SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear proliferation
The Doomsday Clock Is the Call to Action We Need Right Now
Nuclear weapons make us less, not more, safe, and it’s time to stop playing a no-win game of chicken and enact common-sense nuclear policies before time runs out.
Feb 10, 2020
This year, the "Doomsday Clock" has been set to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest to doomsday it's ever been. Although some argue that it's time to ditch the Doomsday Clock, it's actually the urgent call to action we need right now.
Scientists and health professionals, including members of my organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility, are sounding the alarm on heightened global threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, because human health and survival is at stake.
That's precisely what President and CEO of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) Rachel Bronson emphasized in her remarks explaining why the clock was set so close to the proverbial midnight. Bronson also pointed out the dangers of "undermining" the voices of collective science. It's been nearly 75 years since scientists first set the symbolic clock, and this August marks the 75th anniversary of the only instances in history when atomic weapons were used in an act of war.
We can't afford to let history repeat itself. The Doomsday Clock was already set at just two minutes to midnight in in 2018 and 2019, the same setting as during the height of the Cold War. Yet world leaders have continued to run headlong toward disaster, undermining critical multilateral arms control agreements to prevent potential nuclear conflict and global efforts to tackle the climate crisis before it's too late.
"By undermining cooperative science and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, leaders have helped create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe sooner rather than later, " Bronson warned.
Former Governor of California and BAS board member Jerry Brown, said, "People will say '(the clock is) not serious'. Well, the moment is serious. Tell me, how else can we tell people where we're at? How else can we wake up the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, millionaires, billionaires, the media owners, who carry on their life as though they are on the Titanic about to hit an iceberg, and they're not worried?"
I am only twenty-five years old, and my generation does not deserve to inherit a world on the brink of global catastrophe. I'm fighting to end nuclear proliferation, and I'm far from alone. Most people recognize that the climate crisis a top issues among young voters, but recent polling shows more than half of millennials fear a nuclear attack in the next decade.
The United States can and must once again show leadership in multilateral efforts to de-escalate tensions and pull us back from the brink of nuclear conflict. Nuclear weapons make us less, not more, safe, and it's time to stop playing a no-win game of chicken and enact common-sense nuclear policies before time runs out. The United States should reenter the Iran Deal, extend New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia), prohibit the deployment of so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons designed specifically to be "more usable," and establish that it is the official policy of the United States not to start a nuclear war.
Right now, any sitting U.S. President has the sole authority to unilaterally order a nuclear strike. That puts all our health and safety in jeopardy. Let the Doomsday Clock serve as our hourglass. It's 100 seconds to midnight, and we're up against a tight deadline to defuse the crisis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Says: No Bones About It, Our Biggest Threat is Climate Change
Candidate's response to Democratic debate question echoes the concern of majority of people worldwide
Oct 14, 2015
When asked during the Democratic debate Tuesday night to name the most significant national security threat facing the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders did not hesitate to answer: "The global crisis of climate change."
"The scientific community is telling us: if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be inhabitable," Sanders said. "That is a major crisis."
Highlighting their more establishment--and hawkish--perspectives, his Democratic rivals responded with more 'on the ground' threats: current frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed to nuclear proliferation; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, named the turmoil in the Middle East; former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said a nuclear Iran; and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb mentioned China, cyber warfare, and the Middle East.
However, the Independent senator from Vermont's response most closely echoed the concern of a majority of people worldwide, particularly those in the global south, where communities are most at risk from the impacts of global warming. U.S. military leaders, as well as President Barack Obama, have also identified global warming as an "immediate risk to our national security"--which viewers Monday evening were quick to note:
\u201cGreatest national security threat? #Climate change. Just ask some Generals. #DemDebate\u201d— David Turnbull (@David Turnbull) 1444786848
\u201cMilitary leaders agree with @BernieSanders on #climatechange being national security threat https://t.co/4cqreOwXGf #DemDebate\u201d— Jane \u201cGo Vote\u201d Kleeb (@Jane \u201cGo Vote\u201d Kleeb) 1444787450
Overall, environmentalists and progressives were thrilled to see the threat of climate change given due attention.
\u201cI think @BernieSanders is exactly right--biggest threat to natl sec. is climate change. And he's been leading the charge for a long time now\u201d— Bill McKibben (@Bill McKibben) 1444787286
\u201cThank you @BernieSanders for giving the big picture view: Earth's climate crisis is the biggest threat. #DebatewithBernie #DemDebate\u201d— NationalNursesUnited (@NationalNursesUnited) 1444787065
\u201cGreatest global threat? Climate change says Bernie. Crowd at @Neumos erupts in cheers, including us! #DemDebate #DebateWithBernie\u201d— Kshama Solidarity Campaign (@Kshama Solidarity Campaign) 1444786955
Meanwhile, those on the other side of the political spectrum had their take on the matter.
\u201cThey believe climate change is a greater threat than Islamic extremism, that a sunburn is worse than a beheading. It's nonsense! #DemDebate\u201d— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@Gov. Mike Huckabee) 1444784456
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Nuclear Near-Miss in '95 Would Be a Disaster Today
Jan 25, 2015
ON JAN. 25, 1995 -- 20 years ago today -- the launch of a lone scientific rocket from a small island off the northwest coast of Norway set off Russia's nuclear attack early warning system.
As the rocket took off, it initially passed above the horizon of the curved earth into the field of view of Russian radar. After the motor shut down, the rocket then coasted to higher altitudes -- into the middle of the major attack corridor between the US intercontinental ballistic missile fields at Grand Forks, N.D., and Moscow. Unknown to the scientists who launched it, one of the rocket's stages finished its powered flight at an altitude and speed comparable to that expected from a Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile. This combination of events exactly fit the template of an attack scenario under which nuclear weapons are intentionally exploded at high altitudes so as to blind early warning radars before a major bombardment of Russian nuclear forces.
The most immediate explanation for what went wrong that day appears to be serious shortfalls in the Russians' detection apparatus. But the underlying root cause stems from Russian paranoia. Fears created and bolstered by the relentless, obsessive -- and ongoing -- American nuclear force modernization program. This initiative was, and remains today, heavily focused on increasing the killing power of each deployed US nuclear warhead, producing and reaffirming concerns by Russian military analysts and leaders that the United States might truly be preparing to fight and win a nuclear war against Russia.
What happened after these initially ambiguous events has been a source of extensive speculation in the West. Fortunately, political tensions between Russia and the United States and Europe at the time of the incident were very low, but it is known that the alarm caused Russia's then leader, Boris Yeltsin, to be called and kept closely informed by the Russian military leadership while the rocket was tracked until it reached and passed its maximum altitude of 1,400 kilometers.
Today the situation is far more dangerous.
Had the false alert of 1995 occurred instead during a political crisis, Russian nuclear forces might have been launched. American early warning systems would have immediately detected the launch, and this might then have led to the immediate launch of US forces in response to the Russian launch.
That is because the Russians had no choice but to assume that blinding its early warning triggers would be an American tactic to conceal a much larger flight of warheads that would have not yet risen above the radar horizon -- but would have been launched earlier by Trident submarines in the north Atlantic Ocean. According to the "theory" of nuclear war-fighting, the chaos and confusion that could accompany the blinding attack might then be exploited to destroy vulnerable land-based Russian forces before they could be launched. This particular theory of war, of course, does not include any credible evaluation of how the strikes and counterstrikes following these initial events would end the world as we know it.
If Russia's space-based early warning had been working, Russian military leaders would have immediately been able to see over the earth's horizon from satellites high in space that there was no indication of any launches from Trident subs in the north Atlantic. They would have also seen no activity in the Gulf of Alaska, where the Pacific Trident fleet was on patrol.
As it turns out, Russia at that time did have some satellite observation of the Grand Forks fields, but it did not have operating ground-based radars that could detect incoming missiles from Tridents in either the Atlantic or Pacific. In short, Russia had no way to know if it was actually under attack, or if the lone rising rocket was simply a coincidence.
In the different political circumstances of 2015, the same cautious assessment of the rocket's trajectory by Russia's political and military leaders might not be possible. Russia has annexed Crimea, interfered in eastern Ukraine, and embarked on a major modernization of its conventional forces. The United States and NATO have responded with sanctions, which, together with the precipitous fall in the price of oil, are destabilizing the Russian economy and threatening President Vladimir Putin's popularity.
Russia has responded by canceling the groundbreaking 1991 "cooperative threat reduction" program, the Globe reported last week, which has substantially improved dialogue to prevent nuclear proliferation as well as increased safety and transparency standards with regard to the handling and dismantling of nuclear weapons. This action has been accompanied by a sharp escalation in Russian military and submarine operations, further raising the chances of unwanted incidents that would exacerbate tensions even more.
On top of this, the relentless modernization of US nuclear forces continues unabated.
The current situation has become so dire that only four days ago the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decreased the time to Armageddon on their doomsday clock from five minutes to three minutes.
One positive development that will make us all safer is that Russia will shortly no longer have holes in its network of early warning radars. Yet efforts to modernize the large and expensive network of ground-based radars has been accompanied by a decision to abandon the current space-based satellite early warning system. So even with this vital new radar early warning system, without the benefit of space-based assistance, Moscow could still have no more than six to seven minutes warning of a Trident submarine attack. That small window of time is inadequate for reflection, assessment, and decision-making. This dangerous shortfall could greatly increase the chances of unrecoverable accidents involving the central strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States.
What's more, in addition to the important technical questions, one giant nontechnical question remains open -- will Russian's current difficulties lead Putin to take other unwise but nationalistic actions? His recent major speeches show a deep resentment of what he takes to be an American insistence on dominating everything. But they also suggest a readiness to discuss all disagreements.
Both sides need to be very careful. While the United States cannot control what the Russians do, it can act so as to make foolish decisions on their part -- and on ours -- less likely. Three ways to achieve this end are worthy of consideration.
First, NATO's military capabilities should be carefully strengthened so as to increase its ability to deter, not provoke, further negative Russian actions. In particular, the current Russian conventional force modernization should not be allowed to produce forces superior to those of NATO. This will require significantly greater commitments in funds by the European powers.
Second, the United States should rein in its senseless and dangerous nuclear force modernization efforts. This program creates the appearance that the United States is preparing to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia. The nuclear deterrent on hand, with minor modifications, is already more than enough.
And finally, Russia should have access to specialized satellite sensor technologies. Both the Americans and the Europeans have this technology and could supply it, helping to correct this dangerous shortfall by equaling the nuclear playing field.
Such measures could easily be taken without any risk of transferring sensitive technical information about how to fabricate such sensors and might well increase our chances of surviving future dangerous early warning mishaps.
Those we can expect to occur with certainty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular