To the Editor:
Regarding the article “Trump Drafts Strategy to Prepare for Victory” (June 16, front page):
Resistance to a possible second wave of the Trump administration is crucial: the efforts outlined, from drafting lawsuits to stockpiling abortion pills, highlight the serious threat Donald Trump poses to American democracy.
You quote Joanna Lydgate, CEO of the Center for State-Allied Democracy, who said, “Trump has made it clear he is willing to ignore the law and test the limits of our system.” This is not fear-mongering, but a realistic assessment based on his past actions and current statements.
That a coalition of progressive activists and former Republicans are preparing to resist him indicates a widespread awareness of the danger he poses. The fact that we must prepare for the dictatorial actions of a former president shows how fragile our democracy is.
The preparations underway are not just about countering Trump, but about defending the very principles on which our country was founded.
Arya Rajesh
Plainfield, Illinois
To the Editor:
The pursuit of happiness has become difficult for me. I read the news and feel hopeless. Now, in my 80s, for the first time, I find myself feeling a constant sense of anxiety, depression and loathing. I can barely say the words “Donald Trump” out loud.
But today your journalists have informed me that there are smart people working together to save us from the fearful instincts and bewildering ignorance of those in power and the many who follow them.
This story matters. It brings hope.
Jody Goldberg
Louisville, Kentucky
To the Editor:
I was heartened to read that opponents of Donald Trump were developing contingency plans in case he was re-elected, but it also left me wondering whether anyone was planning how to respond to another major danger: the possibility of post-election violence.
Judging by Trump’s past behavior, if he loses, he will certainly contest the results. And if the election is close, as it probably will be, he will again call on his supporters to “stop the steal.” I worry that this could lead to a repeat of the events of January 6th, but on a much larger scale and not just in Washington DC.
I hope that people in government are thinking about this possibility and how best to respond to it.
Jeffrey Bendix
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
New nuclear threat
To the Editor:
Regarding “Climate-conscious billionaire bets on nuclear power” (news article, June 13):
Your article about Bill Gates’ new nuclear reactor project in Wyoming failed to mention that, contrary to popular belief, the fuel needed for the reactor can be used to make a nuclear bomb.
In an article published this month in Science, we and two co-authors discuss how the US government has known since the 1950s that this type of fuel, called highly assayed, low-enriched uranium (HALEU), could be used in weapons, yet only permitted its export in quantities far below the several hundred kilograms needed for a bomb.
But Gates’ reactor would require tens of tons of this fuel over its lifetime — enough for dozens of weapons — and many other advanced reactors currently proposed for deployment around the world would also require dangerously large amounts of Haleu fuel.
National and international standards to protect Haleu from diversion by nation states and theft by non-state actors have not kept pace with these developments and incorrectly assume that Haleu fuel, even in large quantities, cannot be used in a bomb without being further enriched.
Unless steps are taken to strengthen security requirements at home and abroad, Gates’ reactor and many others could pose significant new threats to international security.
Richard L. Gerwin
Edwin S. Lyman
Frank N. von Hippel
Dr. Gerwin is an IBM Fellow Emeritus and the designer of the first hydrogen bomb. Dr. Lyman is Director of Nuclear Safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. von Hippel is Professor Emeritus of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. All three are physicists.
The dangers of solar geoengineering
To the Editor:
Regarding “Experiments to artificially cool the Earth gain widespread support” (news article, June 11):
The Environmental Defense Fund is reportedly planning to spend millions of dollars to advance research into solar geoengineering. The announcement comes just days after the Alameda, California City Council unanimously voted to cancel the nation’s largest solar geoengineering experiment.
There is perhaps no more dangerous distraction from the urgent effort to reduce fossil fuel emissions than geoengineering, and it should be firmly rejected by environmental groups.
The potential side effects of solar geoengineering are dire: reduced rainfall in the Amazon, further erosion of the ozone layer, and reduced monsoon rains over large swaths of Asia and Africa, potentially causing drought and famine.
Regardless of the type of research the Environmental Defense Fund is proposing, meaningful testing would be neither safe nor humane, except on a very large scale: on a small scale, the effects would be indistinguishable from normal temperature and weather changes.
The belief that humans can control nature for their own purposes without any negative consequences is the very thinking that led us to the current climate crisis. Any step towards solar geoengineering is a step in the wrong direction.
Benjamin Day
Boston
The author is a senior climate and energy justice campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
Gaza protests in Brussels
To the Editor:
Regarding “In Belgium, US student protesters view their strategy as more peaceful” (news article, June 17):
So despite the protests in Gaza, the situation in Brussels has been calm, in part due to “the small Jewish community on campus who have been uncomfortable with some of the protests but have chosen not to confront the protesters.”
That may work for now in their own anti-Israel communities, but it’s an approach that will never work for Jews around the world. The lesson of the Holocaust, and one that still teaches today amid the tsunami of anti-Semitism, is to always speak up.
Nancy Lederman
new york
Tribal whaling
To the Editor:
Regarding “Tribe Wins U.S. Permission to Hunt Gray Whales Off Washington Coast” (news article, June 14):
While the Makah traditions should be respected, the tribe’s right to whale hunting must be weighed against the whales’ right to survival, the right of the majority of us to value and protect the whales’ lives, and the right of society to impose animal welfare standards that traditional harpoon hunting cannot possibly meet.
Remember, the Makah people can choose to evolve their traditions and find other ways to celebrate and commemorate their whaling history.
Karen Dawn
Santa Barbara, California
The author is founder and director of the animal advocacy nonprofit DawnWatch.
