The Growing Threat of Nuclear War and the Role of the Health Community Ira Helfand Andy Haines Tilman Ruff Hans Kristensen Patricia Lewis Zia Mian The Growing Risk cidents involving close encounters between Speaking in January, when the Bulletin of of Nuclear War nuclear capable NATO and Russian military the Atomic Scientists announced that its forces. A report issued by the ELN conclud- Doomsday Clock would remain at three After the end of the Cold War the intense ed, “These events add up to a highly disturb- minutes to midnight, former US Secre- military rivalry between the Soviet Union ing picture of violations of national airspace, tary of Defence William Perry stated, “The and the United States/NATO was replaced emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided danger of a nuclear catastrophe today, in by a much more cooperative relationship, mid-air collisions, close encounters at sea, my judgment is greater that it was during and fears of war between the nuclear super- simulated attack runs and other dangerous the Cold War … and yet our policies sim- powers faded. As recently as the 2014 US actions happening on a regular basis over a ply do not reflect those dangers” [6]. His Quadrennial Defence Review, conflict be- very wide geographical area” [3]. Further, assessment was echoed two months later tween the two former adversaries was not both sides have conducted large scale mili- by Igor Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister considered a realistic possibility [1]. tary exercises in Europe, leading the ELN to from 1998 to 2004. Speaking in Brussels conclude, “Russia is preparing for a conflict on March 18, Ivanov warned that, “The risk Unfortunately, relations between Rus- with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a of confrontation with the use of nuclear sia and the US/NATO have deteriorated possible confrontation with Russia” [4]. The weapons in Europe is higher than in the dramatically since then. In the Syrian and danger inherent in this situation is magnified 1980’s” [7]. The increased tensions between Ukrainian wars, the two have supported op- by the current Russian military doctrine of the US and Russia have been matched by a posing sides, raising the possibility of open “nuclear de-escalation”. Rather than seeing similar escalation in the danger of nuclear military conflict and fears that such conflict nuclear weapons purely as a deterrent to nu- war in South Asia. could escalate to nuclear war. clear attack, this doctrine embraces “the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale Since the nuclear weapon tests of May 1998 Over the past two years, both sides have en- conventional attack that exceeded its capacity by India and then Pakistan, the two states gaged in nuclear sabre rattling that is remi- for defence, it might respond with a limited have expanded many-fold their respective niscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. nuclear strike” in order to force the other side nuclear weapon and fissile material stock- Speaking about the conflict in Ukraine in to quickly end the conflict and return to the piles, and undertaken extensive develop- August 2014, Russian President Vladimir status quo ante” [5]. US/NATO military plan- ment and testing of a diverse array of ballis- Putin warned “it is better not to come against ning has always envisioned possible first use tic and cruise missiles (with ranges from 60 Russia as regards a possible armed conflict … of nuclear weapons in the face of a Soviet/ to 5000 km) to acquire the ability to deploy I want to remind you that Russia is one of Russian conventional attack in Europe. and launch nuclear weapons from the air, the most powerful nuclear nations” [2]. In the from land, and from submarines at sea. They months following the Russian annexation of In this setting prominent leaders on both have put in place command and control sys- Crimea, the European Leadership Network sides have expressed alarm about the grow- tems and doctrines that involve, in the case (ELN) documented a large increase in in- ing danger of nuclear war. of Pakistan, first use of nuclear weapons in 86 a conflict and, in the case of India, massive tween India and Pakistan could escalate to NATO attack in progress. In November of retaliatory strikes against population centres include the use of nuclear weapons” [18]. that year the Soviet leadership incorrectly [8–10]. Should Pakistan use nuclear weapons concluded that a NATO military exercise against Indian conventional forces in such was the cover for an actual attack that was In May-July 1999, the two countries fought a situation, Indian nuclear doctrine calls for about to be launched. On January 25, 1995, a war which apparently included mobiliza- massive retaliation directed at Pakistani cit- a full 5 years after the end of the Cold War, tion of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, mak- ies and Pakistan has threatened to respond Russian military radar incorrectly identi- ing it the most significant military conflict in kind. fied a Norwegian Black Brant XII rocket between two nuclear armed states [11]. They launched to study the aurora borealis as a also went through a major military crisis With Pakistan building ever closer mili- Trident missile aimed at Moscow. (December 2001 to June 2002) triggered by tary and economic ties to China, and India an attack on India’s parliament by Islamist becoming a strategic partner of the United In each of these situations preparations for a militants believed in India to be backed by States, such a future South Asian conflict counterstrike were initiated and nuclear war Pakistan, which included the two countries may quickly take on a global dimension was averted by minutes. moving a combined total of over half a mil- given the increasingly tense nature of the lion troops to their border [12]. The slow great power rivalry between China and the The danger of this kind of mistake occurring pace of Indian deployment and inconclu- US [20]. North Korea has a track record of again is amplified by current deficiencies in sive outcome of the stand-off led India’s repeatedly threatening the use of nuclear Russian radar warning systems. Russia has army to begin planning and training for a weapons; for example, in March 2016 it no space-based satellite early warning sys- more decisive and rapid conventional attack warned it would make a “pre-emptive and tems to alert them to the launch of nuclear- on Pakistan [13]. Pakistan began testing a offensive nuclear strike” in response to joint armed ballistic missiles from the ocean, so short-range truck-mounted mobile missile US-South Korean military exercises [21]. their warning time could be as short as 10 to deliver low-yield nuclear weapons on the It is capable of enriching uranium and pro- to 15 minutes. The only way for Russia to battlefield [14]. This latter development has ducing weapons-grade plutonium and has guarantee the ability to launch its forces increased long-standing international con- deployed short- and medium-range ballistic before they are destroyed by a pre-emptive cerns about the security of nuclear weapons missiles as well as testing long–range mis- attack would be to pre-delegate launch au- and fissile materials in Pakistan given the siles [22]. thority to field commanders. Under these large-scale and frequent Islamist militant conditions, the time pressure to make a attacks on military targets in the country launch decision could greatly increase the and the ideological polarization within the Unintended Use of chance of an accidental launch, especially if armed forces and broader society associated Nuclear Weapons a computer error caused a false warning of with the rise of hard-line Islamist political attack during a crisis [24]. Recently, military groups over the past three decades [15]. While these growing tensions amongst nu- leaders have begun to warn of a new threat clear armed states could lead to the deliber- that might cause the unintended launch of Potential triggers for armed conflict be- ate use of nuclear weapons, there is also the nuclear weapons: cyberterrorism. In a June tween Pakistan and India include another continuing danger that they could trigger 2015 speech, retired Marine Gen. James major attack on India by Islamist militant the unintended or accidental use of these Cartwright, former head of the US Stra- groups like the one in Mumbai in Novem- weapons. tegic Command, warned that it might be ber 2008 that was linked to intelligence possible for terrorists to hack into Russian agencies in Pakistan [16]. A second possible There have been at least five occasions since or American command and control systems trigger is the recurring artillery exchanges 1979 when either Washington or Mos- and launch one or more nuclear missiles, a along the line of control in Kashmir, and oc- cow prepared to launch nuclear weapons launch which would have a high probability casionally the international border between in the mistaken belief that the other side of triggering a wider nuclear conflict. This Pakistan and India, which often claim sig- had already launched a nuclear attack or danger is intensified by the continued US nificant military and civilian casualties [17]. was preparing to do so [23]. In 1979 and and Russian policy of maintaining their mis- again in 1980 computer errors in the US siles on hair trigger alert, fully prepared for In April 2016, at the conclusion of the Nu- caused American radar systems to display, use and simply awaiting an order to launch clear Security Summit, the White House incorrectly, incoming Soviet missiles on [25]. There is also extensive evidence that Press secretary expressed concern about, their monitors.