Nuclear War !e Growing !reat of Nuclear War and the Role of the Health Community Ira Helfand Andy Haines Tilman Ru! Hans Kristensen Patricia Lewis Zia Mian !e Growing Risk of Crimea, the European Leadership Net- In this setting prominent leaders on both of Nuclear War work (ELN) documented a large increase sides have expressed alarm about the grow- in incidents involving close encounters ing danger of nuclear war. After the end of the Cold War the in- between nuclear capable NATO and Rus- tense military rivalry between the Soviet sian military forces. A report issued by the Speaking in January, when the Bulletin of Union and the United States/NATO was ELN concluded, “"ese events add up to the Atomic Scientists announced that its replaced by a much more cooperative re- a highly disturbing picture of violations Doomsday Clock would remain at three lationship, and fears of war between the of national airspace, emergency scrambles, minutes to midnight, former US Secre- nuclear superpowers faded. As recently narrowly avoided mid-air collisions, close tary of Defence William Perry stated, “"e as the 2014 US Quadrennial Defence encounters at sea, simulated attack runs danger of a nuclear catastrophe today, in Review, con!ict between the two former and other dangerous actions happening on my judgment is greater that it was during adversaries was not considered a realistic a regular basis over a very wide geographi- the Cold War … and yet our policies sim- possibility [1]. cal area” [3]. Further, both sides have con- ply do not re!ect those dangers” [6]. His ducted large scale military exercises in Eu- assessment was echoed two months later Unfortunately, relations between Rus- rope, leading the ELN to conclude, “Russia by Igor Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister sia and the US/NATO have deteriorated is preparing for a con!ict with NATO, and from 1998 to 2004. Speaking in Brussels dramatically since then. In the Syrian and NATO is preparing for a possible con- on March 18, Ivanov warned that, “"e risk Ukrainian wars, the two have supported op- frontation with Russia” [4]. "e danger of confrontation with the use of nuclear posing sides, raising the possibility of open inherent in this situation is magni#ed by weapons in Europe is higher than in the military con!ict and fears that such con!ict the current Russian military doctrine of 1980’s” [7]. "e increased tensions between could escalate to nuclear war. “nuclear de-escalation”. Rather than seeing the US and Russia have been matched by a nuclear weapons purely as a deterrent to similar escalation in the danger of nuclear Over the past two years, both sides have nuclear attack, this doctrine embraces “the war in South Asia. engaged in nuclear sabre rattling that is idea that, if Russia were faced with a large- reminiscent of the worst periods of the scale conventional attack that exceeded its Since the nuclear weapon tests of May 1998 Cold War. Speaking about the con!ict in capacity for defence, it might respond with by India and then Pakistan, the two states Ukraine in August 2014, Russian Presi- a limited nuclear strike” in order to force have expanded many-fold their respective dent Vladimir Putin warned “it is better the other side to quickly end the con!ict nuclear weapon and #ssile material stock- not to come against Russia as regards a and return to the status quo ante” [5]. US/ piles, and undertaken extensive develop- possible armed con!ict … I want to re- NATO military planning has always envi- ment and testing of a diverse array of ballis- mind you that Russia is one of the most sioned possible #rst use of nuclear weapons tic and cruise missiles (with ranges from 60 powerful nuclear nations” [2]. In the in the face of a Soviet/Russian convention- to 5000 km) to acquire the ability to deploy months following the Russian annexation al attack in Europe. and launch nuclear weapons from the air, 86 Nuclear War from land, and from submarines at sea. "ey In April 2016, at the conclusion of the Nu- and again in 1980 computer errors in the have put in place command and control sys- clear Security Summit, the White House US caused American radar systems to dis- tems and doctrines that involve, in the case Press secretary expressed concern about, play, incorrectly, incoming Soviet missiles of Pakistan, #rst use of nuclear weapons in “the risk that a conventional con!ict be- on their monitors. In September 1983, a con!ict and, in the case of India, massive tween India and Pakistan could escalate to Soviet military radar incorrectly reported retaliatory strikes against population centres include the use of nuclear weapons” [18]. a NATO attack in progress. In November [8–10]. Should Pakistan use nuclear weapons of that year the Soviet leadership incor- against Indian conventional forces in such rectly concluded that a NATO military In May-July 1999, the two countries fought a situation, Indian nuclear doctrine calls for exercise was the cover for an actual attack a war which apparently included mobiliza- massive retaliation directed at Pakistani cit- that was about to be launched. On Janu- tion of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, mak- ies and Pakistan has threatened to respond ary 25, 1995, a full 5 years after the end ing it the most signi#cant military con!ict in kind. of the Cold War, Russian military radar between two nuclear armed states [11]. incorrectly identi#ed a Norwegian Black "ey also went through a major military With Pakistan building ever closer mili- Brant XII rocket launched to study the crisis (December 2001 to June 2002) trig- tary and economic ties to China, and India aurora borealis as a Trident missile aimed gered by an attack on India’s parliament by becoming a strategic partner of the United at Moscow. Islamist militants believed in India to be States, such a future South Asian con!ict backed by Pakistan, which included the two may quickly take on a global dimension In each of these situations preparations for countries moving a combined total of over given the increasingly tense nature of the a counterstrike were initiated and nuclear half a million troops to their border [12]. great power rivalry between China and the war was averted by minutes. "e slow pace of Indian deployment and US [20]. inconclusive outcome of the stand-o% led "e danger of this kind of mistake oc- India’s army to begin planning and train- North Korea has a track record of repeatedly curring again is ampli#ed by current de- ing for a more decisive and rapid conven- threatening the use of nuclear weapons; for #ciencies in Russian radar warning sys- tional attack on Pakistan [13]. Pakistan example, in March 2016 it warned it would tems. Russia has no space-based satellite began testing a short-range truck-mounted make a “pre-emptive and o%ensive nuclear early warning systems to alert them to the mobile missile to deliver low-yield nuclear strike” in response to joint US-South Ko- launch of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles weapons on the battle#eld [14]. "is latter rean military exercises [21]. It is capable of from the ocean, so their warning time development has increased long-standing enriching uranium and producing weapons- could be as short as 10 to 15 minutes. "e international concerns about the security grade plutonium and has deployed short- only way for Russia to guarantee the abil- of nuclear weapons and #ssile materials in and medium-range ballistic missiles as well ity to launch its forces before they are de- Pakistan given the large-scale and frequent as testing long–range missiles [22]. stroyed by a pre-emptive attack would be Islamist militant attacks on military targets to pre-delegate launch authority to #eld in the country and the ideological polariza- commanders. Under these conditions, the tion within the armed forces and broader Unintended Use of time pressure to make a launch decision society associated with the rise of hard-line Nuclear Weapons could greatly increase the chance of an ac- Islamist political groups over the past three cidental launch, especially if a computer decades [15]. While these growing tensions amongst nu- error caused a false warning of attack dur- clear armed states could lead to the deliber- ing a crisis [24]. Recently, military lead- Potential triggers for armed con!ict be- ate use of nuclear weapons, there is also the ers have begun to warn of a new threat tween Pakistan and India include another continuing danger that they could trigger that might cause the unintended launch major attack on India by Islamist militant the unintended or accidental use of these of nuclear weapons: cyberterrorism. In a groups like the one in Mumbai in Novem- weapons. June 2015 speech, retired Marine Gen. ber 2008 that was linked to intelligence James Cartwright, former head of the agencies in Pakistan [16]. A second possible "ere have been at least #ve occasions US Strategic Command, warned that it trigger is the recurring artillery exchanges since 1979 when either Washington or might be possible for terrorists to hack along the line of control in Kashmir, and oc- Moscow prepared to launch nuclear weap- into Russian or American command and casionally the international border between ons in the mistaken belief that the other control systems and launch one or more Pakistan and India, which often claim sig- side had already launched a nuclear attack nuclear missiles, a launch which would ni#cant military and civilian casualties [17]. or was preparing to do so [23].