Red ucing the Dang er of Nuclear W eapons and Prolif eration
Aron M. Bernstein
Physics De pa rtment, La b for Nuclea r Scien ce, Lab for Nuclea r Secu rity and Polic y , MIT
MIT IAP Ja nu ary 28 , 2 01 5
T alk Overview
• Possible pa ths to nu clear war?
• Prol ife rat io n, NPT
• Nuclea r weap on s ab oli tio n?
• Oba ma ’ s record
• O utl oo k
Utili ty of Nucle ar W eapons
Pro
• End ed war in Japa n
• Saved casualt ies in WW2
• Preven ted WW3 be twee n US & USSR
Con
• Not necessar y; were the first step in the cold war
• Needlessly kil led Japanese civi li a ns
• European war was not li kely wi thout nuclear weapons
Nucl ear W eapons Questi ons
• No nuclear war since 1945 – deter rence, nuclear tab oo, l uck, or other reasons?
• Does the possession of nuclear weapons make a country m ore secure?
• Is the pr esent sit uat ion sta ble?
• Is the era of arms contr ol and gradual reduction of nuclear weapons over?
• Should we tr y to abolish nuclear weapons?
– Is it po ss ible?
Scientis ts React to the Bomb
• Lab di sc us si ons org ani ze d
– Ch ica go: Spring 1945
– Us e bomb for demons tra tion, not on cities
– Share se cr et of the bomb
• No s ec ret, no monop ol y , no def ens e, i nte rna tio nal c ont rol req ui red
– One W orld or None
• 194 5: Bu ll eti n o f th e Atomic Sc ie nti st s, Fed era tio n of Americ an Sci ent is ts
– Civilian c ontrol of atomic ener gy
• Ach es on -Li li ent hal pl an (Oppen hei mer): March 194 6
• Baruch pla n
– UN , failure to get agr eement
– co llaps ed by ear ly 1947
Expec tations about the Bomb: 1945
• Atom ic Scient ists (Oppe nh eim e r , Boh r , Fran k, Szila rd)
– It would be s o ter rif yi ng th at a wa r c ou ld be en de d bu t they warn ed tha t its use c ou ld le ad to a nu cle ar arms rac e a nd Armaged don
• Pol iticia ns (Churchi ll, Roosevel t)
– It would be co me a powe rfu l in flu en ce
Expec tations about the Bomb: 1945
• Ato mic Scien tists (Opp en he ime r , Bo h r , Fran k, Szilard)
– It woul d be so terrifying that a war cou ld be ende d but they warne d tha t i ts us e c oul d le ad to a nu cl ear arms rac e a nd Armaged don
• Politician s (Churchill, Roose velt)
– It wou ld be co me a p owerf ul in flu enc e
Neither w as fully corre ct
• I ts coe rcive influe nce ha s be en small
• Posse ssion beca me a stat us symbo l be fore NPT
• Deterrence, abh orrence non - use ( nuclea r tabo o)
Cold W ar
Courtesy of User: Fastfission on Wikipedia. Image is in the public domain .
Elwood H. Smith cartoon about the nuclear arms race has been removed due to copyright restrictions.
T rident II Submarines
• 24 D5 missi les: ~ 4 warheads
• W arhea ds: W76 ( 100 kT ), W88 (300 kT )
– (Hirosh ima: ~15 kT )
• Each sub has ~24x4 = 96 warheads
• Could dest roy tha t many tar get s
• Del ivery time: 15 - 30 m inutes
• T otal explosive power > 10 MT
• T ota l alli ed bombing in WWII : ~3 MT
• US has 14 subs, Engl and has 4 (~1/2 at sea)
11
© Arms Control Today. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq fair-use/.
Pathways to Nuclear Escal ation
• V uln era bil ity: n uclea r weap on s + missiles
• Fe ar
• Relia nce on de terre nce (ho w much is enough?)
Poss ible Pathways to W ar
• Errors/acciden ts, ag gre ss ive de plo yment [la un ch on warn in g] accide nt al la un ch
• Esc ala tio n from conven tio na l war
– Aggr es si ve de pl oy men t (In di a/Pa ki st an ?)
• Rogu e comma nd ers/in sider the ft
• The ft/sal e of fissile mat eria l terro rist bo mb
The Cold W ar Lega cy
“The P residen t o f th e Un ited Sta tes no w for 50 yea rs is followed at all tim es, 24 h ours a d a y , by a mil itary aide carrying a f oo tba ll tha t co nta ins th e n uclea r cod es t ha t he wou ld use an d b e auth orized to use in th e e ven t o f a nu clear a tta ck on th e Un ited Sta tes. He co uld laun ch a kind of de vasta ting att ack t he world’ s ne ver see n. He doe sn’t have to che ck with anybo d y . He doe sn’t have to call th e Co ng ress. He do esn ’t ha ve t o ch eck with th e cou rts. He h as t ha t a uth ority be cau se of the na ture of the world we live in.”
V ice Pre siden t Richard Ch en ey
Launch on W arning: Acc idental Nuclear W ar?
• US an d R ussia ha ve ~ 10 00 missiles on alert stat us
• Deliver y times: ~15/30 minute s, SLBM/ICBM based
• Decision times: ~10 minu tes
• Prob ab ility of error no n - ne gligible (complex systems)
• Each side vulne rable to t he ot he r ’ s syste m
• Russian system less robust
• Each side do es i t be cau se the othe r do es
• Ja n. 20 13 : Defense Sci ence Board w arne d that our comma nd and c ontrol sy stem’ s vulne rabil ity to cy ber attack had not been fully ass ess ed
Nuclear Non -Proliferation T reaty (NPT), 1970
• Limits the sprea d o f n uclea r weap on s
• Curr ently 189 count ries
– 5 wi th n uc le ar we apo ns : US, Rus si a, UK, Fran ce , and Chin a
• Israel, Ind ia, P akista n, and North Kore a (withd rew 200 3) are no t pa rties to the treaty
• Cornersto ne s
1. Non -pro li fera tio n
2. Disarm am ent: Article VI ob liga tes the nuc lea r w eap ons sta tes to w ork on elim ina ting thei r nuc lea r arsenals
3. Righ t to pe ac efu ll y use nu cl ear tec hno lo gy
4. Reviewed eac h fi ve years at UN; May 201 5
1974 NPT treaty ef fectiveness ?
• 5 nuc lear pow er s co mmit ted to dis ar mame nt (n o sc hedu le): US, Ru ss ia, UK, Fran ce , Ch ina
• 4 nuclear stat es outside the treat y : Israel (1967) , Indi a (1974) ,
Pakis tan (1 990) , No rth Korea (2 006)
• A. Q. Khan Networ k, Pakis tan (n ow sh ut dow n)
• W or ries abou t Iran
• 2 cou ntries have giv en up bombs (South Af ric a & Libya)
• Many co untries have given up pr ogr ams: T aiwa n, Sweden , Braz il, Australia, Argentina…
• Nu cle ar ca pable co untries have no we apon s: Ja pan, Sout h Korea, Ger man y , Ca nada …
• Few er co untries have bombs than pr edic ted: JFK wor ried (in 1963 )
that 15 to 25 would hav e them
• Polit ica l n or m is to re noun ce nuc lear we apon s and pr es s the haves to dis ar m!
NPT Problems
• North Korea
– 19 85 : sig ns NP T , resi sts I AE A in spe ction s
– 1994 - 200 2: fr eeze a ctivitie s, “Agreed Framework”
– 200 6: T est 1, ~0.5 kT
– 200 9, 201 3: T ests 2 and 3, few to 10 kT
– Al l tests measu red by C BT BO
• Iran: signed NPT
– En riched activitie s, probl ems wi th IAEA UN resoluti ons, sanctio ns
– 20 13 : “First P ha se Ag reemen t” & fr ee ze
– T oug h neg otiatio ns und er wa y
– Ha rd li ners in I ran, U S pose threat (M ene nde z - Ki rk)
Stormy W eather Predicted:
5- Y ear NPT Revie w , UN, May 2015
• Success ful 20 10 Nuclea r Nonp roli fera tio n T rea ty (NPT) Revie w Con fe ren ce
• Fol low -thro ug h on 22 in terre lat ed disarma men t step consen sus actio n p lan ha s b ee n very disap po int ing
• Decemb er 20 14 , Daryl Kimb all ACA
A N uclear Free W orld?
Obama’ s Prague Speech, April 5 , 2009
• I st ate clearly an d w ith conv ict ion America’ s comm itment to seek the p eace and security of a world without nuclear weap ons.
• This g oal will not be reac hed quick ly – perhaps not in m y lifet ime. It will tak e p atienc e and persis tenc e. But w e must ign ore the voices wh o tell us that the world cannot change.
• As long as thes e weap ons exis t, the U S will ma intain a saf e, secure, and ef fect ive arsenal to deter any a dvers ar y , and guarantee that de fens e to our allies.
Argum ents Against Nuclear W eapons Abolition
• Dange rous: eli mina tes dete rrence
• Sug ge sts wea kness
• Will not de ter Iran , North Kore a, …
• Imp oses imp ossibl e in specti on req uire men ts
• Cannot be ac hie ve d
• Nucle ar wea po ns cann ot be u n-in vent ed
Deterrence
• Preventi ng a d ire ct att ac k on a n uc le ar a rmed powe r
– This has wo rk ed, or at leas t it never has happ ened
• Coerc ive di pl omac y [c han gi ng unwa nte d ac tio ns ]
– This has almos t never wo rk ed: Ru ss ian takeo ver of Eastern Europe , Korean W a r , Ch ines e bomb…
• Enab le s bri nk mans hi p: Pa ki st an/ Ind ia , Berl in c ris is
• Require s s howing “res olve” (cri si s insta bil ity)
• Requ ire s rati ona l and ac cu rate de ci si on m ak ers
• Does no t work aga in st an ac ci den tal us e
• Unli ke ly to wo rk ag ai ns t te rrori st s
Deterrenc e requi res sm all num bers of w eap ons – more lea ds to ins tabi lity (cou ld cau se w ar)
Should W e T ry to Abolish N uclear W eapons?
• The re is no risk f ree world !
• Th e pre sent situa tio n is no t sta bl e: we could be lu ck y for a l on g t ime , b ut we can’t be sure
• Fe wer nu clea r wea po ns in crease safe ty
• Abo liti on is a go al worth working towa rds, even if we do n’t ge t th ere . W e h ave comm itt ed ou rselves in Article VI of th e NPT!
Obama’ s Record
• Raised hopes in Prague speec h
• Ne w Start T reaty
• Improved N uclear Securit y (Summ its )
• T rying to enga ge Russ ia in furt her steps (dif fic ult)
• Nu clear p osture review – only slightly mo dified
• ~100 0 nucl ear w eapons still on launch on wa rning (US, R uss ia)
• North Korea: s trat egic patience (i.e. , neglect the iss ue)
• Mode rnizing nuclear w eapons, delivery sy st ems
Some Reasons f or Optimism
• No nuclear w ar s ince 1945
– De terr en ce, nucl ea r taboo , l uck
• NPT working reasonably well
• CT BO in operation: detect ed ~0.5 kT North Korea n test
• Budget constr aints in Russ ia a nd US may lead to nuclear force reduct ions
• W orld wide disc uss ion of zero nuclear weap ons
• Look for firew orks at U N M ay 2015 NP T review
• Pub li c o pinion cou nts!
Arms Control O rganizations
• Co un cil for a L iva bl e W orl d
– Nuc le a r p h y s ic is t L e o S z il a rd fo u n d e d Cou n c il fo r a L iv a b le Wo rl d in 1 9 6 2 to d e li v e r “t h e s w e e t v o ic e o f re a s o n ” a b o u t n u c le a r w e a p o n s t o C o n g re s s , th e W h it e H o u s e , a n d th e A me ri c a n p u b li c .
– A W a s h in g t o n , DC b a s e d n o n - p ro fi t, n o n - p a rt is a n a d v o c a c y o rg a n iz a ti o n d e d ic a te d to re d u c in g th e d a n g e r o f n u c le a r w e a p o n s a n d in c re a s in g n a ti o n a l s e c u ri t y . Our mis s io n is to a d v o c a te fo r s e n s ib le n a ti o n a l s e c u ri ty p o li c ie s a n d to h e lp e le c t c o n g re s s io n a l c a n d id a te s w h o s u p p o rt th e m.
• T he Arms Co ntro l Orga ni zatio n (ACA)
– F o u n d e d in 1 9 7 1 , is a n a ti o n a l n o n p a rt is a n membe rs h ip o rg a n iz a ti o n d e d ic a te d to p ro mo ti n g p u b li c u n d e rs ta n d in g o f a n d s u p p o rt fo r e f fe c ti v e a rms c o n tr o l p o li c ie s . T h ro u g h it s p u b li c e d u c a ti o n a n d me d ia p ro g ra ms a n d it s ma g a z in e , A rms Con tr o l T o d a y (ACT ) , A CA p ro v id e s p o li c y ma k e rs , th e p re s s , a n d th e in te re s te d p u b li c w it h a u th o ri ta ti v e in fo rma ti o n , a n a ly s is , a n d c o mmen ta ry o n a rms c o n tr o l p ro p o s a ls , n e g o ti a ti o n s a n d a g re e me n ts , a n d re la te d n a ti o n a l s e c u ri ty is s u e s .
• Fed era tion of Ameri can Scie ntists (F AS)
• Pe a ce Actio n : Gras sro o ts pe a ce n e tw o rk
Nucl ear W eapons Questi ons
• No nuclear w ar s ince 1945 – deterrence, nuclear taboo, luck, o r o ther re asons? [all]
• Does the posses sion of nuclear w eapons make a countr y more sec ure? [prob ably no t]
• Is the present sit uation st able? [with luck ]
• Is the era of arms c ontrol and gradual reduct ion of nuclear w eapons ov er? [next few y ears bleak]
• Should we abolish nuclear w eapons [we sho uld try ] and is it possible? [even l ess li kely ]
Conclus ions: Plenty of W ork to do
to Reduce the Danger of Nuclear W ar
• Deal c ons truc tivel y with Ira n a nd North Korea
• T ak e wea pon s of f ha ir -tri gge r al ert
• Rus si a: reso lve bal li st ic miss il e d efe ns e i ss ue, red uc e weap ons to ~10 00 in cl udi ng tact ic al , red uc e st oc kp il e
• Brin g o the r nuc le ar p owers in to d is cu ss io n
– Include India, Pakis tan, and Isra el
• Sec ure nu cl ear materi al
• Fis si le m ateri al cut of f treat y
• Stoc kp il e st eward sh ip pro gra m (maint ai n, not modern iz e)
• Use bu dge t co ns trai nts to i mprove nuc le ar weap ons po li cy
• Spee d e li minat io n o f reti red nu cl ear weap ons
• Pas s the CTBT in the US Sena te
MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu
RES.8-004 Reducing the Danger of Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation
January IAP 201 5
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms .