Operation DAWN
The next President of the United States will likely be called upon to decide about engaging in a nuclear conflict. This doesn’t have to be our future.
It’s time to get real, America.
Election Day 2024, November 5, is rapidly approaching, and the reality is that the person who wins will either have an R or a D next to his or her name.
Many Americans support a candidate with an I or a G next to their names.
But these candidates won’t win the White House.
A vote for those candidates is little more than a protest vote.
The time for protest is over.
It is now the time for action.
America is fundamentally divided over who should occupy the White House for the next four years.
If you support the D candidate, you think the R candidate, who previously served as President for four years, was the worst President in American history.
And if you support the R candidate, you think the same about the current D candidate.
The reality is, however, that America survived four years of the R guy.
And so far, we have survived four years of the D guy.
And it is highly likely that we will survive the next four years as well, regardless of who wins.
Unless there is a nuclear war.
Then we all die.
There are many issues confronting America today.
All of them are important.
Most of them divide us.
None are of immediate existential concern.
Nuclear war is an immediate existential threat to our existence.
And yet this issue is not being discussed or debated in the lead-up to the November 5 elections.
As such, no matter who we put in the White House, America will face the real probability of nuclear war during their term in office.
And we all die.
So, the question we all face as Americans is what are we willing to do to prevent this outcome?
What would you do to save Democracy?
What would you do to save America?
What would you do to save the World?
The answer? By making your vote count in November.
Make your vote about the one issue which is literally life and death—preventing a nuclear war by promoting peace.
How?
By pledging your vote to the single issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace.
By avoiding the trap presented by political party or personality.
By declaring that your vote will go to the candidate that best articulates a policy designed to avoid nuclear war and promote peace.
This election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters spread out among several critical battleground states.
If enough Americans commit their vote to the issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace so that they constitute a constituency capable of swinging a state to the candidate that earns their vote by promulgating such a policy, then we have a chance to put someone in the White House who won’t kill us all by getting us involved in a nuclear conflict once he or she is elected.
In 1986, scientists from the Institute of Medicine published a study exploring the potential impact of a nuclear strike on the continental United States.
The study highlighted the most dangerous zones produced by such a strike on a map, indicating areas where radiation exposure would surpass 3,500 rads. “Within this region... more than three-quarters of the population would die,” the study concluded.
“It is our hope,” the authors of the study declared, “that national decision-makers will develop a better understanding of the ‘collateral’ consequences of hypothetical first strikes and of the enormous destructive capacity of the weapons that would survive. That understanding should make them less likely to seek counterforce capabilities or to fear such attacks from the other side.”
In 1987, the US and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a foundational arms control agreement which eliminated entire categories of nuclear missiles and set the stage for even larger reductions in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the respective sides.
Today the INF treaty is no more. The last strategic arms control treaty is set to expire. There are no new arms control negotiations. Both the US and Russia are building new nuclear weapons as part of an arms race that has the world on the cusp of general nuclear war.
The next President of the United States will more than likely be faced with a decision regarding whether or not to enter into a nuclear conflict with Russia.
So, I ask again:
What would you do to save Democracy?
What would you do to save America?
What would you do to save the World?
What would you do to make your vote count in November?
By supporting Operation DAWN, you will have the opportunity to accomplish all these tasks.
Operation DAWN is a nationwide event designed to garner a million-plus pledges by American voters to make preventing nuclear war and promoting peace the single issue upon which they will cast their vote come December.
Join us in Kingston, New York on September 28, at one of our satellite locations throughout America, or online through one of our affiliated podcasts.
Help save your future.
For more information and updates, visit ScottRitter.com.
RFK Jr. has no chance.
You know it.
I know it.
America knows it.
It’s a waste of time and effort to pretend otherwise.
I’m trying to stop a nuclear war.
Not promote a fantasy.
With all due respect and not wishing to be negative, at what point do we consider that electoralism is no longer a viable strategy to effect change?
Just to confine the argument to very recent history: There has been a palace coup in the United States, knowingly enabled by the government, military, media, and oligarchs ("the donor class"). There is no President. There have been no full Cabinet meetings since 3 Oct. 2023. Decisions such as deploying long-range missiles to Germany have been made with no discussion, explanation, or accountability. Things just HAPPEN, seemingly by themselves, and nobody really seems to care all that much.
Why, exactly, do you believe we can simply vote our way out of this morass, and replace our rotting institutions and ruling classes with something that works for peace and the prosperity of the American people? (When, arguably, peace and prosperity haven't been the goal for a very long time, if ever.)
I am all for not blowing up the world, but at the same time the realist position would seem to indicate a deep and irreversible rot in the American experiment that cannot simply be voted away.