this program without Russian cooperation. For those of you who say this all sounds nice but it is both naïve and wildly optimistic, here’s the bottom line. Because there are several fingers on the nuclear button, because of the chance of misinterpreting radar signals of a possible incoming attack (launch on warning based on a false alarm) and because of the possibility of a crisis escalating out of control, I fear my grandchildren will at some point during their lifetimes be profoundly disrupted by a nuclear attack. Maybe some or all of those seven precious lives will be ended by such an attack. Do we want to wait for two or more cities to be incinerated before undertaking this process?

Our current national security complex is an expression of debilitating fear and our worst instincts. We need to trust God who is telling us there is a better way and the fourteen Trident 11 submarines that are providing deterrence. Because this threat is the foremost right to life issue we face, Christians must become active on this issue and demand change. American Christianity needs an issue to rekindle the passionate energy of the Old Testament prophets. Returning the nuclear weapons genie to its bottle is that issue and now is the time.