Raymond Jeanloz accepting award.

“Thank you. It was a complete surprise learning of the award, and it is an overwhelming honor to have one’s name associated with that of Hans Bethe. Consummate citizen-scientist,  leader of the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bombs during a time of war, he was the one to explain to the world how nuclear fusion makes the Sun shine, and makes life possible. Fusion also powers thermonuclear weapons – the hydrogen bomb – and may someday provide vast amounts of energy to sustain our civilization.

Why should the average person care about nuclear weapons and non-proliferation? After all, we seem to have more immediate problems, whether the current economic instabilities or the scourge of terrorism that can affect any nation at any time.

Events far worse than those of September 11, 2001 are possible, however. Let me quote the words of Philip Morrison, along with Hans Bethe a founder of the Federation of American Scientists. Also part of the Manhattan Project, he was among the first U.S. scientists to visit Hiroshima after the bombing, and observed:1 ‘The atomic bomb is pre-eminently the weapon of saturation. It destroys so large an area so completely and so suddenly that the defense is overwhelmed. InHiroshima there were thirty-three modern fire stations; twenty-seven were made useless by the bombing. Three quarters of the fire-fighting personnel were killed or severely injured. At the same instant, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of fires broke out in the wrecked area. How could these fires be brought under control? There were some quarter of a million people injured in a single minute. The medical officer in charge of the public health organization was buried under his house. His assistant was killed, and so was his assistant… The power substation which served the center of the city was destroyed… Every hospital but one in the city was badly damaged; not one was able to shelter its patients from the rain – even if its shell of concrete still stood without roof, partitions, or casements. There were whole sections of the outer city undamaged, but the people there were unable to give effective aid….’

The point is not to judge the past – it was a time of terrible, total war – but of reminding ourselves of the devastation caused by one nuclear weapon. A small one by modern standards, and of a design that could readily be constructed by terrorists or stockpiled by a failing state, should they get their hands on the necessary materials. Yet the power of a nuclear explosion can be morethan one million times that of TNT: the effect so intense in the devastated area as to demolish the infrastructure on which survival – let alone civilization – depends.

Think about modern society in comparison with former times, especially a war hardened society. Our great advances and efficiencies depend on massive interdependencies in jobs and capabilities. We as individuals do not have to grow our own food, create our own shelter or clothing, and find drinkable water every day for ourselves and our families. Most of us cannot repair our appliances or our vehicles; we’re not supposed to – they are more advanced than that. Loss of electric power can be more than an inconvenience, if extended enough: heat may not be available because the control systems are electrical, and water may be inaccessible because pumps don’t work.

In short, we are no longer self-sufficient, but live in a highly integrated web of occupations that provide for enormous capabilities and efficiencies. The result is an incredibly advanced society, yet one that can also be profoundly fragile. And we understand this fragility from a different perspective, because we do prepare for devastation that comes from natural causes. We evacuate populations as hurricanes approach or as firestorms threaten a community, and we have seen the consequences of poorly managing those efforts. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we prepare ourselves as best as possible against the threat of earthquakes, with emergency kits and special engineering of buildings and structures.

One nuclear detonation in an urban area can have the impact of the worst of these disasters, or more, with hundreds of thousands killed or gravely injured in an instant. But the key difference is that this would be a human-induced catastrophe, with perhaps hundredfold the casualties of 9/11, and with local collapse of society’s infrastructure. The horror of immediate deaths and injuries is compounded by the fate of those who survive the event, but then succumb due to loss of that infrastructure – whether shelter, medical care or potable water.

No one can know whether such a calamity will happen soon, or ever. But we do know that the possibility of a nuclear detonation exists, and in some terrible sense grows more likely with time. This is because the knowledge and materials of nuclear technologies are relentlessly spreading around the globe. In particular, the world at large is embracing nuclear power, and with good reason because energy is needed for growing economies. Especially for those nations lacking natural resources, nuclear energy provides an important avenue for growth. And concerns of global climate change are also motivating demand for nuclear power. So, in addition to the normal diffusion of scientific knowledge, much accelerated these days by the Internet, the drive for energy and resource security is distinctly hastening the spread of nuclear technology.

There is no intent here to equate nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but the fact is that there are important technical overlaps between these domains. With time, relevant knowledge, materials and people are spreading worldwide, and increasing numbers of countries inevitably become latent nuclear-weapons states. That is, even if they have no desire for nuclear weapons at the present time, latent states have the technical capability to develop a nuclear arsenal in the future, should they feel the need to do so.

And, with more than 30,000 weapons’ worth of nuclear explosive material – highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium – available around the world in civilian stockpiles alone, there is significant reason for concern about control of materials.

There is over 100,000 weapons’ worth of material when military stockpiles are also taken into account. Even if protected with 99.99 percent perfection, the corresponding loss of a few weapons’ worth of material could have a catastrophic impact. For a single nuclear detonation, whether caused by terrorists or a nation’s military actions, would not only devastate the target but would also shatter the 60- year – more than 2 generation- long – taboo against the use of nuclear weapons.

The world would instantly be changed, with consequences that are hard for us to imagine.

Given the pressing urgencies of everyday events, it is all too easy to look the other way and ignore the real, long-term dangers potentially associated with these technologies. Yet nuclear technologies are also necessary, and at present inevitable, in a world of growing economies with concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions. Recent events show that our society runs grave risks if w look only to the near term, planning only to respond to today’s polls or to maximize profits in the next financial quarter. We have many reminders that focusing on the crises of the moment, and ignoring long-standing problems can bring on unexpectedly large catastrophes in the future; and the future seems inevitably to come upon us more quickly than we can imagine.

My intent here has been to remind us why these issues of nuclear weapons and nonproliferation need broader public discussion. It is time for the U.S. to become more of a leader: we need to develop a clearer idea of the role of nuclear weapons in the post Cold-War, post-9/11 era, and be viewed as leading the global efforts against nuclear proliferation and the potential of nuclear terrorism.

In these matters, the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons described by George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn is the most powerful call to action in recent times. It is motivated by the recognition that we do not live in a world with a balance of power between two deterring arsenals. Instead, the presence of multiple arsenals is almost an invitation for mistakes or misunderstandings. And even we in the U.S. have seen dangerous mishandling of our own nuclear weapons. Compounded with the emergence of well-funded and technologically sophisticated terrorism, the potential for catastrophic events can no longer be overlooked.

It is not clear when or under what circumstances the world might ever be rid of nuclear weapons, but the most important reason for the vision is to motivate all of us to devise specific, constructive steps that could be taken in that direction. Today’s Panel Discussion is a case in point, and I would like to move quickly toward starting that discussion.

In closing, I should emphasize that I could never have worked alone on issues of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. Essential technical research is performed by hundreds of scientists and engineers at the national laboratories. Their value to the nation and to the world at large is in informing policy through high-quality technical understanding, unbiased by politics. It is my good fortune if I have been in a position to help communicate their findings. Without their technically outstanding efforts – working quietly behind the scenes – there would have been nothing to communicate.

And, of course, nothing is possible without one’s immediate family. In fact, they provide the motivation for caring so much about these issues. But, I have also been privileged to work with many dedicated and highly talented colleagues, from top-quality researchers in universities to amazingly conscientious individuals in Washington, DC and elsewhere: numerous members of government agencies; members and staff of Congress; active and retired military officers; colleagues at the National Academy of Sciences, where we use the network of scientific communication to pursue discussions among security experts around the world.

It is urgent that we in the United States focus on the most effective means of countering nuclear proliferation, and this calls especially for cooperative measures. Partnering with nations around the world offers the most promising means of addressing the growing threat of nuclear arms.”

Print PDF

Habs A. Bethe

The Federation of American Scientists has chosen Raymond Jeanloz, a professor of geophysics and astronomy at the University of California at Berkeley, as the recipient of the 2008 Hans Bethe Award for “his demonstration of the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the presence of a moratorium on nuclear testing.

In addition to his primary scientific work on the behavior of matter at high temperatures and pressures and its application to planetary interiors, Jeanloz applies his expertise to vital questions of national security as the chair of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC). Under his leadership, CISAC published several studies and analyses of major security issues such as nuclear weapons policy, the management of weapons-useable material, and on the future of U.S. nuclear forces (http://www.nas.edu/cisac).

At the conclusion of his review of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program, Jeanloz proclaimed it an amazing success and confirmed the ability of the United States to sustain its nuclear weapons stockpile.

“Raymond Jeanloz’s investigation into the effects of aging of materials, components, and systems within the U.S. nuclear arsenal found that the materials that make up the nuclear core are far more stable and predictable than anyone would have anticipated,” said Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the strategic security program at the Federation of American Scientists. “His conclusion that the U.S. stockpile will be stable for periods of at least 60 years took the wind out of the sails of advocates for new nuclear weapons.”

Jeanloz’s analysis demonstrated the resilience of the U.S. nuclear weapons establishment provides an opportunity for an extensive examination of post-Cold War nuclear weapons policy and its role in the 21st century.

“The world’s only superpower would send a negative signal to the non-nuclear states if it felt the need to develop new types of nuclear weapons,” wrote Raymond Jeanloz in the March 2003 edition of Arms Control Today.

Throughout the 1990s, Jeanloz advised the U.S. Department of Energy, adding a responsible voice to the National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory Committee. He is also the 1988 recipient of a fellowship, often called a “genius award,” from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

As a Berkeley professor, Jeanloz has served on committees and panels including the National Security Panel and Nonproliferation, Arms Control and International Security Advisory Committee  of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He has also served on National Academy studies, including the Committee on Technical Issues Related to Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Committee on Effects of a Nuclear Earth- Penetrator Weapon. In 1979, he received his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology then joined the faculty of Harvard University before moving to Berkeley.

The 2008 FAS Hans Bethe Award was presented on Friday, 26 September 2008, at the FAS Symposium “Paths to Zero” at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

Video is online at http://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_hansbetheaward.html.

Print PDF

I wish to thank the Commission for giving me the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I consider the topic, “China’s Energy Policies and their Environmental Impacts,” to be one of great importance. I believe there are misunderstandings in both China and the United States surrounding this topic that cause both countries to miss opportunities for fruitful collaboration. Perhaps the greatest of these misunderstandings is the failure to recognize that China has in the past (1980-2000) and is again putting tremendous effort into reducing growth of energy-related CO2 emissions through the design and implementation of aggressive and innovative energy efficiency policies.

I wish to stress two points: The first is that China and the United States, accounting for nearly 40% of current global energy-related CO2 emissions and having the largest potential to reduce emissions growth, need to work cooperatively to establish a global regime in which these emissions are contained. The second is the need for assistance from outside for China to successfully limit these emissions. I suggest that China, without assistance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, could triple or even quadruple emissions over the next 20 to 25 years. With serious assistance from industrialized countries, especially the United States, the increase in emissions could be cut in half. The second outcome makes it possible to conceive of a future in which the worst effects of global climate change are averted; in the first case, such a future is difficult to imagine.

I have three major recommendations for the United States government:

1. The United States and China should engage in formal and regular discussions of ways of working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of influencing global negotiations, a serious proposal that both the United States and China agree to is likely to be acceptable to both industrialized and developing countries.

2. In the near term, the greatest support that the United States can provide to China (and other developing countries) is to build capacity in those countries to create and implement policies and programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States should play a leadership role, creating a program at the level of $500 million per year (~$200 million of which is for China). The United States should strongly encourage other industrialized nations to fund such programs as well.

3. In the long term, the solution to climate change will have to rely on technology that is not yet commercialized. The United States government should play a key role in establishing a basis for performing R&D on these technologies with other nations (including China) and the sharing of intellectual property of these future technologies among nations of the world. I urge the Commission to consider these ideas and recommendations seriously, in light of the statement that I provide below.

Issues

Progress toward a solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions depends critically on both China and the United States and that deepened bilateral cooperation would greatly increase the likelihood of finding an effective way to move forward. China and the United States produce approximately equal levels of energy-related CO2 emissions and together account for almost 40% of such emissions worldwide. China is projected to account for 40% to 50% of new energy-related CO2 emissions globally between the present and 2030, thus being by far the largest future contributor to increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The United States, meanwhile, has the greatest potential of any country in the world to reduce energy-related greenhouse  gas emissions, for two reasons: first, because the U.S. per-capita intensity of these emissions is considerably higher than those of other large industrial countries (e.g., 2.5 times that of the European Union and 2.1 times that of Japan); and second, because the United States has the scientific, technical, and economic capability of developing viable alternatives to fossil energy technologies and is likely to be the world leader in any breakthrough technology if one is developed.

It is not enough that China and the United States both take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. It is essential that the two countries do this cooperatively. As long as China does little to reduce growth of greenhouse gas emissions or appears to be doing little, it will be politically difficult for the United States to sign a binding international treaty that commits to a serious cap on emissions. And as long as the United States either does little or appears to be doing little, it’s impossible to imagine China committing to any international treaty that limits its own emissions. This is a vicious circle in which neither country will act boldly unless the other acts first, and neither appears willing to act first.

The point here is the one I emphasize throughout this statement: If we succeed in working cooperatively with China to reduce CO2 emissions, the world stands a far greater chance of reducing the threat of global climate change. If we do not, it’s difficult to see how China will do it all alone. This is a choice that two great nations – who contribute by far the largest CO2 emissions to the atmosphere – have to make.”

FAS

Print PDF

One meeting focused on the shared interests of the U.S. and China in energy technologies. It included the 2008 FAS Public Service Award ceremony, which honored Mark Levine, a long-time FAS member who pioneered efforts to collaborate with China on energy technologies. His remarks are summarized in this issue. A number of senior Chinese officials participated in the conference. Chinese emissions of carbon dioxide now slightly exceed those of the U.S. Together the two countries produce 40 percent of all global carbon emissions. Each country arrived at this situation from very different histories and face different challenges in meeting climate goals. But both nations understand that solutions hinge on the development of dramatically more efficient methods for using energy and a new generation of clean fuels and sources of electricity. There are many areas where collaborative research could pay important results.

The second meeting focused on implementing strategies for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn wrote a powerful opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that laid out the rational for doing this and a series of practical steps forward. This was followed by a year of detailed work at the Hoover Institute, which led to a second Wall Street Journal article by the same authors laying out an even more detailed set of proposals. FAS, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists crafted a set of proposals in the new edition of their report, Toward True Security. There was a remarkable amount of overlap between the proposals. George Shultz participated enthusiastically and made clear that he and his colleagues intend to pursue the mission of reducing U.S. and world nuclear arsenals vigorously next year. He repeatedly made the point that Ronald Reagan was deeply sincere about his desire to eliminate nuclear weapons and had been for years before becoming president. The 2008 Hans Bethe Award was given to Raymond Jeanloz who delivered introductory remarks at the session. These are also summarized in this issue.

We look forward to an exciting year and hope we can count on all of you to help us.

Print PDF

Entering our 64th year, the Federation of American Scientists continues to pursue the best use of science and technology for the benefit of mankind.

In the next three years, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with its critically important verification procedures will expire, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will come up for international review, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) may be resubmitted to the United States Senate for ratification. All of this will occur in a new political environment that includes an ever growing momentum for working toward the global abolition of nuclear weapons. At no time since the end of the Cold War has there been a greater need for the sound scientific, technical, and policy analysis provided by FAS.

The Learning Technologies Program continues to advance the goals of learning and professional training. FAS advances education from the archaic methods of the past to take advantage of the techniques and technologies of the 21st century. The progress in commercial video game technology will create a humanities and a science focused learning experience for middle and high school students. Ongoing research is conducted into the benefits of computer games and online environments, such as virtual worlds, as tools for learning and training. The Building Technologies Program uses innovative building design and construction to improve quality, affordability, energy efficiency and hazard protection while lowering construction and operating costs. Since its inception, the Building Technologies project has combined the talents of renowned architects and engineers along with the nation’s leading energy experts to embark upon housing issues in U.S. and abroad.

In the normal sense it is difficult to quantify or benchmark FAS’s impact on the reduction of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the world – but we can show we’ve made a difference. We can provide metrics about the number of schools, children and scholars that are using our research. With regard to building technologies, FAS is collaborating with groups to revise codes and standards. Our demonstration houses stand as a testament that the FAS way is the right way to build.

The question then is: If you do believe that your support of FAS makes the world a better place, then please contribute and renew your membership. If you wish, you can designate your gift go to the project of your choice.

Visit us online at: http://www.fas.org/ member/member_contribute.html.

Print PDF