To the Editor:
Re “Trump Resisters Draft Playbook in Case He Wins” (front page, June 16):
The resistance to a potential second Trump administration is crucial. The efforts outlined, from drafting lawsuits to stockpiling abortion medication, highlight the severe threat that Donald Trump poses to American democracy.
You quote Joanna Lydgate, the chief executive of States United Democracy Center, as saying, “Trump has made clear that he’ll disregard the law and test the limits of our system.” That is not fear-mongering; it’s a realistic assessment based on his past actions and current rhetoric.
The coalition of progressive activists and former Republicans preparing to resist him shows the widespread recognition of the danger he represents. The fact that we must prepare for the possible authoritarian actions of a former president shows how fragile our democracy is.
The preparations being made are not just about opposing Mr. Trump; they are about defending the very principles upon which our nation was founded.
Aarya Rajesh
Plainfield, Ill.
To the Editor:
The pursuit of happiness has become challenging for me. I read the news and feel hopeless. Now in my 80s, I see in myself for the first time ongoing anxiety, depression and repulsion. I can barely say out loud the words “Donald Trump.”
But today your journalists brought to my attention that we have bright people working together to save us from some awful instincts and the bewildering ignorance of a powerful man followed by a powerful number of people.
This story is important. It brings hope.
Jodie Goldberg
Louisville, Ky.
To the Editor:
I was heartened to read about the contingency planning among Donald Trump opponents in the event that he is elected again. But it also caused me to wonder if anyone is planning for how to respond to another great danger — the prospect of widespread violence following the election.
Based on his past behavior we can be sure that Mr. Trump will contest the outcome if he loses. And if the election is close, as seems likely, it’s a good bet that he will again call on his supporters to “stop the steal.” I fear that will result in another Jan. 6, only on a more massive scale and not just in Washington, D.C.
I hope that people in government are thinking about this possibility, and how best to respond to it.
Jeffrey Bendix
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
A New Nuclear Threat
To the Editor:
Re “Climate-Minded Billionaire Makes a Bet on Nuclear Power” (news article, June 13):
Your article about Bill Gates’s new nuclear reactor project in Wyoming did not mention that, contrary to widespread belief, the fuel the reactor requires can be used to make nuclear bombs.
In an article published this month in the journal Science, we and two additional co-authors discuss how the U.S. government has known since the 1950s that this type of fuel, called high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), is weapon-usable, but has allowed it to be exported in quantities limited to well below the hundreds of kilograms needed for a bomb.
Mr. Gates’s reactor, however, will require tens of tons of this fuel over its lifetime — enough for dozens of weapons. Many other new reactor types currently proposed for global deployment also would require dangerously large quantities of HALEU fuel.
Domestic and international standards for protecting HALEU from diversion by states or theft by nonstate actors have not kept pace with these developments and incorrectly assume that HALEU fuel — even in large quantities — cannot be used for bombs without further enrichment.
If steps are not taken to strengthen security requirements at home and abroad, Mr. Gates’s reactor and many others could bring grave new threats to international security.
Richard L. Garwin
Edwin S. Lyman
Frank N. von Hippel
Dr. Garwin is an I.B.M. fellow emeritus and designer of the first hydrogen bomb. Dr. Lyman is director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. von Hippel is professor emeritus of public and international affairs at Princeton University. All three men are physicists.
The Dangers of Solar Geoengineering
To the Editor:
Re “Experiments to Artificially Cool the Earth Are Getting a Major Backer” (news article, June 11):
You report that the Environmental Defense Fund is planning to spend millions to advance research on solar geoengineering. The announcement came mere days after the City Council in Alameda, Calif., voted unanimously to shut down the largest solar geoengineering experiment in the country.
There could not be a more dangerous distraction from the urgent work of reducing fossil fuel emissions than geoengineering; the environmental community should reject it outright.
The potential side effects of solar geoengineering technologies are terrifying. For example, they could cut rainfall to the Amazon, further erode the ozone layer, and reduce monsoon rains over large portions of Asia and Africa, leading to drought and famine.
Regardless of the kind of research that the Environmental Defense Fund is proposing, meaningful testing is possible only at a very large scale, which is neither safe nor humane. On a small scale, impacts are indistinguishable from normal temperature and weather variations.
The belief that humans can control nature for our own ends without consequences is exactly the type of thinking that led humanity to the current climate crisis. Any step toward solar geoengineering is a step in the wrong direction.
Benjamin Day
Boston
The writer is senior climate and energy justice campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
Gaza Protests in Brussels
To the Editor:
Re “In Belgium, a More Peaceful Take on the U.S. Student Protest Playbook” (news article, June 17):
So things in Brussels are calm despite the Gaza protests, in part because of “a tiny campus Jewish community that has chosen not to confront protesters despite discomfort over some of the protests.”
That may work for now in the anti-Israel community where they live, but it is emphatically not the method for Jews worldwide. The lesson learned from the Holocaust and the lesson still being taught in the present-day tsunami of antisemitism is to speak up, always.
Nancy Lederman
New York
A Tribe’s Whale Hunt
To the Editor:
Re “Tribe Wins U.S. Consent to Hunt Gray Whales Off Washington Coast” (news article, June 14):
While the Makah traditions should be respected, the tribe’s right to hunt whales must be weighed against the whales’ right to live, the right of most of us to treasure and protect their lives, and the right of society to impose animal welfare standards, which it seems unlikely the traditional harpoon hunt can meet.
Let’s remember that the Makah can choose to let their tradition evolve and find a different way to celebrate, or commemorate, their history of hunting whales.
Karen Dawn
Santa Barbara, Calif.
The writer is the founder and director of DawnWatch, an animal advocacy nonprofit.