Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear war

  • Sisyphus with Bombs: A Modern Myth

    Sisyphus with Bombs: A Modern Myth

    Each day from dawn to dusk Sisyphus strained under his load of heavy bombs as he struggled up the mountain. It was slavish, back-breaking work. He sweated and groaned as he inched his way toward the top of the mountain.

    Always, before he reached the top, the bombs were taken from him and loaded onto bomber aircraft. Sisyphus would stand and wipe his brow as he watched the planes take off into the darkening sky on their way to destroy yet more peasant villages somewhere far away.

    Sisyphus believed that he was condemned by fate to carry the bombs up the mountain each day of his life. Since he never reached the top, each sunrise he began anew his arduous and debilitating task.

    Strangely, Sisyphus was happy in his work, as were those who loaded the bombs onto the planes and those who dropped the bombs on peasant villages. As Sisyphus often repeated, “It is a job and it fills my days.”

    Sisyphus with bombs contributes his labors to the war system, as so many of us do. Let us work to disarm Sisyphus and give him back his rock. Our reward will be saving peasant villages and their inhabitants from destruction and the world from annihilation. By our efforts, we may even save ourselves. It is the Sisyphean task of our time.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Stopping a Nuclear War in South Asia

    Stopping a Nuclear War in South Asia

    Two nuclear-armed countries stand on the brink of war and the world seems paralyzed as it watches events unfolding in what seems like slow motion. It is a war that could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust taking millions or tens of millions of lives, and virtually nothing is being done to end the standoff. The US and the UK have advised their citizens to leave the region and the UN is pulling out the families of UN workers in the region, but the UN Security Council has not yet even put the matter on its agenda let alone put forward any constructive solution.

    The US has sent its Secretary of Defense to the region, but has lifted sanctions on the sale of military equipment to both countries that it imposed after they conducted nuclear tests in 1998. At the same time, the US continues to demonstrate its own reliance on nuclear weaponry, announcing on June 1st that it will resume production of plutonium “pits” used to trigger nuclear warheads.

    Here is what Indian novelist Arundhati Roy has to say about the situation:

    “Terrorists have the power to trigger nuclear war. Non-violence is treated with contempt. Displacement, dispossession, starvation, poverty, disease, these are all just funny comic strip items now. Meanwhile, emissaries of the coalition against terror come and go preaching restraint. Tony Blair arrives to preach peace and on the side, to sell weapons to both India and Pakistan. The last question every visiting journalist asks me: ‘Are you writing another book?’

    “That question mocks me. Another book? Right now when it looks as though all the music, the art, the architecture, the literature, the whole of human civilization means nothing to the monsters who run the world. What kind of book should I write? For now, just for now, for just a while pointlessness is my biggest enemy. That’s what nuclear bombs do, whether they’re used or not. They violate everything that is humane, they alter the meaning of life.

    “Why do we tolerate them? Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the entire human race?”

    Arundhati Roy is absolutely right. It is because we tolerate these men and their dangerous, inhumane and genocidal policies whether they be in the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India or Pakistan — that nuclear war is possible and increasingly likely.

    But what should we do now, while these men remain in control of the future of the fate of the people of India, Pakistan and the rest of the world? Here are a few modest suggestions:

    Call for the UN Security Council to take charge of the situation as a matter of highest priority, require Indian and Pakistani forces to stand down their nuclear forces, move back from their front line positions, interpose UN Peacekeeping forces between them and require mediated talks between the leaders of the two countries.

    Call for the permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to immediately cancel the sale and delivery of all military equipment to both India and Pakistan.

    To deal with the continuing dangers of nuclear war, so easy to visualize in the India-Pakistan standoff, we should also call for all nuclear weapons states to immediately commence good faith negotiations for the elimination of all nuclear weapons as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Court of Justice.

    Forty years ago, the world stood by helplessly as the US and former Soviet Union almost stumbled into nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We obviously failed to learn the lesson then that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be left in the hands of any military force. Now we run the risk that acts of terrorists in the Kashmir conflict could trigger a war in South Asia that could quickly escalate to nuclear war. Similar conditions exist in the Middle East.

    The potential for war in South Asia must be defused now before it erupts into large-scale conflict that could go nuclear. But it is not enough to only defuse the present crisis. The world must also become deadly serious about putting away forever these dangerous instruments of annihilation and genocide, before these instruments become seriously and massively deadly in wars that no one can truly desire or in the hands of terrorists.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • India and Pakistan: A Crisis That Can Not Be Ignored

    India and Pakistan are moving dangerously toward war. On 22 May, Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee told troops “to be ready for sacrifice…It’s time to fight a decisive battle.” The Pakistani government responded by saying they would use “full force” if India is to strike. The greatest concern not only to the region, but to the world is whether or not either country will resort to using nuclear weapons in order to “win” a war.

    Tensions have been mounting between South Asian nuclear rivals India and Pakistan, particularly since the 13 December terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament. On 12 January, Pakistani President General Musharraf made a landmark speech condemning terrorism, promising internal reform and calling for a peaceful resolution with India over the disputed Kashmir region–the issue at the center of the standoff between the two nations. However, in India’s view, Musharraf has done substantively little to stop Islamic militants and Indian officials have charged Musharraf with continuing to support them.

    Statements from India and Pakistan in the past few months have indicated that both countries are willing to fight a nuclear war, should one side attack the other with a nuclear weapon. Pakistan has gone so far as to state that it is prepared to counter any attack from India. Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf stated on 6 January, “If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan’s armed forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared to face all consequences with all their might.” On 30 December 2001, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes stated, “We could take a strike, survive and then hit back. Pakistan would be finished.”

    In a move viewed by Pakistan as a provocative gesture in the region, India conducted a test of a new version of its nuclear-capable medium-range Agni missile on 25 January. After India test-fired the Agni missile, General Musharraf made an offer to work with India for the de-nuclearization of South Asia. India rejected the proposal saying that without global disarmament, the denuclearization of South Asia is meaningless.

    Although the actual numbers of nuclear weapons in each arsenal are unknown, it is estimated that India has some 65 nuclear weapons and Pakistan has some 24-48 nuclear weapons. There are serious concerns about the military and intelligence infrastructures of both countries. Admiral L. Ramdas, retired Chief of the Indian Navy, stated earlier this year, “India and Pakistan lack effective command, control, communication and intelligence systems. When these infrastructures are not there, it makes the whole system more sensitive, accident-prone, and therefore dangerous. Global zero alert would be a major step towards providing a de facto security guarantee.”

    Both India and Pakistan must show restraint and resolve the current crisis before the conflict escalates any further, making the use of nuclear weapons in a war between the two countries even more likely. Neither country will win a war in which nuclear weapons are used. The situation in India and Pakistan evidences that the use, let alone the existence, of nuclear weapons is completely irrational because they do the exactly the opposite of what they purport to do. Nuclear weapons do not provide security. Neither India, nor Pakistan, nor anyone in this world is more secure because of the existence of nuclear weapons. In fact, at this moment India, Pakistan and indeed the whole world sit on the precipice of nuclear annihilation. It is time for global leadership, particularly from the nuclear weapons states, to rid the planet of these completely irrational weapons.

    More Resources on Nuclear South Asia

    Statements from Admiral L. Ramdas are available online at http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramdas2.html.

    “Pakistan’s Nuclear Forces 2001” from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is now available in the January/February 2002 of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/jf02nukenote.html

    “India’s Nuclear Forces 2001” from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is now available in the January/February 2002 of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ma02nukenote.html

  • No Launch On Warning

    Ploughshares working paper 02-1

    Preface by Ernie Regehr:

    Any post-Cold War temptation to complacency in the pursuit of nuclear weapons prohibition or abolition should quickly give way to a sobering sense of urgency on reading Alan Phillips’ account of nuclear arsenals poised for launching within minutes of an order to do so. And the fact that such an order could (in some instances almost has) come in response to a false warning of attack only serves to add a sense of the macabre to the urgency. It’s not that Dr. Phillips’ account is alarmist; quite the opposite. Through careful analysis he concludes that a clear policy rejecting launch-on-warning is logical, possible, and necessary to dramatically reduce the risk of inadvertent nuclear war. Nuclear weapons abolition remains an urgent goal that must be pursued as a longer-term objective. But until nuclear disarmament is a reality, it is critically important that nuclear weapon states be persuaded to take all possible measures to reduce nuclear dangers – and prominent among these dangers is the possibility of nuclear attacks being precipitated by a false warning of attack. Policies to preclude launch-on-warning would yield immediate benefits by reducing the risk of inadvertent war, and would also help pave the way toward more extensive de-alerting measures to make launch-on-warning impossible. We commend to nuclear disarmament NGOs and advocates both the analysis and the policy proposal advanced here by Dr. Phillips. His is an important contribution that clearly sets out an issue of immediate concern and a credible and achievable policy response. This study will help the nuclear disarmament community explore ways in which support for a policy of no launch-on-warning can become part of our ongoing efforts toward complete and irreversible nuclear disarmament.
    ———————

    1. Introduction
    2. Definition of Launch on Warning
    3. The Emergence of a Launch on Warning Policy
    4. The Danger of Inadvertent Nuclear War from False Warnings or Chance Coincidences
    5. Distinguishing Between De-Alerting and NO L-o-W
    6. Exploring the NO L-o-W Posture
    7. The Effect on Deterrence
    8. De-Alerting: Methods, Benefits and Difficulties
    9. Conclusion
    1. Introduction

    This paper argues for abandoning the policy of “Launch on Warning” (L-o-W). The discussion is based on the simplifying assumption of a one-against-one nuclear stand-off between the US and Russia, with the stability in that stand-off based on nuclear deterrence. The assumption is appropriate because L-o-W is only relevant between adversaries that regard themselves as mutually vulnerable to a “disarming first strike,” rather than, say, to a surprise attack on cities. It is those two countries, and probably only those two, that now follow a policy, or retain the option, of L-o-W. In the present relationship between the two countries an intentionally started nuclear war is extremely improbable. There is, however, the risk of an unintended war starting from one cause or another, and under the policy of L-o-W the likeliest cause is a false warning.

    The prevention of any nuclear war is of very great importance. Prevention of nuclear war between Russia and the US is vital for the future of the world because both countries retain such large arsenals that if they should go to war the result would be much more extensive than complete destruction of both countries. Radioactivity, and smoke from the many firestorms, would severely affect at least the whole of the northern hemisphere. Nuclear winter, widespread starvation, and other consequences might even combine to exterminate the human species. To risk such a disaster happening because of a mere accident to a man-made system is absurd.

    While the claim that long-term stability can be assured through nuclear deterrence must be rejected, deterrence remains the central basis upon which arms control discussions, and agreements, between the governments and military establishments of the US and Russia take place. Nuclear deterrence is assumed for the present discussion because the focus here is on changing just one feature in the two States’ military posture. It is argued that the change to a policy of “NO L-o-W” is a logical necessity and is readily possible; it is urgently needed, and it does not require any immediate change in the assumptions upon which current policy is based, whether these are valid or not. The change can and should be made immediately. It can be initiated unilaterally, without causing relative strategic advantage or disadvantage to either side. It does not require formal agreement, nor verification.

    The change from L-o-W to NO L-o-W is financially neutral, not requiring substantial expense, nor yielding significant savings. It does not require physical changes to the weapons systems.
    2. Definition of Launch on Warning

    The term “Launch on Warning” is used here in reference to retaliation with rocket-mounted nuclear weapons to a perceived nuclear attack. A L-o-W capacity is one that would make it possible to launch a retaliatory attack in response to a warning (by radar or satellite sensors) of attacking missiles, before any incoming warhead had arrived and detonated. This allows the option of L-o-W, which permits a decision, within the few minutes available between the warning and the predicted time of first impact, on whether or not to launch a response before impact. A L-o-W policy is one in which it would be standard procedure for a retaliatory launch to be actively considered and probably carried out before the first impact, though in the American case only after authorization by the President, assuming he could be consulted within the short time available.

    The term “Launch under Attack” has been used less precisely by US Strategic Command and in Congress, possibly sometimes with the intention of causing confusion. It is commonly presented as meaning the prompt launch of retaliation as soon as one or more incoming nuclear weapons have detonated. However, in the late 1970’s it was included in the dictionary of military terms by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and explained as “execution by National Command Authorities of Single Integrated Operational Plan Forces subsequent to tactical warning of strategic nuclear attack against the United States and prior to first impact.”1 This definition is identical to L-o-W. But at times military personnel have said their policy is not L-o-W, but “launch under attack”, implying that there is a difference, and that retaliation would be launched only after impact or detonation. An alternative distinction has sometimes been implied: that L-o-W means to launch on a warning from one system (radar or satellite) alone, and “launch under attack” means launching retaliation before detonation, but only if the warning is confirmed by a second system.2 In any event, both Russia and the US have launch on warning capacity, and thus must be assumed to maintain a L-o-W policy3 or, at the very least, a policy of considering the option of L-o-W.
    3. The Emergence of a Launch on Warning Policy

    The avowed function of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles is “deterrence”. Deterrence is in theory achieved when a potential attacker is convinced that an attack will be unavoidably followed by retaliation so devastating that it would be irrational to attack in the first place.

    As the accuracy of nuclear weapons advanced, it was realized that a massive pre-emptive salvo directed at command and control systems and retaliatory weapons could diminish or eliminate a capacity to retaliate. If either side believed it could achieve such a “disarming first strike”, it might be tempted to attack.

    To avoid this weakening of deterrence through the pre-emptive destruction of an adversary’s retaliatory forces, both sides explored the possibility of launching retaliation before the first impact of a pre-emptive strike – thus “Launch On Warning”. It was probably put into effect as soon as such a quick launch became possible, the development of solid fuel as rocket propellant (around 1960) being a decisive factor.

    During atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the early 1950’s the electrical phenomenon called “Electro-Magnetic Pulse” (EMP) was discovered.4 Around 1960 the US conducted a series of high-altitude nuclear explosions to investigate it, incidentally causing significant disruption of radio communications each time. The purpose was presumably two-fold: to explore the possibility that the phenomenon could be used by either side to enable a disarming first strike, and to study methods of protecting their own electronic equipment so that deterrence would be maintained even if the enemy was planning to use EMP. This possibility that electrical disruptions might prevent retaliation provided a second reason to adopt L-o-W.

    As early as 1960 the propriety and morality of adopting L-o-W was being discussed because of the recognized danger of launching on a false warning, and so starting an unintended nuclear war.5 In that year the Planning Board wrote that it was “essential” to avoid the possibility of launching unrecallable missiles based on a false warning. They stressed the importance of a “reliable bomb alarm system to provide early positive information of actual missile hits.”6 Such a system was in fact installed. It was not without defects, and at least once these caused a spurious alert.7 In 1962, Robert McNamara said that as long as he was Secretary of Defense and Jack Kennedy was President, the US would never launch on warning.8 But the same year, the Secretary of the Air Force must have been thinking of L-o-W when he informed Kennedy that once the Minuteman missiles had been deployed in the first complex, in their “normal alert status”, all “twenty missiles will be able to be launched in thirty seconds.”9

    A discussion in 1969 is on record as showing that some who were opposing “Ballistic Missile Defense” favoured L-o-W, but The White House is said to have opposed it “on the grounds that 50% of warnings from Over-the-Horizon Radar were false”.10 (No true warning of a nuclear ballistic missile attack has ever been received, so presumably the other 50% were true observations of test rocket launches.) However the newly developed satellite early warning system was estimated to produce only one false warning per year, which appears to have been regarded as acceptable. Georgy Arbatov, a Soviet deterrence specialist who had joined the National Security Council, assured Council members that “neither side would wait if it received warning of an attack but instead … would simply empty its silos by launching a counter-strike at once.”11 That reduces concern about failure of deterrence against a surprise first strike, but underlines the danger from a false warning.

    It is probable that by 1969 L-o-W was the military policy on both sides, and had been for a number of years, notwithstanding the record that in 1973 Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird expressed the hope that “that kind of strategy would never be adopted by any Administration or by any Congress.”12 The recollections of former officers and enlisted men of Strategic Air Command (SAC) from the early 1970’s confirm that L-o-W was in effect then.13

    The capability, and presumably the policy, of L-o-W are retained by the US and Russia, even though the Cold War is regarded as over. This seems inexcusably dangerous.
    4. The Danger of Inadvertent Nuclear War from False Warnings or Chance Coincidences

    Launch on Warning has kept the world exposed, for at least 30 years, to the danger of a nuclear war caused by nothing but a coincidence of radar, sensor, or computer glitches, and a temporary failure of human alertness to appreciate that an unexpected message of attack from the warning system is false, the enemy having done nothing. There is at most 20 minutes for the human operators and commanders to call and conduct a “threat conference”, while the chief of Strategic Command is put in touch with the President to advise him, and the President decides whether to order retaliation. The disaster of an accidental nuclear war has not happened yet, in spite of a large number of false warnings of which at least a few have had very dangerous features. This is a credit to the care and alertness of the military in both Russia and the US. It should not be taken as reassurance. A single instance of launch of nuclear weapons on a false warning would result in nuclear war, and the end of civilization, just as surely as a nuclear war started by an actual attack. There would be no chance to review the system to make it safer after one failure of that kind.

    The threat conferences require, and so far have achieved, the extraordinary standard of perfect accuracy. They have not been rare events. Probably most of them have been routine and it was easy to exclude a real attack; others have been serious enough that the silo lids were rolled back. To get an idea of how the laws of chance apply to the situation, suppose we make a very conservative assumption: that just one conference a year had a risk of error as high as 1% (and that the rest had a much lower risk). It is a simple calculation to show that taking one 1% risk of disaster per year for 30 years results in a 26% probability of one actual disaster in that period. On that assumption, then, we had approximately 3 to 1 odds in favour of surviving the period 1970 – 2000, and we did survive. But that means, from the risk of accidental war alone, we had (on that assumption) a one in four chance of not surviving. A single trial of Russian roulette is safer: it gives a one in six chance of death, or 5 to 1 odds in favour of surviving.14

    During the Cold War, many mishaps within the nuclear retaliation system on the US side are known to have occurred, including false warnings. There must have also been many similar incidents on the Russian side. One has been reported in which a Russian officer decided on his own initiative not to report an apparently grave warning on his computer screen, on the correct belief that it was a false warning. He may have saved the world, but was disgraced for failing to follow his orders; his career was ruined, and he suffered a mental breakdown.15

    In a study of rival theories of accident probabilities, Scott Sagan described a large number of errors and accidents within the US nuclear deterrence system. He concluded that the risk of nuclear war from accidents had not been excessive.16 I came to the opposite conclusion from his data. I have collected 20 instances of mishaps, from that source and others, which with less alertness among military officers, or accompanied by chance by some coincidental problem, might have started a nuclear war.17

    One example of a situation which was difficult to assess correctly at the Command Center, was this: On the night of 24 November, 1961, all communication links between SAC HQ and NORAD went dead, and so cut SAC HQ off from the three Ballistic Missile Early Warning Sites, at Thule (Greenland), Clear (Alaska), and Fylingdales (England).18 For General Power at SAC HQ, there were two possible explanations: either enemy action, or the coincidental failure of all the communication systems, which had multiple ostensibly independent routes including commercial telephone circuits. The SAC bases in the US were therefore alerted by a code message instructing B-52 nuclear bomber crews to prepare to take off, and start their engines, but not to take off without further orders. In the hope of clarifying the situation, radio contact was made with an orbiting B-52 on airborne alert which was near Thule (5,000 kilometers away) at the time. Its crew contacted the Thule base and could report that no attack had taken place, so the alert was cancelled. The reason for the “coincidental” failure was that the “independent” routes for telephone and telegraph between NORAD and SAC HQ all ran through one relay station in Colorado. At that relay station a small fire had interrupted all the lines.19

    There was a coincidental mishap during this event, which could have been disastrous. It seems there was an error in transmitting the alert code to 380th Bomb Wing at Plattsburg, New York. A former aircraft maintenance technician who was serving at that B-52 bomber base, recently told the author his vivid recollection of the incident. The code order first received by the bomber crews was “alpha”, instructing them to take off and proceed directly to their pre-assigned targets, and bomb. They had never received that code before. Before any bomber had taken off the code was corrected to “cocoa”, meaning “wait with engines running”. If the corrected code had not been received in time it could have been very difficult to stop the bombers.

    The episode just described took place before L-o-W was instituted for the ICBMs that were in service. By 1979 the policy of L-o-W was in effect and in that year, on the morning of 9 November, a war games tape was running on a reserve computer when failure of the operational computer automatically switched in the reserve to take its place. The Threat Conference saw the picture of a massive attack in a realistic trajectory from Russian launch sites. On that occasion, preparation to retaliate got as far as launch of the president’s National Emergency Airborne Command Post (though without the president), before the error was discovered.

    The most recent example known to the public was on 25 January 1995 when, as described in a report of the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “the Russian missile early warning system detected a scientific rocket launched off the coast of Norway. This area is frequented by U.S. submarines, whose ballistic missiles could scatter eight nuclear warheads over Moscow within fifteen minutes. Norway had informed the Russian Foreign Ministry about the upcoming launch, but this information had not been transmitted to the military. Over the next several minutes President Yeltsin was informed of the possible American attack, and, for the first time ever, his ‘nuclear briefcase’ was switched into alert mode for emergency use, allowing him to order a full Russian nuclear response. Tension mounted as the rocket separated into several stages, but the crisis ended after about eight minutes (just a few minutes before the procedural deadline to respond to an impending nuclear attack) when it became clear that the rocket was headed out to sea and would not pose a threat to Russia.”20
    5. Distinguishing Between De-Alerting and NO L-o-W

    “De-alerting” is a term commonly used in suggestions and recommendations that nuclear weapons should be taken off “hair-trigger alert” by introducing physical changes to impose an unavoidable delay between a decision to launch and the irrevocable step that actually starts the launch. With such a delay L-o-W would of course be impossible; but it is possible and highly desirable to abandon the policy of L-o-W immediately, without waiting for the changes involved in introducing such a delay.

    Several reports to governments have indicated the importance of abandoning a hair-trigger stance with weapons of such terrible destructive power. Most of them, however, have not distinguished between terms like “high alert” or “hair-trigger alert”, which usually imply the technical ability to “launch on warning”, and the policy or option actually to launch before any incoming warhead explodes.

    The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was established by the Australian government in 1995. Its mandate was to recommend practical steps towards elimination of nuclear weapons from the world. Its report states:
    “The first requirement for movement towards a nuclear weapon free world is for the five nuclear weapon states to commit themselves unequivoc-ally to proceed with all deliberate speed to a world without nuclear weapons …”.21
    It then defines six additional immediate steps starting with these two:
    o taking nuclear forces off alert, and
    o removal of warheads from delivery vehicles.

    The Canberra report emphasizes the danger of launch on warning or launch-under-attack options, implying that they are different, but it does not indicate that giving up either option can be different from “taking nuclear forces off alert.” It goes on to say that “taking nuclear forces off alert could be verified by national technical means and nuclear weapon state inspection arrangements. In the first instance, reductions in alert status could be adopted by the nuclear weapon states unilaterally.” The report does not make the point that, if nuclear deterrence is to remain the policy, it is acceptable to abandon L-o-W unilaterally but unacceptable to de-alert unilaterally.

    Similarly, the Report of the Canadian Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century, discusses in a general way the need for both Russia and the United States to reduce the alert status of their nuclear arsenals: In the interest of increased nuclear safety and stability, and as a means to advance toward the broader goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada endorse the concept of de-alerting all nuclear forces, subject to reciprocity and verification – including the arsenals of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the three nuclear-weapons-capable States – and encourage their governments to pursue this option.22

    At least two studies have advocated the adoption of a clear policy declaration on rejecting launch on warning options as a first step toward de-alerting. A major work from the Brookings Institute, Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-alerting Nuclear Weapons, defines de-alerting as a two-step process. “It seeks first to eliminate the hair-trigger option of launch on warning” – essentially a policy commitment not to exercise a L-o-W option, even though there is a capacity for it. Second, in the words of the Brookings paper, de-alerting moves from a policy to forego L-o-W options, to measures that physically “extend the launch preparation time to days, weeks, or longer through graduated reciprocal measures instituted by the two parties.”23

    The Committee on Nuclear Policy coordinated by the Stimson Center made a similar recommendation in its 1999 report. It called on the United States to “declare its intention, with a parallel, reciprocal commitment from Russia, to eliminate the launch-on-warning option from nuclear war plans.” In other words, it calls on the two states to make mutual commitments to abandon launch on warning options. This commitment, the report said, should be followed by “discussions among the five nuclear weapon states on verifiably removing all nuclear forces from hair-trigger alert.”24

    These are important calls for the public rejection of L-o-W postures and options, but in both instances the reports call for reciprocal NO L-o-W policies. Under deterrence theory and practice, however, rejection of the launch on warning policy or option does not need to be symmetrical or verifiable. It is of value even if only one side does it, and it is argued below that the only theoretical disadvantage in rejecting L-o-W is actually less if it is not verified. If the US were to immediately renounce the L-o-W option, it would then be in a position to tell Russia why it has done so and ask for a reciprocal commitment. One side making that commitment and carrying it out unilaterally does not produce any relative advantage or disadvantage for either side, but it does confer an advantage on both sides, namely, lowering the risk of accidental war.
    6. Exploring the NO L-o-W Posture

    If Russia and the US were actually to abandon the option of launching on warning, even while they retained the capability, they would eliminate the risk of a nuclear war being started by a false warning. Since a false warning is immediately revealed as such when the predicted time has passed for the first rockets to arrive and no detonation has been detected, simply delaying retaliation until there has been a nuclear detonation guarantees that a war will not be started accidentally from that cause.

    Incidents as a result of which a purely accidental war might have been started seem to have outnumbered the actual geopolitical crises when nuclear war was intentionally threatened. And most of the deliberate threats to resort to nuclear weapons, though extremely troubling and dangerous, have been regarded more as threatening gestures than as actual intentions.

    Since the Berlin Wall came down, the most serious threat of a nuclear war between Russia and the US known to the public was the “Norwegian Rocket event” of January 1995, described above. Without L-o-W, that is, if the Russian policy had been never to launch a retaliatory attack until after a nuclear detonation was detected, the Russian alert and the anxious few minutes would still have occurred, but there would have been absolutely no danger of nuclear war because the rocket was unarmed. There could not have been a nuclear explosion, even if the guidance system had malfunctioned and directed the rocket over Russia.

    To change from L-o-W to NO L-o-W does not require any change of alert status of the retaliatory system. It only requires a change of standing orders and standard operating procedure, such that no launch may take place until a nuclear detonation is reported.

    The elimination of L-o-W does not eliminate any other retaliation options. It just ensures that retaliation would not take place without confirmation of a nuclear detonation. As soon as a warning of attack was received, one which a threat conference deemed to be real, the order to prepare for a retaliatory launch could be given. The President (in the US case) would then be charged with deciding, not whether to launch immediately and risk it being an irrevocable response to what could still be a false warning, but whether to launch immediate retaliation in the event of a detonation. If the decision was to retaliate upon detonation, full preparation would be made to launch immediately upon receipt of a positive bomb alarm signal.

    Bomb alarms were installed many years ago near all military installations and all big cities in the US, and presumably in Russia, which automatically and instantaneously indicate at the Strategic Command Centers the location of any nuclear explosion. If, and only if, indication of a nuclear explosion was received at the predicted arrival time of the attack, the final order to launch could be sent immediately to the silos. No delay to obtain presidential authorization would be needed at that point. The actual retaliatory launch could probably take place within a minute of the first detonation. If the final order to launch was not received within a certain short time after the time of predicted impact, the launch preparations would be reversed.

    A policy of NO L-o-W would not eliminate the horrific threat of nuclear annihilation. Only the abolition of nuclear weapons can do that; but a NO L-o-W posture would remove the danger of launching nuclear-armed rockets in response to a false warning. That would probably eliminate 90% of the current risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia. A secondary benefit would be the reduced stress on the President during those vital minutes in which a reported attack was being assessed. He would know that he was not in danger of starting a war on a false warning. Under L-o-W that worry might impair his concentration on the main issues.

    Neither side wants an accidental war. They know that if either side mistakenly launches nuclear weapons both countries are going to be destroyed: it makes no difference who started it. If one side changes to NO L-o-W the risk of a purely accidental war from a false warning is approximately halved, immediately. It does not even depend on the other side knowing that the change has been made.
    7. The Effect on Deterrence

    There can be few grounds for objection, by the military or by the governments, to this very necessary safety measure. One possible objection has to be taken seriously: that “NO L-o-W” might impair deterrence and tempt one side to try a “disarming first strike”. There are good reasons why this objection should not be allowed to prevent the policy change.

    For either side to consider first strike to be a rational option, the attacking side would have to be absolutely sure that its first salvo would fully disarm the other’s retaliatory capacity. They would know that any surviving weapons would pose a retaliatory threat that could be launched immediately after the first attack had hit its target. Under NO L-o-W the degree of alertness of surviving weapons would not be reduced, and retaliation for a real attack could still be launched promptly, probably within a minute of the first detonation. Synchronization of detonation times of the opening salvo, from widely separated launch sites to widely separated targets – the enemy missile launch sites and command posts – could not be assured to such precision.

    The other possible method of preventing retaliation would be a first salvo engineered to maximize Electro-Magnetic Pulse and disable the other side’s electronics. It is hardly credible that the attacking side could feel sure that their EMP would disrupt communication and launch mechanisms sufficiently, since they would know that military electronics will have been shielded. Furthermore, they would know that submarine-launched missiles would not be disabled, because the sea-water shields submarines and their contents.

    The side planning a pre-emptive attack would also have to be sure that its adversary had in fact changed to and remained under a policy of No L-o-W. They cannot be sure of this without verification. So from the point of view of preserving deterrence, verification is actually undesirable. Verification that L-o-W policies were no longer in place would help to reassure the other countries of the world, but it is not necessary in order to gain the benefit of the change. Thus, a NO L-o-W policy on either side would have minimal impact on deterrence, and would be an advantage to both, simply because it halves the risk of a purely accidental nuclear war. NO L-o-W by both sides makes this particular risk zero.

    If, despite these arguments, the military establishment on either side is not persuaded to abandon L-o-W, the head of state must balance the elimination of the very definite risk of accidental war due to a false warning, against a hypothetical possibility of weakened deterrence resulting in war. The results of a nuclear war would be the same, whether started by accident or by intention.
    8. De-alerting: Methods, Benefits and Difficulties

    As described in the report from the Brookings Institute, “de-alerting” moves beyond the policy to forego L-o-W options, to measures that physically extend the launch preparation time to days, weeks, or longer, through graduated reciprocal measures instituted by the two parties.

    A wide variety of methods has been suggested to introduce the delay necessary to constitute a de-alerted posture. A very radical measure would be to have all warheads removed from all delivery vehicles, and stored at a distance from them. Less drastic measures could be used to enforce shorter delays, and possible methods include:
    o making a heap of earth and rocks on silo lids that would require heavy machinery to remove it;
    o removing hydraulic fluid from the machines that raise silo lids;
    o de-activating the mechanism that rolls back garage roofs (Russia);
    o pinning open a switch in a place that takes time to reach, or within a casing that takes time to open; and
    o removing batteries, gyroscopes, or guidance mechanisms from rockets or re-entry vehicles.

    For de-alerting to be effective, it should be noted that every nuclear weapon on both sides would have to be de-alerted. Heads of state and diplomats have been apt to say “de-alert as many weapons as possible”, but that would not be adequate. To launch one nuclear weapon is sufficient to start a full-scale nuclear war.

    Full de-alerting would make sure that nuclear weapons could not be brought into use hastily. It would tend to reduce reliance on them in crisis situations, and thus be a step towards their eventual elimination from national arsenals. De-alerting would also make unauthorized launch of a nuclear weapon far more difficult to do, and would remove entirely the risk of accidental war due to a false warning. It would make more improbable the already unlikely event of a serious dispute between Russia and the US pushing either of the two into intentionally starting a war, by giving more time for diplomatic exchanges between the hostile governments and for conciliatory efforts by third parties.

    However desirable and urgent de-alerting is, it poses significant challenges. Until elimination of the weapons is complete and assured by treaty, the two states will continue to regard the possession of nuclear weapons as essential to deterrence. To maintain deterrence it is necessary for the enforced delay to be closely equal on the two sides, otherwise the side that could launch first might be tempted to try a “disarming first strike”. This symmetry will not be easy to ensure, considering that the warheads, the delivery vehicles, and the launch procedures are different in the two countries.

    Thus de-alerting will require complex arrangements, and intrusive verification, to ensure the completeness of the de-alerting measures actually carried out, and to ensure that they cannot be secretly reversed. This may require observers from neutral countries, and perhaps from the adversary, in the vicinity of each side’s launch sites. At the same time, both sides will be concerned about maintaining the secrecy of key features of their systems. Verification acceptable for submarine-launched missiles would be extremely difficult.

    It would take prolonged technical study and negotiation to set up these two systems, the de-alerting itself and the verification, in a way that would satisfy the two parties. Once that had been achieved (which might prove impossible) a formal written agreement would be needed. This might require negotiation of a treaty, needing ratification by the parliament on each side, which raises another possibility of disappointing failure after years of work.
    9. Conclusion

    For the present, adoption of a NO L-o-W policy offers a quick and simple means of reducing the danger of accidental war. It does not need symmetry, verification, agreement, nor even trust, between the adversaries. If adopted unilaterally by one side it is of immediate benefit to both, and it does not impair deterrence. Unilateral operation of NO L-o-W by one country for a time, might well be sufficient for the other to understand the benefit and to realize that the change did not in fact invite a first strike.

    Putting NO L-o-W into effect requires only an executive order, followed by a change in standing orders to the effect that no rocket is launched until a nuclear explosion is reported to Strategic Command. There is no reduction in alert status. There would be minor changes in the launch sequence to suit whatever safeguards would be made to ensure that no launch could occur while the crews in the silos were waiting for the final order, and that they would be ready for instant launch if that order came through.

    All the world’s people would be safer for the change. Therefore all governments have a duty to their people to urge the US and Russian governments to make it at once.

    =================

    The author acknowledges valuable research assistance by Sarah Estabrooks of Project Ploughshares, and very helpful editing by Sarah and by Ernie Regehr.

    =================

    Acronyms

    EMP ElectroMagnetic Pulse
    HQ Headquarters
    ICBM Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile
    L-o-W Launch on Warning
    NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command
    SAC Strategic Air Command (later changed to “Strategic Command”)
    SIOP Single Integrated Operational Plan
    SLBM Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile
    Footnotes

    1. In Bruce Blair, The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute) 1992.
    2. This is too uncertain a distinction to rely on. If one system were temporarily out of action there would be great pressure to act on an indication from the remaining one.

    3. If this is true of Russia, they must be relying on warning from only one system for a large fraction of the time. Their satellite fleet is incomplete and there are periods when segments of their periphery are not doubly monitored. Some of the radar complexes installed under the Soviet system are now in independent States. There is said to be a corridor along which missiles could approach giving no warning early enough for evaluation of the situation before impact. We have no way of knowing whether, for that direction of attack, their retaliation would be purely reflex or would wait for impact.

    4. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) is an extremely sharp and energetic electromagnetic impulse that is emitted by electrons travelling at nearly the speed of light from a nuclear explosion. It is maximal when the detonation is at very high altitude and the electrons interact with the earth’s magnetic field above the atmosphere. It disrupts unshielded electrical and electronic equipment over a wide area.

    5. Memorandum of Gerard C. Smith, Director, U.S. Department of State Policy Planning Staff to Foy Kohler, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 22 June 1960. Marked TOP SECRET. Source: National Security Archive microfiche collection, U.S. Nuclear History: Nuclear Weapons and Politics in the Missile Era, 1955-68. Washington, D.C. 1998. National Security Archive electronic briefing book, “Launch on Warning: The development of U.S. capabilities, 1959-79”, William Burr, ed., April 2001. Document 3. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB43/

    6. Memorandum for the National Security Council from the National Security Council Planning Board, 14 July 1960. Marked TOP SECRET. Subject: U.S. Policy on Continental Defense. Source: National Security Archive microfiche collection, U.S. Nuclear History: Nuclear Weapons and Politics in the Missile Era, 1955-68. Washington, D.C. 1998. Burr, Document 4.

    7. Scott D. Sagan, The Limits of Safety (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 183.

    8. Account quoted by Jeffrey Richelson citing an interview with Jack Ruina in America’s Space Sentinels: DSP Satellites and National Security (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1999), p. 256. no. 37. In Burr, 2001.

    9. Letter from Secretary of the Air Force, Eugene M. Zuckert, to President John F. Kennedy, 26 October 1962. Source: National Security Archive microfiche collection, U.S. Nuclear History: Nuclear Weapons and Politics in the Missile Era, 1955-68. Washington, D.C., 1998. Burr, Document 7.

    10. Memorandum from Lawrence Lynn, U.S. National Security Council Staff, to Henry Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 1 May 1969. Subject: Talking Paper on “Firing on Warning” Issue. Marked TOP SECRET when with attachment. Source: National Security Archive’s Nixon Presidential Materials Project, National Security Council Files, Box 840, Sentinel ABM System, Vol. II, 4/1/69. Burr, Document 9.

    11. Memorandum from Helmut Sonnenfeldt, National Security Council Staff to Henry Kissinger, 22 September 1969. Subject: “Message” to You from Arbatov. Marked SECRET/NODIS. Source: National Security Archive’s Nixon Presidential Materials Project, National Security Council Files, Box 710, USSR Vol. V, 10/69. Burr, Document 10.

    12. U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Public Affairs Bureau, “The Launch on Warning Question in the First Phase of SALT”, 21 December 1973. Marked SECRET NOFORN. Source: ACDA FOIA release to National Security Archive. Burr, Document 11.

    13. Author’s personal communication with former Air Force Personnel. Anonymity retained.

    14. This is not an attempt to calculate an actual probability. It is merely an example to illustrate the cumulative effect of any low-probability risk that is taken repeatedly, or accepted continuously, over a period of time.

    15. Incident reported by Allan Little in “How I Stopped Nuclear War”, BBC News, 21 October 1998.

    16. Sagan, The Limits of Safety.

    17. Alan F. Phillips, “20 Mishaps that Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War” (Toronto: Defence Research and Education Centre) 1998.

    18. Sagan, p. 176.

    19. Ibid., p. 176.

    20. Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century, December 1998.

    21. Report of The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Executive Summary, 30 January 1997.

    22. SCFAIT Report, Recommendation 5, p. 24.

    23. Bruce Blair, The Nuclear Turning Point, A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-Alerting, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute) p.101.

    24. Report of the Committee on Nuclear Policy, Jump-START: Retaking the Initiative to Reduce Post-Cold War Nuclear Dangers, The Henry L. Stimson Center, February 1999.
    References

    Blair, Bruce in Feiveson, Harold A. et al. The Nuclear Turning Point, A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-Alerting. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute. 1999.

    Blair, Bruce. The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute 1992.

    Burr, William, ed. National Security Archive electronic briefing book, “Launch on Warning: The development of U.S. capabilities, 1959-79”. April 2001. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB43

    Little, Allan. “How I Stopped Nuclear War”. BBC News. 21 October 1998.

    Phillips, Alan. “20 Mishaps that Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War”. Toronto: Defence Research and Education Centre. 1998. Online at: www.nuclearfiles.org/anw/

    Report of The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, 30 January 1997.

    Report of the Committee on Nuclear Policy, Jump-START: Retaking the Initiative to Reduce Post-Cold War Nuclear Dangers. The Henry L. Stimson Center. February 1999.

    Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada and the Nuclear Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the Twenty-First Century, December 1998.

    Sagan, Scott D. The Limits of Safety. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1993.
    *Dr. Alan Phillips graduated with honours in physics at Cambridge University in 1941. He spent the rest of World War II doing radar research for the British Army. After the war he qualified in medicine at Edinburgh University and specialized in the treatment of cancer by radiation. He retired in 1984. His retirement activities have included the study of nuclear armaments and the risks of accidental nuclear war.
    ————–

    Project Ploughshares Working Papers are published to contribute to public awareness and debate of issues of disarmament and development. The views expressed and proposals made in these papers should not be taken as necessarily reflecting the official policy of Project Ploughshares.

  • The History of Defense Systems and Remarks on the National Missile Defense

    “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    1. Introduction

    This is a timeless article, for there has never been a time in history when some tribe or nation has not been contemplating actions and policies that lead to war or peace. During the history struggle arose frequently between families, clans, small and large population groups, first about chasing ground for animals, then possession of arable land, and finally about mineral resources. Local fights spread with time to larger areas. Was it first fists and teeth the main weapons, soon humans learned to prepare special tools for fighting each other. In parallel they developed means of body protection by armor, and to surround their living quarters with fortifications. Each advance in offensive weapons was countered by defensive structures, mostly in this time sequence. First all developments stretched over longer periods, but intervals are getting smaller and smaller with progress in technologies and science. It is the aim of this talk to describe briefly the major defense systems, culminating in the proposed Star War idea, developed by President Reagan, who claimed that it would make all other weapons obsolete. This claim had already been made for other weapons at earlier times in history. Will the National Missile Defense idea do what is advertised, or will it lead only to new arms race? Are we willing to learn from historical precedents?

    There is another underlying pattern to defense policy. Soldiers and statesmen are forever laying the pavements of good intentions that lead to the hell of military conflict. The process is endless and will not be interrupted before there is societal understanding of the patterns that lead to destruction and a modification of the behavior on the basis of that understanding. One such pattern is the predilection of tribes and nations to choose their statesmen from the ranks of a military hero [1]. The transition from soldier to statesman may occur at any phase of the career. We all know of the political path taken by General Eisenhower, Captain Truman, Lieutenant Kennedy, Corporal Hitler, and Shepherd David as they make the transition from military hero to national leader. We see the same pattern with General Powell, becoming Secretary of State, and perhaps in four years time President of the strongest nation in the world. It looks that the training, temperament and skills of the soldier are diametrically opposed to the training, temperament and skills of the statesman.

    2. Lifetime and efficiency of defense systems

    Built-up of defense systems is as old as any offense activity. There is no defense system that could withstand forever attack, and no defense system is even at the start perfect. To quote Hellmuth von Moltke: Offence is the straight way to the goal, whereas the defense is the long way around. A few of such systems will be briefly discussed:

    2.1 The Great Wall

    The Chinese Great Wall can be considered as the longest living defense system. It stretched over a length of 6’300 km from the Yalu River (Gulf of Chihli) to Jiayuguan (Central Asia). It has been built and rebuilt during almost 2’000 years, beginning with the interconnection of walls which surrounded small kingdoms. The major construction periods start with the 4th century BC, were accelerated by the first Chinese Emperor Qin 220-206 BC, using almost a million compulsory labor including some 300’000 soldiers. Maintenance work in the 7th century caused a death toll of half a million workers within ten days. A major upgrade was made during 1368-1644 in the Ming Dynasty (5’660 km). The fortification consisted of a 9-meter high wall and about twenty-five thousand alarms towers 13-meters high. Signals could be transmitted over a distance of 2’000 km in 24 hours. During the Qin reign 180 million cubic meters rammed earth provided for the core of the wall (10 meter thick, 5 meter high). The aim of the Wall was to protect against Huns. However, this fortification never performed properly as defense line. In 1208 Dschingis-Khan broke through the Wall and China was liberated again only in 1368. In 1644 the Wall was opened by the treason of a general near Shanghaiguan, where it had the formidable height of 16 meter and a width of 8 meters. The Wall degraded and its remains are since not more than a tourist attraction.

    2.2 The Roman Limes

    In comparison the Roman Limes was a much less ambitious defense building. The best known part was in the western part of Germany spanning between the Rhine and Danube Rivers. Building had been started in 9 AD, and it was reinforced between 117-161 AD. It had a length of 480 km, and consisted of a 3-meter high palisades and watch towers. It fulfilled its intended function only until 260 AD, when Alemanni broke through. Romans built similar Limes in Great Britain, Anatolia, and Syria in 2nd century AD, again with relatively short lifetimes.

    2.3 Castles and city walls

    Castles and city walls were the preferred fortifications for small city-states. Their efficient lifetime was at the best a couple of hundred years, before they were destroyed with the help of gunpowder, canons, and fireballs. Metallic armor of mercenaries turned out to reduce mobility, could not protect the horses of the horsemen, and got soon out of fashion.

    2.4 Defense lines in the 20th century

    The lifetime of fortifications built in the first half of the 20th century decreased rapidly.

    2.4.1 The French Maginot Line connected some modern fortresses, which hold out during World War I. Built in the 1930s, it presented a tremendous advance over previous fortifications and had all imaginable comfort for the defenders to offer. It was built along the French-German border, but not extended to the French-Belgium border, assuming Germans would respect in any conflict the neutrality of Belgium and The Netherlands. Germany did not behave as expected in World War II and its troops marched in 1940 through the northern flank into France, attacking the fortifications from the rear side.

    2.4.2 The counter part of the Maginot Line was the German West-Wall, a much less elaborated defense structure. It was not needed at the very beginning of World War II, but demonstrated some efficiency towards its end in 1945.

    2.4.3 Following the occupation of France in 1940 Germany built up the Atlantic-Wall. Its major fortifications were built near the smallest part of the English Channel, where it was expected that allied troops would try to land. This turned out to be a miscalculation by the German headquarters combined with an underestimation of air troopers that could land behind the Atlantic Wall.

    2.4.4 Antiaircraft canons, developed between the two World Wars, became increasingly worthless due to countermeasures in form of chaff (aluminized paper) used in WW II, that distorted radar images and simulated planes where there were none. High-flying planes flying could only be reached with insufficient accuracy.

    2.4.5 Reagan’s Star War program did not get beyond a preliminary design study, since scientists showed that laser canons could neither produce nor send the desired energy density towards incoming missiles to destroy them.

    The above examples show that time intervals are getting shorter between building of new defense systems and for their efficient use. This very preliminary study of some major defense systems and their “effective” lifetime has been made in order to find out if there is a pattern that might help to predict the performance of future developments. Any such development starts slowly, rises to maturity, and then declines in its efficiency. Rise and decline time may vary considerably from case to case, may have a steep rise and a slow decline, or vice versa, or may be Gaussian. A reasonable scientific description could be done by fitting the data by a Gaussian-like curve and define the efficiency by the full-width at halve maximum. This was not (yet) done for the present study. Instead best estimates for the start-up and complete demise were given. Figure 1 shows a plot (for convenience on a double logarithmic scale) of the so defined useful lifetime of defense installations/methods over two-and-a-half thousand years. In this plot is indicated for each system by whom or by which technical development the system became obsolete. A straight line can represent the data. No effort has yet been made to evaluate error bars, to define the slope, and to represent this line by an equation.

    Since this eyeball-fitted line represents so well the events during a very long period of human history, temptation is great to extrapolate it into the future. Doing so leads to the conclusion that defense mechanisms will become obsolete almost immediately after putting them into place. Taking an extreme view, it could mean that the National Missile Defense would not even see the light of the day before being made obsolete by countermeasures.

    Only time will show the validity of our extrapolation.

    2.5 Shift of warfare from ground to air

    A change in theory and practice of warfare becomes obvious during the later part of the 20th century. Was the practice in earlier epochs mainly composed of political, economic and military elements, it is now increasingly influenced by technological, scientific and psychological elements. In previous centuries the theory of warfare had been subdivided into a strategic part, considering wide spaces, long periods of time, large amount of forces as a prelude to battlefield, and the tactic part, which was just the opposite to the former. A distinction between strategic and tactic blurred since World War I (WW I) and especially during World War II (WW II). Surprisingly to the author, this distinction between strategic and tactic is still kept for nuclear weapons, and finds expression in the START and INF treaties.

    Whereas warfare during WW I was mainly on ground and at sea, and airplanes played only a secondary role for recognition purposes, a dramatic shift occurred during WW II. Weapon systems reached further and beyond front lines.

    Defense systems crumbled, anti aircraft canons became militarily impotent during massive air raids. German V1 and V2 rockets reached almost unimpeded their targets on the British Island. The only defense against these rockets in the forties was to bombard their launch pads. The recent Kosovo War demonstrated even more vividly that defense against planes, now flying at considerably higher altitudes, by anti-aircraft canons is a hopeless enterprise.

    The second half of the 20th century witnessed a dramatic improvement of the rudimentary German WW II rocket technology, promoted on the other side of the Atlantic and now common knowledge in most industrialized countries. These missiles can transport nuclear warheads, and of less military value, chemical and biological weapons [2]. A majority of people condemns these weapons, called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and demands their elimination. However, some countries believe they need WMDs for deterrence, but deny their possession for others. The escalation of the arms race during the Cold War led to plan for comprehensive antimissile defense systems for both super powers. Fortunately, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), concluded in 1972, limited drastically, and still does, such an out-of-control development.

    3. Missile defense activities since the 1980s

    President Reagan’s speech on March 23, 1983 was the starting point for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The military-industrial complex eagerly picked up the idea. Even the industry in several NATO countries was encouraged to get involved, however not in their desired way in front-element technologies.

    Concerned, eminent scientists made feasibility studies, culminating in the “Report to The American Physical Society of the study group on Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons” [3]. Soviet scientists made a similar study [4]. Both groups came to the conclusion that most of the systems would not work as advertised or even not at all. The latter is the case for space-based laser canon [5]. The software aspects cause another tremendous hurdle [6]. A discussion of the results of these two documents is beyond the scope of the present paper. The reader is referred to the original literature, which remains a valid document up to date.

    Considerable amount of money was wasted during the years following Reagan’s proposal. Deception of the public about supposed successes played a role in promoting SDI [7, 8]. However, the topic did for several years no longer make any headlines. Public awareness was reawakened only during the first Gulf War. Unfounded success stories and tests were then sold to the public, which does mostly not understand the basic science and technology behind such claims. During CNN broadcasts, the military commanders claimed a widely exaggerated success rate of the Patriot missile in shooting down Scud missiles coming from Iraq. The General Accounting Office found that only nine percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill. The Patriot’s supposedly near-flawless performance may be one of the greatest myths in weapons history. As Winston Churchill once said “In war truth is such a precious good that it has to be surrounded by a strong body guard of lies”.

    The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down aircraft. In the 1980s, it was given an upgrade and a modified warhead to give it a limited capability to defend against short-range ballistic missiles. The Scuds were flying over 3,600 km per hour faster than the Patriot had been designed to deal with. The Patriot must detonate when it is within a few meters of the Scud to have a high probability of destroying the warhead [9-11].

    During the Clinton presidency SDI was revived, now only under another name, as National Missile Defense (NMD). An excellent description of all aspects of NMD, written for general public, can be found in [12]. NMDs task is advertised as a defense against a small number of missiles coming from rogue states. NMD consists actually out of two components: the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). A shift of SDI from Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) to Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) occurred [13, 14].

    NMD does no longer rely on space-based laser canons, in so far becoming more realistic. It is supposed to destroy warheads in mid-course, but this policy may still change to the easier boost-phase interception [15].

    NMD is planned to protect against both, so-called theatre missiles and strategic (intercontinental) missiles. Such a development is seen by the departing and the incoming administration of the U.S. as a positive step in the right direction, but by a majority of other countries as counterproductive and giving rise to an unlimited arms race [16-20].

    3.1 Countermeasures

    First tests of BMD are very far from successful [21-23]. Will the BMD system be effective? The answer will depend among many other questions to be solved on the effect of countermeasures on the kill probability. It appears to be highly impossible to protect entire countries against missile attacks, as it is claimed by the United States.

    The kill probability is one of the key technical parameters for evaluating the effectiveness of a missile defense system. The higher the kill probability is, the more effective the defense system will be. Inevitably, a missile defense system will be challenged by countermeasures, which may decrease the kill probability. There are three different kinds of them against THAAD system: infrared stealth, radar interference and decoys. A brief qualitative discussion of these measures follows.

    3.1.1 Infrared stealth

    The endgame phase of an intercept begins when the infrared (IR) sensor built in interceptor’s kill vehicle (KV) acquires the target. The distance between the KV and the target at the beginning of the endgame is the so-called acquisition range. During the whole endgame phase, the KV maneuvers according to target’s trajectory information provided by the IR sensor to put itself on a path that leads to a direct hit with the target. For realizing a hit, enough endgame time, which is to say large enough acquisition range, is needed for the KV to correct its current velocity and position errors.

    Against IR sensors, there may exist several kinds of countermeasures; among which to shorten the acquisition range to an unacceptable level is a common one, known as IR stealth. For a given IR sensor and background noise, the acquisition range depends mainly on temperature, material and sizes of the target. The most effective way of realizing IR stealth is to chill the target to very low temperature since IR radiation decreases quickly with temperature. Dry ice or liquid nitrogen will do the job, being filled into the space between shroud and thermally insulated layers.

    3.1.2 Radar interference

    The X band ground based radar (GBR) is one of the most important components of the THAAD system. The GBR detects, acquires and tracks targets before interceptors could launch. When a certain tracking accuracy is achieved, interceptors are committed to their targets and launched, then the GBR continues to track the targets and issues updated target information through BMC4I system to the interceptors and KVs to guide their boost phase flights and midcourse flights respectively. When a KVs midcourse flight finishes and its endgame flight begins, the KV is delivered to the hand over point where the IR sensor of the KV is expected to acquire the target. The so-called hand over point is actually an error basket in space. To achieve a successful intercept, the basket has to satisfy two conditions: (1) at the hand-over point, the KV is at the position where it can acquire the target, (2) the KV’s position and velocity vector at the moment insures that the resulting zero effort miss distance (ZMD) error is within the KV’s maneuvering capability. On the one hand, the above two conditions depend mainly on the GBR’s capability to accurately predict the trajectory of the target. On the other hand, the KV’s capability of removing ZMD error is limited by the amount of fuel it carries and the total time of flight (TOF) during the endgame that is available for the KV to maneuver.

    In addition to GBR information obtained from satellites may be used for tracking. Their jamming could then be also being an effective countermeasure.

    3.1.3 Decoys

    Decoys or false targets are a most commonly used countermeasure. They are required to simulate some physical characteristics of the real reentry vehicle (RV), like size, shape, and temperature, speed etc., according to their task. The discrimination distance plays an important role. KP drops as discrimination distance decreases.

    Typical velocities of strategic targets are 7 km/s, and for theater targets 5 km/s. Calculations show that the KV with a speed of about 5 km/s will have nearly the same kill probability against strategic missiles as against theater missiles. It strongly suggest that a defense system with same performances would be nearly as capable in intercepting strategic missiles as in dealing with theater missiles if its performances and reliability are proved in testing against theater missile targets. The KV should explode when it is at about 4 meters away from the target. This requires timing within a fraction of a millisecond.

    3.2 Kill what and when?

    There is no doubt that weapons attain more destructive power over time, as was the case with the switch from TNT to nuclear explosives. There is no longer a strong relation between power and number of weapons as in a classical war. The population agglomeration gets denser, and therefore the vulnerability of the civil population increased and effects them physically and morally.

    BMD is advertised as an efficient means to protect the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It assumes that the main threat is coming from missiles, which could transport nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. The author has argued that delivery of biological and chemical agents this way is extremely inefficient and highly improbable [2]. The main danger is originating from nuclear warheads. They are getting so compact that countries of concern or terrorists can choose many other ways for transportation.

    Whatever the load the warhead contains, an intercept with a kill vehicle can cause two effects, which are rarely discussed in detail: Firstly, it can destroy either the propulsion part of the weapon (if any is still connected with the warhead), or the warhead itself, or both. Secondly, it could leave the warhead intact, but gives an additional momentum to it, causing a deviation of its trajectory.

    Can warhead destruction always considered to be an advantage or can it have detrimental effects?

    The destruction of the warhead will leave debris behind, which will essentially follow the original trajectory. The parts will hit ground somewhere. Since an intercept will happen at high altitude, chemical or biological material will be distributed over wide space. The agent will probably not have severe effects on humans, since its density at ground level will not reach the necessary, critical value to cause adverse health effects. An exception might be with plutonium, where strong negative long-term effects at ground level might be expected.

    In case the warhead remains intact and its trajectory is changed in an unpredictable way, effects during landing at another than the originally targeted place may be advantageous or not for the attacked country.

    4. Who should make decisions?

    Clemenceau once said: Modern war is too serious a business to entrust it to soldiers. This statement could be modified and enlarged: “Preparation for peace through building of defense systems is too serious a business to be handled by military heroes, since it may lead to modern war.”

    The 20th century has seen already one hero as statesman, Adolf Hitler, who considered himself as the greatest strategist of all times (Grösster Feldherr aller Zeiten). The world experienced the consequences of his ‘leadership’. The 21st century needs diplomats and not heroes, heads of state who are able to address questions of the international economy, market interventions, unanticipated crisis, all by peaceful methods.

    Fortunately, no decision on NMD had been made during the Clinton administration [24, 25]. However, the probability for a rush into failure at the beginning of the Bush administration looms on the horizon. A starting point of the new government could have been to limit the influence of military people in the decision making process. However, the choice of a military hero, General Colin Powell, to head the State Department, points in the wrong direction. General Powell is three things Mr. Bush is not: a war hero, worldly wise and beloved by Afro-Americans. That gives him a great deal of leverage. It means that Mr. Bush can never allow him to resign in protest over anything. The Bush team will be serious about what the Clinton team was not serious about, which is about intervening militarily [26]. This is the way generals are trained for.

    There should be an open discussion within the largest existing military pact, the NATO, on its necessity after the end of the Cold War and of its eventual dissolution. Building new defense systems should not jeopardize disarmament treaties. In particular the cornerstone, the ABM Treaty, should be maintained.

    For some four decades, deterrence was at the center of U.S. defense policy. There were three important features to it. First, it sounded robust without being reckless. Second it was hard to think of a better way to make sense of a nuclear inventory. Third, it seemed to work. A re-evaluation started with Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which was based on the idea that it was better ‘to protect than avenge’. The problem with NMD is that it is likely to aggravate other problems, in particular the already tense relations with Russia and China. Worse, it could provide an illusion of security that, if ever tested, might come tragically apart. It may be wise to use deterrent threats only sparingly, but it can hardly make sense never use them at all [28.29].

    Many prominent scientists should reevaluate, if deemed necessary, their assessment of SDI and extend it to NMD. Scientists in the big weapon laboratories should be given tasks that are addressing more urgent problems of society, such as changes in means of energy production, protection of the environment, to name a few challenging tasks. Scientific evaluation, like the one that had been done by a group of prominent experts in the case of SDI, should get more weight than the judgement of military heroes.

    Should the American government pay more attention to the will of the people? Answers during a recent poll in the U.S. [18] on the question “Which of the following do you think is the most important issue facing the country today: Education, Medicare, health care, fight crimes/drugs, economic growth, crack down on illegal guns, cut taxes, strong military, national missile defense?” show that NMD has an extremely low priority of 1 percent, and a strong military a marginal 4 percent. This overwhelming disinterest is a clear sign that the drive for NMD is to search elsewhere. A good candidate may be the military-industrial complex.

    5. Conclusion

    There are an infinite number of better and necessary actions to be taken by any responsible government than to build the equivalent of a “National Missile Defense”, that has a high chance not to work at all. Not long ago a well-known physicist had to testify on the feasibility and efficiency of such a system during a hearing at an U.S. Senate’s Committee. He had been asked if NMD would work. It is reported that he thought for a short while, then came up with a resounding “YES”, and after a pause he added, “provided the adversary collaborates.” Even such an answer seems to me still too optimistic.

    6. References:

    [1] Hero as Statesman, Political Leadership in Military Defense Edited by John P. Craven Readings for Leaders, Harland Cleveland, Volume I Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University Press of America, 1988

    [2] The Concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chemical and Biological Weapons, Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment, Gert G. Harigel Seventh ISODARCO-Beijing Seminar on Arms Control, Xi’an, October 8-13, 2000,

    [3] Report to The American Physical Society of the study group on Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons N. Bloembergen, C.K.N. Patel, P. Avizonis, R.G. Clem, A. Hertzberg, T.H. Johnson, T. Marshall, R.B. Miller, W.E. Morrow, E.E. Salpeter, A.M. Sessler, J.D. Sullivan, J.C. Wyant, A. Yariv, R.N. Zare, A.J. Glass, L.C. Hebel Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.59, No.3, Part II, July 1987, S0- S201

    [4] Space-Strike Arms and International Security, Report of the Committee of Soviet Scientists for Piece, Against the Nuclear Threat, Moscow October 1985

    [5] Physics and Technical Aspects of Laser and Particle Beam Weapons for Strategic Defense, R.L. Garwin, 1986, submitted to Physikalische Blätter

    [6] Software Aspects of Strategic Defense Systems, David Lorge Parnass, American Scientist, Volume 73, 432-440, September-October 1985

    [7] Aspin Confirms Deception Plan Existed to Promote SDI Program Dunbar Lockwood Arms Control Today, October 1993, pg. 18

    [8] Strategic ‘Deception’ Initiative John Pike Arms Control Today, November 1993, pp. 3-8

    [9] The Patriot Myth: Caveat Emptor John Conyers, Jr. Arms Control Today, November 1992, pp. 3-10

    [10] The Patriot Debate: Part 2, Letter to the Editor Frank Horten Arms Control Today, January/February 1993, pp. 26/27 Author’s Response, Arms Control Today, January/February 1993, pp. 27, 29

    [11] The Patriot Debate: Part 3, Letter to the Editor Theodore A. Postol and George N. Lewis Arms Control Today, March 1993, pg. 24

    [12] Defense Mechanisms Kosta Tsipis The Sciences, November/December 2000, pp. 18-23

    [13] Theater Missile Defense Programs: Status and Prospects John Pike Arms Control Today, September 1994, pp. 11-14

    [14] The Clinton Plan for Theater Missile Defenses: Costs and Alternatives David Mosher and Raymond Hall Arms Control Today, September 1994, pp. 15-20

    [15] Boost-Phase Intercept: A Better Alternative Richard L. Garwin Arms Control Today, September 2000, pp. 8-11

    [16] Missile Defense: The View From the Other Side of the Atlantic Camille Grand Arms Control Today, September 2000, pp. 12-18

    [17] A Pause in Unilateralism? Jack Mendelsohn Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 21-23

    [18] No Pressure From the People Mark S. Mellman, Adam Burns, Sam Munger Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 19, 20, 23

    [19] Security: The Bottom Line Jack F. Matlock, Jr. Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 17, 18, 24

    [20] Facing the China Factor Banning Garrett Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 14-16

    [21] Ballistic Missile Defense: Is the U.S. ‘Rushing to Failure’? John Pike Arms Control Today, April 1998, pp. 9-13

    [22] Mixed Results in U.S. TMD Tests Wade Boese Arms Control Today, September 2000, pg. 29

    [23] Officials Testify on National Missile Defense, Assess Program Wade Boese Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 25, 29

    [24] National Missile Defense, the ABM Treaty And the Future of START II Arms Control Association press conference, Arms Control Today, November/December 1998, pp. 3-10

    [25] Where Do We Go From Here? Harold Brown Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 12-13

    [26] Powell, a Serious Man to Be Tested Before Long Thomas L. Friedman International Herald Tribune, December 20, 2000

    [27] Does Deterrence Have a Future? Lawrence Freedman Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 3-8

    [28] Finding the Right Path Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Arms Control Today, October 2000, pp. 11, 24

    Years “Efficient lifetime” of defense systems

    2000 – ————– Chinese Great Wall – Huns

    1000 –

    500 –

    —- Upgraded Great Wall – Traitor 200 – — Roman Limes — Complete metal armor – Horses unprotected Alemanni — Castles in Europe – Gun powder

    100 –

    50 –

    20 – Antiaircraft canons – Planes too high

    10 – — Maginot Line – Attack from behind

    5 – – German West Wall – limited efficiency (‘Siegfried Line’) – Atlantic Wall – Disembarkation in Normandy

    2 – – SDI – Scientists

    1 –

    0.5 – – Safeguard ABM – Maintenance cost

    0.2 – NMD ? Decoys Jamming Cooling of radars of missiles

    0.1 500 500 1000 1500 1800 1900 1950 1980 1990 1995 1998 2000 BC AC Year

    Forum on “The Missile Threat and Plans for Ballistic Missiles Defense: Technology, Strategic Stability and Impact on Global Security”

    Istituto Diplomatico “Mario Toscano” and Parliament, Library Room “Il Refettorio” Rome, Italy, 18-19 January 2001

  • How Countries Can Work Together to Rid the World of Its Greatest Danger

    The US and Russia each have about 2,000 powerful nuclear weapons set for hair-trigger release. The enormous nuclear overkills of these weapons present the greatest danger to all countries.1 While groups working to rid the world of nuclear weapons such as Abolition 2000 are growing in size and number of supporters, still, much more remains to be done to achieve a nuclear free world. Hopefully, as more nations whose leaders become aware of what is the greatest danger to all countries, then the more they will work toward eliminating nuclear weapons. Their leadership could be invaluable.

    Nuclear Weapons Overkills

    The US and Russia each maintain enormous nuclear weapons overkills. A massive nuclear attack, whether intentional or accidental, by Russia or the US or both, could destroy all countries by turning the world into a dark, cold, silent, radioactive planet. Russia and the U.S. have more than 90 percent of the world’s strategic nuclear weapons.2

    Explosive Power – A nuclear warhead can be far more destructive than is generally realized. One average size U.S. strategic nuclear warhead on an Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles is:

    • Equal to 250,000 tons of dynamite (250 kilotons).3
    • Or 50,000 World War II type bombers each carrying 5 tons of bombs.
    • Or 20 Hiroshima size nuclear warheads.
    • One average size Russian strategic nuclear warhead has an explosive power equal to 400,000 tons of dynamite or 80,000 bombers each carrying 5 tons of bombs. The terrorists’ truck bombs that exploded at the NY World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City each had an explosive force equal to about 5 to 10 tons of dynamite.4

    Out Of Touch With Reality – When General Lee Butler (USAF Ret.1994) first became head of the US Strategic Air Command, he went to the Omaha headquarters to inspect the list of targets in the former Soviet Union. Butler was shocked to find dozens of warheads aimed at Moscow (as the Soviets once targeted Washington). At the time that the target list was contrived, US planners had no grasp of the explosions, firestorms and radiation effects from such an overkill. We were totally out of touch with reality. Butler said, “The war plan, its calculations, and consequences never took into account anything but cost and damage. Radiation was never considered.” 5

    If one average sized strategic nuclear bomb hit Washington DC today, in a flash it could vaporize Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, and destroy many federal programs like Social Security. If another nuclear bomb hit New York City, it could vaporize the United Nations headquarters, international communication and transportation centers, the New York Stock Exchange, etc. And that would only take two of the more than 2,000 warheads that Russia has ready for hair-trigger release.

    One Percent Is Too Much – General Butler said, “..it is imperative to recognize that all numbers of nuclear weapons above zero are completely arbitrary; that against an urban target one weapon represents an unacceptable horror; that twenty weapons would suffice to destroy the twelve largest Russian cities with a total population of twenty-five million people — one-sixth of the entire Russian population; and therefore that arsenals in the hundreds, much less in the thousands, can serve no meaningful strategic objective.” 6

    Twenty nuclear warheads is less than one percent of the nuclear weapons that the US has set for hair-trigger release.

    Nuclear Winter – A nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S. could destroy all 192 nations in the world by filling the sky with very dense smoke and fine dust thereby creating a dark, cold, hungry, radioactive planet. The late Dr. Carl Sagan and his associates estimated that a nuclear winter could be created with a nuclear explosive force equal to 100 million tons of dynamite. Such a force could ignite thousands of fires.7

    The US and Russia each have a nuclear explosive force many times more powerful than that needed to create a very dark, global nuclear winter. Nuclear explosions can produce heat intensities of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Centigrade at ground zero. Nuclear explosions over cities could start giant flash fires leaving large cities and forests burning with no one to stop them. Nuclear explosions can lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, more than 100,000 tons of fine, dense, dust for every megaton exploded on a surface.8

    Why Nuclear Overkill

    It is hard to believe that nations would build a defense on something as crazy as the huge nuclear overkills that exist. One factor that allows the creation of suicidal overkills is that most people do not like to think about the possibility of mass destruction. While this reluctance is readily understandable, it allows the following factors to dictate humanity’s drift toward extinction: building and maintaining nuclear weapons provides profits and wages; nuclear weaponry is a complex technical subject; much of the nuclear weapons work is done in secrecy; and the end of the Cold War has given some the idea that the danger is past.

    Hopefully, if the leaders of governments and their staff start widely discussing the danger, and progress is made in getting rid of nuclear weapons, the world will be glad to join in supporting further agreements to rid the world entirely of nuclear weapons.

    Accidental Nuclear War

    The danger of launching based on a false warning could be growing. During a major part of each day Russia’s early warning system is no longer able to receive warnings. It has so decayed that Moscow is unable to detect US intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launches for at least seven hours a day, US officials and experts say. Russia also is no longer able to spot missiles fired from US submarines. At most, only four of Russia’s 21 early-warning satellites were still working.

    This means Russian commanders have no more than 17 hours — and perhaps as little as 12 hours — of daily coverage of nuclear-tipped ICBMs in silos in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming. Against Trident submarines, the Russians basically have no warning at all.9

    What makes the current situation so dangerous is that in the heat of a serious crisis Russian military and civilian leaders could misread a non-threatening rocket launch or ambiguous data as a nuclear first strike and launch a salvo.

    There have been at least three times in the past that the US and Russia almost launched to false warnings. Each time they came within less than 10 minutes of launching before learning the warnings were false. In 1979, a US training tape showing a massive attack was accidentally played.10 In 1983, a Soviet satellite mistakenly signaled the launch of a US missile.11 In 1995, Russia almost launched its nuclear missiles because a Norwegian rocket studying the northern lights was mistakenly interpreted as the start of a nuclear attack.12

    False warnings are a fact of life. During an 18-month period in 1979-80, the US had 147 false alarms in its strategic warning system. Two of those warnings lasted three minutes and one lasted six minutes before found to be false.13 How is Russia handling false alarms today? There is no certain nor reassuring answer.

    Low Awareness of the Danger

    There is a great need to increase public awareness of the danger in order to provide broad, long-term understanding and support for arms agreements that would rid the world of nuclear weapons. The following actions by the US and Russia show low awareness of the current danger. Only 71 out of 435 US Congressional representatives signed a motion calling for nuclear weapons to be taken off of hair-trigger alert.14 Former President Boris Yeltsin said on Dec. 10, 1999 when pressured about the Chechnya conflict, “It seems Mr. Clinton has forgotten that Russia is a great power that possesses a nuclear arsenal.”15 The US Senate rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in October 1999.16 Moscow leaders say that the US arguments for changing the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty will provoke an arms race.17

    Despite US and Russian nuclear weapons presenting the greatest danger to all nations, reference to them in the mass media is not commensurate with the magnitude of the danger. Acting Russian President Putin signed into law a new national security strategy in January that lowers the threshold on first-use of nuclear weapons.18 And at arms control talks in Geneva this January, the US opposed a Russian suggestion that each country cut the size of its nuclear arsenal to 1,500 warheads. James Runis, a US State Department spokesman, said a lower warhead figure would meet opposition from US generals, who would have to adjust their nuclear doctrine.19

    How confident should we be with defense planners who have not taken into consideration the self-destructive consequences of their current strategies?

    Drawing Attention To The Danger

    One way to draw the world’s attention to overkill danger is for the leaders of nations to ask the following questions of the US and Russia:

    “Why does Russia and the U.S. each maintain far more nuclear weapons than either can use without destroying all countries including their own?”

    “Can they refute any of the consequences of nuclear weapons use described above?”

    “If not, what are they doing to reduce the possibility of the accidental destruction of all?”

    The more that countries ask the US and Russia these questions, the more difficult it will be for the US and Russia to ignore them. This could be especially so if each nation’s leaders share copies of their questions and the answers they receive with the news media.

    General George Lee Butler has said that the world can immediately and inexpensively improve security by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.20This action could also stop sending the message that we do not trust each other and could provide a better atmosphere for reaching an agreement in all nuclear arms reduction talks.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Reference and Notes

    1.Blair, Bruce C., Feiveson, Harold A. and Huppe, Frank.. “Taking Nuclear Weapons off Hair-Trigger Alert,” Scientific American, Nov 97, p.78.

    2. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William, “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile,” Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, July/Aug 96. (The percent of all nuclear weapons that belong to the U.S. and Russian was calculated from this source.)

    3. Ibid.

    4. Babst, Dean. “Preventing An Accidental Armageddon,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, California, Sep 99.

    5. Grady, Sandy. “Can Nuclear Genie Be Stuffed Back In The Bottle,” San Jose Mercury News, Dec.8, 1996.

    6. Butler, Lee. Talk at the University of Pittsburgh, May 13, 1999, p. 12.

    7. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Boston, MA, 1983. 8. Ibid

    9. Russia Update, The Sunflower No. 32 Feb 00, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif..

    10. Phillips, Alan E. “Matter of Preventive Medicine,” Peace Research, August 1998, p 204.

    11. “Twenty Minutes From Nuclear War,” The Sunflower, No. 17 Oct 98, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    12. Blair, Op. Cit.

    13. Hart, Senator Gary and Goldwater, Senator Barry; Recent False Warning Alerts from the Nation’s Missile Attack Warning System, a report to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, 9 October 1980, pp. 4&5.

    14. The Sunflower, No. 31 Jan 00, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    15. Burns, Robert. “U.S., Russian relations get chillier,” Contra Costa Times, Dec. 10, 1999.

    16. The Sunflower, No. 31 Jan 00, Op. Cit.

    17. Gordon, Michael R. “Russia rejects call to amend ABM treaty,” Contra Costa Times, Oct. 21, 1999.

    18. “New Russian Defense Plan Lowers Threshold for First Use,” The Sunflower No. 32 Feb 00, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Santa Barbara, Calif.

    19. “U.S. Opposes Extra Russian Arms Cut, ” Reuters News Service, Jan. 28, 2000.

    20. Schell, Jonathan, “The Gift Of Time,” The Nation, Feb. 9, 1998, p. 56.

     

  • Nuclear War: The Perspectives of a Planetary Astronomer

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/sagan.pdf

  • Preventing Accidental Nuclear War

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/krieger.pdf