In June 1963, less than a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly brought the United States and Soviet Union to nuclear war, President John F. Kennedy spoke at American University on what he called “the most important topic on earth.”
That topic was peace.
Kennedy could have emphasized, like his predecessors, that peace was only possible through military might. He could have painted a picture of how he and the U.S. government had maintained global peace through the growing U.S. nuclear arsenal. He could have boasted about fending off nuclear Armageddon by leveraging military strength to force the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear weapons. President Kennedy likewise could have continued to frame the antagonism between the Soviet Union and the United States as a fight between righteousness and “evil.” But he didn’t.
Instead, Kennedy called on his audience to reject nuclear war as inevitable and to “reexamine” their attitudes toward the Soviet Union. Kennedy, critically, argued that peace must be built and maintained by “many nations.” Even if the Soviet Union did not share the same sentiments, he suggested, the United States could help move toward peace.
Kennedy facilitated important changes in U.S.-Soviet relations. Less than two months later, the two nations and Great Britain signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited weapons testing in the atmosphere and in the water. The signatories agreed to work toward ending the arms race and, ultimately, complete disarmament.
The treaty didn’t succeed—but that doesn’t mean it didn’t matter. Kennedy’s efforts showed how bitter rivals could nevertheless work toward a common goal. Though he wouldn’t live to see them, future diplomatic efforts enabled even the most ideologically opposed regimes to build institutions that constrained humanity’s worst impulses. We saw the adoption of multiple constraints on the world’s most formidable weapons.
Today, we’re moving in the opposite direction. In 2022 Russia may have been very close to using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. China has doubled its nuclear capacity in the last decade, while North Korea has similarly expanded its nuclear-weapons program. The U.S. is projected to spend some $946 billion on modernizing and maintaining its arsenal. Together, the nuclear-armed states spent an estimated $100 billion on their weapons in 2024, or $190,151 a minute.
Agreements and norms have broken down. In 2019 the United States and Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty. On February 5, 2026, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expired, removing the last legally binding agreement on strategic nuclear weapons.
Despite some friendly visits, U.S. officials have framed geopolitical rivals—China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela—as a new “axis of evil” or “evil communist bastards.” Many others levied similar allegations.
President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth, and others portray diplomacy as “weakness” or “appeasement.” These ideas are not only backward but also reflect weakness.
Kennedy’s appeal for diplomacy—for peace—wasn’t naïveté or “softness” toward hostile states. He did not deny Soviet aggression or the Kremlin’s push to expand its power. He was not a pacifist.
Rather, Kennedy called for U.S. leaders and citizens to be better people. He recognized that true progress toward peace—and true leadership—required more than a reliance on more and bigger weapons. It required that we speak to and understand our adversaries. It required us to understand the goals and fears of our rivals, as well as our own, and not just write off an entire people as evil.
Fighting is easy. Diplomacy is hard.
The failure to maintain and expand arms control does not prove the world is “more dangerous” or more divided. Despite contemporary rhetoric, the “enemies” of the United States are not irredeemable monsters. They are human beings.
As we consider what comes next, we can look not only to Kennedy’s speech, but also to his actions. Peace is not some abstract concept. It is a responsibility. The message Kennedy offered 63 years ago remains true today. In a time of dissolved treaties and increased nuclear armament, we must remember that war is not our destiny. The projection of dominance above all else isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice.
Many have said that diplomacy without force is weakness. The real question, however, is this: can we ever be truly safe without diplomacy?
To President Kennedy, the answer was no. We should adopt a similar mindset.
Abigail R. Hall is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and a professor of economics at the University of Tampa. She is the coauthor of How to Run Wars: A Confidential Playbook for the National Security Elite