Nuclear Weapons

Nick McGreivy

June 2020

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 1 / 25 Part I: Background

”You have to be an incredible optimist to think that we can keep 14,000 nuclear weapons in fallible human hands and think that something terrible is not going to happen.” -Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

“The panic, the absolute political and economic chaos that would follow such an exchange - there’s no way to prepare for that. The fact that it hasn’t happened in 75 years is largely a matter of luck. The longer we go, the more likely is that our luck will run out.” -Alexandra Bell, CACNP

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 2 / 25 Nuclear weapons kill people in three ways

1. Primary deaths from explosion 2. Secondary deaths from radiation 3. Tertiary deaths from climate change, nuclear winter, and mass starvation

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 3 / 25 Primary Deaths from Explosion

See Nukemap, an easy-to-use website which estimates the number of primary deaths for a given explosion.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 4 / 25 Secondary Deaths from Radiation

Assumes wind is blowing east.

Radiation in low doses, i.e. below 1 rem, is effectively harmless. However, radiation in high doses, above 100 rem, is extremely dangerous. 500 rem is a 50/50 chance of death. Nuclear weapons release enormous amounts of radiation. Source: BEIR-VII report on health effects of radiation.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 5 / 25 Tertiary deaths from climate change and mass starvation

After a nuclear war, smoke from the fires could cover the planet blocking out the sun and making the earth cold and dark. Although climate science is not settled on the effects of a nuclear war, our best estimates suggest that even a small limited nuclear war (most likely between India and Pakistan) would lead to rapid cooling of global temperatures and massive starvation of 1-2 billion people. A major nuclear war would lead to the death of the vast majority of the global population and the end of civilization.

Hiroshima in 1945, destroyed by massive fires after the bombing. Sources: Nature Alan Robock, Professor of Environmental Sciences

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 6 / 25 How many nuclear weapons does the US have?

There are about 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, the US and Russia have 90%. The US nuclear force can roughly be divided into three types of weapons, known as the “nuclear triad”. These are: (1) land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), (2) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and (3) strategic bombers carrying gravity bombs or cruise missiles. Sources: FAS, CACNP Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 7 / 25 Nuclear Triad: Land Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or ICBMs

The US ground-based ICBM (the Minuteman III) is a rocket launched into orbit from IBCM fields in Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

These ICBMs are kept on high-alert, ready to launch within minutes and on warning of an enemy attack. These cannot be called back once launched.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 8 / 25 Nuclear Triad: Air

Planes can either drop gravity bombs or launch jet-powered cruise missiles.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 9 / 25 Nuclear Triad: Sea

From the DOD website: “Ballistic missile submarines serve as an undetectable launch platform for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These submarines are designed for stealth and are on constant patrol, with enough firepower on board to make just one submarine the sixth most powerful nuclear power in the world.”

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 10 / 25 How much does the US spend on nuclear weapons?

Today, we spend about 35 billion USD per year (and rapidly increasing) on nuclear weapons. This money goes primarily to the Department of Energy (DOE) to build the bombs and to the Department of Defense (DOD) to build the planes, submarines, and ground-based launchers. The B2 bombers and B61 gravity bombs cost more than their weight in gold. white The US is beginning a nuclear modernization effort that will cost an additional 1.2 trillion USD (1.7 trillion inflation adjusted) over the next 30 years and dramatically increase the amount of spending on nuclear weapons. Source: ACA, ACA

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 11 / 25 Why do we have a nuclear triad?

According to the Department of Defense: “The purpose of the nuclear triad is to reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all the nation’s nuclear forces in a first-strike attack by retaining a second-strike capability.”

This logic doesn’t hold up. Nuclear submarines alone are sufficient. They are virtually undetectable and contain missiles that can strike any target around the globe, providing both effective deterrence and a second-strike capability. Nuclear Historian Stephen I. Schwartz: “But the triad as we know it was not the result of any sort of systematic plan. It simply evolved as the Air Force and the Navy built weapons in no small measure to deny the budgetary advantage to each other.”

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 12 / 25 A brief history of nuclear weapons

1938: Discovery of fission by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch 1942-1946: Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear weapons 1945: Fission bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1952: First test of Hydrogen Bomb 1950s-1980s: Cold War, nuclear arms race between US and Russia. 1962: Cuban Missile Crisis, in which “the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution.” Kennedy disagreed. 1991: Fall of the Soviet Union 1990s and 2010s: massive reduction of US and Russian nuclear stockpiles after START treaty 2010: New START treaty between US and Russia 2010s-: Stagnation of arms reductions 2015-: Modernization of US arsenal 2015-: Iran Nuclear Deal limiting Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 13 / 25 Theory of Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction Logic from the Cold War The intellectual justification for the theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD) came out of a series of Harvard-MIT faculty seminars from 1958-1966. They developed game-theoretic models of nuclear deterrence assuming rational decision-makers and identified three criteria for stability:

A high stigma against the use of nuclear weapons compared to conventional weapons A second-strike capability, so that either actor can still retaliate against an all-out nuclear attack Prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons outside US/Soviet Union

Getting this right is critical The security of civilization rests upon the theory of deterrence. Deterrence theory is a flawed theory, for many reasons.

Source: The American Approach to Nuclear Arms Control: A Retrospective Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 14 / 25 Nuclear Close Calls

1960: US warning system detected dozens of Soviet missiles launched at the United States, fooled by moonrise over Norway. Fortunately the Soviet leader was in NYC at the time, which led to belief of a possible false alarm. 1961: A bomber carrying two 3 megaton bombs broke up mid-air over Goldsboro, NC. Five of the six safety mechanisms in one of the bombs failed, the single switch which did not fail is the reason we still have North Carolina. 1962: At the height of the the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2 of the 3 Soviet commanders of a Russian submarine agreed to launch a 10kt nuclear weapon at the US navy, which very likely would have triggered a massive war between the US and the Soviet union. Second-in-command Vasily Arkhipov disagreed, his decision “saved the world”. 1968: Bomber carrying four nuclear bombs crashed in Greenland, contaminating area with Plutonium. 1979: A mistakenly inserted training tape led to President Carter being told he had 3-7 minutes to decide whether to retaliate. US ICBMs and bombers prepared for takeoff. The National Emergency Airborne Command Post (the plane designed to allow the U.S. president to maintain control in case of an attack) took off, without the president. After 6-7 minutes, satellite systems determined it was a false alarm. 1983: A Soviet early warning satellite showed that the United States had launched five land-based missiles at the Soviet Union during a period of high tension. Officer Stanislov Petrov, based on an intuition that the US would not fire only five missiles in an attach, disobeyed military orders and proclaimed the warning to be a false alarm. “This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack against the United States and its NATO allies, which would have resulted in an immediate and irrevocable escalation to a full-scale nuclear war.” 1995: Norwegian scientific rocket on a mission to study the aurora borealis triggered Russian full alert and activation of the “nuclear football” by Russian President Boris Yeltzin. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 15 / 25 Part II: Policy

“These policies have impact. You can’t argue that policy matters and then see terrible policy be put into effect and think something terrible isn’t going to happen.” -Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

“The story of nuclear weapons will have an ending, and it is up to us what that ending will be. Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us?” -Beatrice Fihn of ICAN, accepting the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 16 / 25 1. Presidential Sole Authority

President Harry Truman, shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, decided (correctly) that the military should not have the authority to use nuclear weapons, that power was eventually placed in the president himself. Today, the president has the power to launch the entire nuclear arsenal with a single command, ending civilization. So long as the military decides such a launch is not illegal, there are no checks or balances in place to stop them from taking such an action.

Action: First use should require the shared authority of the legislative and executive branches. Congress should pass legislation that requires a declaration of war by Congress that specifically authorizes a nuclear attack before the president can use nuclear weapons. Sources: See Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, also William J. Perry Secretary of Defense under Clinton

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 17 / 25 2. Launch on Warning

See 2 minute video.

US nuclear policy is still heavily influenced by the cold war, when the biggest concern was of a surprise attack by the Soviet Union. This means that nuclear weapons are kept on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch within minutes. Today, the risk of a false nuclear alarm greatly outweighs the risk of a surprise nuclear attack. We should never rush into nuclear war without complete information.

Action: Hair-trigger alert status greatly increases the risk of both accidental nuclear war and rapid escalation and is not necessary for an effective nuclear deterrent. The US should remove it’s nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert status and eliminate the ability of weapons to launch on warning. Sources: Union of Concerned Scientists, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 18 / 25 3. Retirement of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs)

“Retiring ICBMs would solve a number of problems for US nuclear policy. It would reduce the pressure to launch on warning and “use them or lose them”; make US no-first-use policy more credible; and save hundreds of billions of dollars that could be redirected to higher-priority projects. Without first use, ICBMs would have no legitimate purpose. Most of them would be destroyed by a Russian first strike and would be unnecessary in any other scenario. The ICBMs are simply not needed for an effective response, which would be carried out by submarine-based weapons. . . . US plans to spend about $150 billion to build a new generation of ICBMs are not only a waste of taxpayer money, but deploying those weapons would make us less safe. The ICBMs are, at best, extra insurance that we do not need; at worst, they are a nuclear catastrophe waiting to happen.” -William Perry, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Action: ICBMs increase the risk of an accidental nuclear strike, are not necessary for an effective deterrent, and make us less safe. The US should immediately take ICBMs off high alert and retire all ICBMs.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 19 / 25 4. Diplomacy and Arms Control Agreements

The US was the first country to develop atomic weapons, the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and the US is the country best suited for leading negotiations on global arms reductions. Negotiations, communications, and inspections have led to progress in reducing both the number of nuclear weapons and the risk of a nuclear war and nuclear proliferation. The US can and should engage in diplomacy with both our allies and our adversaries to reduce the nuclear threat.

Action: The US needs to continue it’s nuclear agreements and take the lead on significantly reducing the number of nuclear weapons. At a minimum, the US should extend the New START treaty with Russia and re-enter the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). The US should then engage with Russia on additional talks to further reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Source: Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 20 / 25 Part III: Effecting Change

“We like to think of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war as issue zero, because if nuclear war breaks out tomorrow all of our work on other social issues ends, we can’t work on equality, we can’t work on advancing civil rights, we can’t focus on ending racism if all we can focus on is the fact that the world is ending around us.” - Tristan Guyette, Beyond the Bomb

“When I go around and talk to people, particularly younger people, my experience is when they know a little more, they’re actually horrified. They’re horrified by how many weapons their are, the potential for something to go wrong so quickly, but they’re also horrified they didn’t know about it.” -Emma Belcher, MacArthur Foundation

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 21 / 25 Why does the US still have so many nuclear weapons?

1. A belief in deterrence theory and the nuclear triad Many in Washington believe in the importance of our nuclear deterrence and the nuclear triad. From the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review by the US Government: “Given the diverse threats and profound uncertainties of the current and future threat environment, U.S. nuclear forces play the following critical roles in U.S. national security strategy. They contribute to the deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack; assurance of allies and partners; achievement of U.S. objectives if deterrence fails; and capacity to hedge against an uncertain future.” Source: Carnegie Moscow Center

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 22 / 25 Why does the US still have so many nuclear weapons?

2. Special Interests: Defense Contractors and Weapons Jobs “There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the massive US arsenal: It has more to do with the power and profits of this country’s major weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations.” In 2019, there were 681 defense lobbyists. “When traditional lobbying methods don’t get the job done, the industry’s argument of last resort is jobs—in particular, jobs in the states and districts of key members of Congress. This process is aided by the fact that nuclear weapons facilities are spread remarkably widely across the country.” “Another way the nuclear weapons industry (like the rest of the military-industrial complex) tries to control and focus public debate is by funding hawkish, right-wing think tanks.” “The Senate has a little known entity called the ICBM Caucus. The ICBM Caucus is made up of senators from the northern states that contain the majority of the United States’ intercontinental ballistic missile silos. Any attempt to mothball that aging fleet of weapons aimed at Russia is met with flag waving, and stern rebuke. Those efforts at rationality always die in committee.” ”Unnecessary or outmoded defense projects are difficult to get rid of because defense contractors have strategically placed research-and-development jobs, as well as manufacturing plants, in nearly all of the 435 congressional districts.” Sources: The Nation, Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund, and Senator Mike Enzi Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 23 / 25 Why does the US still have so many nuclear weapons?

3. Public Disinterest Because representatives rarely hear from their constituents about nuclear weapons, their stances on nuclear weapons have very little impact on their chances of re-election. This public disinterest allows the defense lobby to act largely unchecked by the public, and reinforces the existing nuclear system.

Key Message If significant and lasting change is to come on nuclear weapons, it has to come through increased public awareness, interest, and visibility.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 24 / 25 How to get involved

Join ICAN, the international campain to abolish nuclear weapons. Get involved with Beyond the Bomb, a grassroots movement to stop nuclear war. Donate to organizations like The Ploughshares Fund which promote the elimination of nuclear weapons and prevent the emergence of new nuclear states. Urge action and increase awareness on social media Write to your elected officials Get informed through podcasts, books, and a Netflix documentary “The Bomb”.

Nick McGreivy Nuclear Weapons June 2020 25 / 25