Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand On Nuclear Weapons

It’s been an interesting election season so far. From immigration to healthcare, you would be hard pressed to find something on which the candidates from the two major parties agree. But there is one: Both the presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential nominees have stated that the biggest threat to national security is nuclear weapons.

Global Zero, the international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide, agrees and believes voters should have all the information on the candidates as they head to the polls, especially on an issue as critical to our safety as nuclear weapons. That is why Global Zero supporters have spent the past several months questioning the Democratic and Republican candidates on their support for various nuclear weapons-related recommendations along the campaign trail and tracking nuclear weapon mentions in candidate appearances.

Each policy recommendation below serves as a significant commitment to advance President Obama’s goal to ensure the security of a world without nuclear weapons. The candidate’s view is indicated in the graphic by either a “√” (supports the recommendation), an “X” (does not support the recommendation), a “?” (the candidate has not indicated a position on the recommendation), or a “¯\_(ツ)_/¯” (the candidate has spoken on the issue, but his/her positions conflict, or are still unclear).

1. Supports the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide: Global Zero
   There are still over 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today; more than 90% of which are part of the U.S. and Russian arsenals. These weapons do not protect us from current pressing security threats, such as cyber warfare and terrorism, and are unacceptably vulnerable to launch due to accident, false warning, or miscalculation. The only way to protect the world from intentional or unintentional nuclear exchange is to commit to the phased, verified elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide.
2. Supports U.S.-Russia bilateral reductions to 1,000 nuclear weapons each
   The last U.S.-Russian bilateral nuclear reduction treaty — the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) signed in 2010 — limits both countries’ arsenals to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons each, but these levels still far exceed what is necessary for a credible nuclear deterrent. The next president should undertake negotiations for a comprehensive, verifiable bilateral agreement with Russia to limit each side to 1,000 total nuclear weapons (deployed and reserve, strategic and nonstrategic). This would reinvigorate international arms control initiatives while ensuring that the U.S. has the ability to satisfy reasonable requirements of nuclear deterrence even under Cold War-like conditions.
3. Supports removing nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert
   The U.S. and Russia maintain approximately 1,800 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Partnered with the practice of launch on warning — wherein the U.S. is prepared to launch once an incoming nuclear attack is detected but before the missiles arrive — these nuclear missiles are vulnerable to use due to false warning, accident or miscalculation, and pose unnecessary risk to international security.
4. Supports reducing U.S. nuclear weapons spending
   The U.S. is currently on track to spend $1 trillion dollars on modernizing the nuclear weapons arsenal over the next three decades. This is money we do not have for weapons that we do not need. For example, the U.S. plans to spend roughly $30 billion to acquire approximately 1,000 new nuclear cruise missiles — dangerous, outdated weapons that have no stated mission that cannot be covered by other nuclear capabilities and advances in conventional weapons. The next president should re-evaluate and roll back nuclear modernization plans or risk entering into a nuclear arms race for the 21st century.
5. Supports multilateral negotiations for global nuclear weapons reductions
   Diplomacy is the only tool that can bring about global zero. As the U.S. and Russia work to further reduce their nuclear arsenals under a new bilateral agreement (recommendation #2), the remaining nuclear weapons countries should be brought into the process. These countries, especially in South and Northeast Asia, are also at major risk of nuclear weapons use and arms race instability. They need to come to the table to begin discussions on real, time-bound, step-by-step plans to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide.
6. Supports the Iran Nuclear Deal
   Iran has continued to meet its commitments since it signed the nuclear deal with the P-5+1 countries (the U.S., Russia, China, France, Germany and the U.K.) in July 2015. Over the past year, Iran has removed two-thirds of its centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium from 12,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms of uranium enriched to no more than 3.67% (20% is considered “highly-enriched” uranium; 90% or more is considered “weapons-grade” uranium), and filled the core of its heavy-water reactor at Arak with concrete preventing it from being used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. 
   The Iran Nuclear Deal is working. Upending it or attempting to renegotiate would cause massive political ramifications that could damage U.S. standing on the international stage, undermine international diplomatic efforts, and threaten the security of the region. This is one of the biggest diplomatic victories of the 21st century; one the next United States president must stand fully behind.
7. Supports a diplomatic solution to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
   North Korea has continued to defy United Nations resolutions and risk even more sanctions in order to develop its nuclear weapons program, test-launching a number of ballistic missiles, launching a satellite into orbit, and conducting a nuclear test since January of this year. Obviously, our approach is not working. North Korea may be a drop in the bucket when it comes to the number of nuclear weapons in the world, but we need to include the isolated country in nuclear nonproliferation and arms reduction negotiations. By initiating multilateral discussions on global zero and delegitimizing nuclear weapons on the international stage, North Korea will have no choice but to come to the table.
8. Supports safeguard measures to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism
   In 2009, President Obama announced his new nuclear security initiative to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in the world. In 2010, the first of four Nuclear Security Summits was held to promote international cooperation toward this goal. Progress has been made, but the scope of the summits did not go far enough. Civilian plutonium and military fissile material stockpiles — nearly 98% of fissile material — were virtually ignored. The next leader of the United States should continue to build on what President Obama started in order to strengthen global efforts to combat nuclear terrorism and make sure extremists cannot buy, steal, or develop any type of nuclear weapon.
9. Supports continued efforts to prevent the emergence of new nuclear weapons countries
   Admittedly, this was not a recommendation initially included in the early days of the presidential election cycle. However, references presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made to Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia developing nuclear weapons served as a wake up call, making the inclusion of support for preventing new nuclear weapons countries essential. For 70 years, both Democrats and Republicans have worked to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries. The next U.S. president needs to continue this work and take the lead in eliminating nuclear weapons, not encourage more countries to develop them.
10. Supports U.S. adoption of a no-first-use policy.
    A no-first-use policy commits the United States to declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter their use against the U.S. and its allies, taking the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict off the table. Adopting no-first-use is a significant change to the U.S. nuclear doctrine, one that would decrease the role of nuclear weapons in national security, decrease the risk of escalation to nuclear weapon use, reinvigorate the international arms control regimes by reaffirming U.S. commitment to the nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increase pressure on other nuclear weapons countries, such as Russia, to adopt their own no-first-use policies.

Nuclear weapons have been and will continue to be one of the most important foreign policy issues in the 2016 presidential election. While each presumptive nominee has included nuclear weapons issues in their foreign policy speeches, neither has provided a clear, detailed plan on how they will lead the world down the path to global zero.

Global Zero will continue to hold candidates accountable on these issues and continue to update the presumptive nominees’ positions as the race for the next United States president heats up this summer. I hope it can serve as a valuable resource to voters heading to the polls in November. It could be the difference between a safer, more secure world without nuclear weapons and an increasingly unstable world on the brink of nuclear catastrophe.