What Would a Harris Presidency Mean for Nuclear Policy?
The future of U.S. Nuclear Policy is on the table in the 2024 election because the president of the United States has sole authority over the decision to launch nuclear weapons as the Commander in Chief. Proponents of the Trump Administration have advocated for increasing the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons stockpile and encouraging allies like South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons. What would a Harris Presidency mean for Nuclear Policy?
Women protesters at Greenham Commons and women groups who advocated for the treaty on the prohibitions of nuclear weapons may lead people to believe that women are less in support of nuclear weapons. However, a 2017 Stanford survey found that “women are as hawkish as men and, in some scenarios, are even more willing to support the use of nuclear weapons” in order to protect American troops. This isn’t just endemic to public opinion, when it comes to leadership, research has shown that while increasing the ratio of women in the legislature decreased the defense budget, having a women executive resulted in defense budgets raising by 3 percent. According to the study’s model, “using year 2000 spending and GDP data, the presence of a female executive would produce almost a $10.6 billion increase in U.S. defense spending.” This sentiment was reflected in Harris’s speech at the Democratic National Convention: “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world. And I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their service and their sacrifice.” In the speech, she also said how she would be tougher than former President Trump on dictators like Kim Jong Un.
Harris has seemed to recognize the existential threat of nuclear war, responding to a question from a student in 2019, and saying “This president [Donald Trump], because he likes to sound tough as opposed to what my mother says — ‘It’s not about how you sound, it’s about how you act.’ — pulls us out of that [Iran Nuclear Deal], exposing us to great harm.” However, the current Biden-Harris Administration has continued nuclear modernization under the Sentinel program, and passed the National Defense Authorization Act, ordering the US Air Force to reduce the time it takes to upload ICBMs.
With regard to policy perspectives, some could argue there are gendered differences. Radiation from nuclear weapons fallout results in higher cases of cancer in females than males. Additionally, women face the brunt of psychological trauma from nuclear weapons attack. Because of these factors, scholars have noted the importance of including gendered analysis factors to nuclear weapons attack.
Increasing women in leadership roles is important for gender parity and bringing in new perspectives, but it does not guarantee peace. Kamala Harris’s lived experience as a woman and daughter of immigrant parents may lead her to pursue more empathetic humanitarian policies or diplomatic arms control solutions, but it does not guarantee it.
For a longer analysis on this issue, you can read more here.
This report outlines a framework relying on “Cooperative Technical Means” for effective arms control verification based on remote sensing, avoiding on-site inspections but maintaining a level of transparency that allows for immediate detection of changes in nuclear posture or a significant build-up above agreed limits.
The grant comes from the Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY) to investigate, alongside The British American Security Information Council (BASIC), the associated impact on nuclear stability.
Satellite imagery of RAF Lakenheath reveals new construction of a security perimeter around ten protective aircraft shelters in the designated nuclear area, the latest measure in a series of upgrades as the base prepares for the ability to store U.S. nuclear weapons.
It will take consistent leadership and action to navigate the complex dangers in the region and to avoid what many analysts considered to be an increasingly possible outcome, a nuclear conflict in East Asia.