President Trump spoke at the U.N. General Assembly and asked the audience whether he should deal with Iran or not. His words were far closer to the threat of annihilation than any American president has offered in decades. Trump’s speech contrasted sharply with how past presidents have talked about nuclear weapons, choosing instead a style of oratory that has not been heard from the White House in generations.
Trump said: “Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic… Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” Those words were delivered in public, and they were not the first time he has spoken that way.
Truman’s Warning
The last time an American president spoke that way to the public was August 6, 1945, when President Harry Truman announced the United States had dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. The bomb instantly killed an estimated 70,000 people. Some 40,000 more died days later in Nagasaki. Tens of thousands more died from radiation illnesses in the days, weeks, months and years thereafter.
Truman called the attack “a harnessing of the basic power of the universe.” He added caution about “protecting the world from the danger of sudden destruction.” No nuclear weapons have been used in war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That speech set the tone for how American presidents would talk about nuclear war for the next seven decades.
Reagan’s Promise
President Ronald Reagan said, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Truman spoke of the bomb as a fact of war, a tool that had been harnessed and now had to be protected against. Reagan spoke of the bomb as a threat to humanity, something that could never be won and must never be fought.
President John F. Kennedy told Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis that the United States would not risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war, because even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth.
Kennedy spoke of nuclear war as a defeat, not a victory. The fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth. That is a very different way of talking about the bomb than Truman’s, which was about harnessing power and protecting the world from sudden destruction.
Ford’s Warnings
President Gerald Ford told the U.N. General Assembly in 1974 that a stark reality had tempered America’s actions for decades and must temper the actions of all nations. Prevention of full-scale warfare in the nuclear age had become everybody’s responsibility. Today’s regional conflict must not become tomorrow’s world disaster.
Ford spoke of nuclear war as a disaster, not a victory. He said it must not happen, and that it was everybody’s responsibility to stop it. That is a very different way of talking about the bomb than Truman’s, which was about harnessing power and protecting the world from sudden destruction.
Obama at Hiroshima
President Obama visited the Peace Park in Hiroshima in 2017 and said that among those nations like his own that hold nuclear stockpiles, they must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.
Obama spoke of nuclear weapons as a burden, not a tool. He said the logic of fear must be escaped, and that the world must pursue a world without them. That is a very different way of talking about the bomb than Truman’s, which was about harnessing power and protecting the world from sudden destruction.
A New Tone
Trump’s words were not the first time he has spoken that way. They were, however, the most public and direct expression of that kind of rhetoric from a sitting president in recent memory.
Trump’s words felt especially forbidding from a leader who can command armies to march and missiles to fly. That is a fair reading. Trump’s words were not the first time he has spoken that way, but they were the most public and direct.
Comparison of Presidents’ Words
| President | Nuclear Statement |
|---|---|
| Truman | “A harnessing of the basic power of the universe” |
| Reagan | “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” |
| Kennedy | We will not risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war |
| Ford | Prevention of full-scale warfare is everybody’s responsibility |
| Obama | Escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them |
| Trump | Annihilate the Islamic Republic… Drive them into hell |
The facts are on the table. Truman spoke of the bomb as a harnessing of power. Reagan spoke of it as a war that cannot be won. Kennedy spoke of it as a victory whose fruits would be ashes. Ford spoke of it as a disaster. Obama spoke of it as a burden.
Trump spoke of it as a choice between annihilation and hell.
The comparison piece’s own assessment is that Trump’s words felt especially forbidding from a leader who can command armies to march and missiles to fly. That is a fair reading. Trump’s words were not the first time he has spoken that way, but they were the most public and direct.
The comparison piece’s own assessment is that Trump’s words felt especially forbidding from a leader who can command armies to march and missiles to fly.
Key Facts Box
– Hiroshima bomb killed an estimated 70,000 people instantly
– Nagasaki saw some 40,000 deaths days later
– Tens of thousands more died from radiation illnesses in days, weeks, months and years thereafter
– No nuclear weapons have been used in war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki
– Truman spoke August 6, 1945
– Obama visited Hiroshima Peace Park in 2017
Where the paper stands
The paper backs diplomacy over war and deals over standoffs, and is against the kind of threat of annihilation that Trump has now made toward Iran. Trump’s words were far closer to the threat of annihilation than any American president has offered in decades. That is a fair reading.
The paper’s position is to focus at home, and keep the channels open for trade, diplomacy and compromise. It is sceptical of foreign entanglements and of trade wars alike, and backs the deal over the standoff. Trump’s words moved away from that approach toward a style of oratory that has not been heard from the White House in generations.
What the reader should watch for is the difference between speaking of nuclear power as a tool to be protected and speaking of it as a choice between annihilation and hell. The paper supports leaders who speak of the dangers of nuclear war in terms of prevention, disaster, and shared responsibility — not in terms of driving enemies into hell.
Source material: “OPINION: Trump's U.N. speech, a stark contrast with past presidents,” NPR.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.