The Next Nuclear Age: What the Washington Post Series Reveals About Our Perilous Present, from Trinity to Tehran
In the eighty years since the first successful test of a nuclear weapon, generations of effort has been spent to limit the spread of these weapons and prevent their use. The Federation of American Scientists, since our founding in 1945, has played a central role in helping understand the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and diligently worked to ensure the policy debate is informed by scientific and technical data. As part of our continuing legacy, the Global Risk program at FAS partnered with the Washington Post to publish a five part opinion series entitled: The Next Nuclear Age.
With 2000 nuclear weapons on alert, far more powerful than the first bomb tested in the Jornada Del Muerto during the Trinity Test 80 years ago, our world has been fundamentally altered. This series resurfaces clear warnings that nuclear policy is not just a relic of days gone past. Past generations had this threat at the forefront of their minds as a clear and present danger to the future civilization. However distant 80 years may feel, the threat still reaches into contemporary times with most recently the nuclear program of Iran becoming the target of strikes by the U.S. Military.
The Iran strikes are the manifestation of a debate mostly relegated to non-proliferation policy circles. We can watch as the preemptive effort to halt progress of Iran’s nuclear weapons program plays out in press conferences and analysis rather than the hypothetical. The strikes on Iran offer a unique pivot to evaluate some of the underlying assumptions about deterrence and what role the U.S. is willing to play in international institutions with our allies. There has been much analysis of the Iran strikes framed using the traditional logic of being able to halt programmatic development through brute force, i.e. bomb enrichment sites. In my assessment, more progress has been made and could continue to be made by supporting the sanctions regime and using more social coercion by partnering with our allies and supporting international institutions. When we choose to use military force, we ultimately trade in our legitimacy in the rules based order, pushing our allies to look at building their own nukes for security.
The real world implications of nuclear policy and diplomacy can be seen in the unfolding story with Iran, which is not quite done yet. The Next Nuclear Age as a five part series surfaces and grapples with the realities of living in the nuclear age and dispels myths surrounding nuclear policy and non-proliferation. Each part paints a vivid picture that reviews the history of nuclear close calls and details how the long-standing norm against proliferation is eroding. The subsequent articles describe how a nuclear war could start, who controls the use of nuclear weapons in the United States, and how a nuclear attack could unfold in the United States.
In the post Cold War Era, nuclear weapons have largely faded from the heat of popular culture however their threat is still a sobering reality. The Next Nuclear Age series serves as a reminder that the durability of the nuclear threat is omnipresent in modern life. Thousands of weapons are aimed and on high alert, one person has sole authority to launch, and a growing number of nations are considering spending billions to secure nuclear options as tensions rise.
After decades of work trying to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, our days ahead look riskier than in years prior. The multipolar geopolitical landscape exponentially raises risks of accidents and increases excuses to jump into an arms race. Countries are falsely substituting military capability for political credibility therefore increasing risk. Our allies and institutions are being clobbered by disinformation and mistrust and we are left feeling the pinch, having to result in widely unpopular military interventions in potentially protracted conflicts.
This series showcases how the accidents, miscalculations, and escalatory spirals have more room to become trigger points. Compressed decision-making timeframes revealed in the final installment show how quickly rational deliberation can give way to existential pressure. What worries me is that we’ve given up tools in our tool box that monitor and reduce risk. We’ve traded out diplomatic solutions and investment for military build up and an expensive vanity project of Trump’s Golden Dome. Ultimately it is our responsibility as citizens to uphold policymakers to account on these weapons before the unthinkable becomes inevitable.
Part 1: Why we should worry about nuclear weapons again
The Cold War prospect of global annihilation has faded from consciousness, but the warheads remain.
By Jon B. Wolfsthal, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda
The threat of nuclear weapons since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been largely absent from the public’s consciousness. Stockpiles have been reduced from Cold War highs but the thousands of remaining weapons could still destroy humanity.
“It is as if the lessons of the Cold War — that there is never a finish line to the arms race and that more effective nuclear weapons do not lead to stability and security — have been forgotten by the current generation of defense planners.”
The new frame of great power competition among the US, Russia and China, plus new nuclear dangers make today’s nuclear age more complicated and dangerous than the nuclear standoff between the first two major powers of the late 20th century. Nuclear policy experts refer to the U.S.-Russia-China nuclear triangle as a ‘three body problem’. However the ‘three body problem’ definition neglects the reality that nine countries have nuclear weapons. Any of the nuclear armed states could set off a global nuclear war. The public needs to relearn the language of nuclear risk and a new generation of leaders will be required to manage these dangers.
Part 2: How nuclear war could start
To understand how it could all go wrong, look at how it almost did.
By Hans Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns and Allie Maloney
Roughly 2000 nuclear weapons that are on alert at any time across the globe. These weapons are ready to launch from submarines, dropped from planes and rocketed to targets. Some are mobile, fixed or in transit; all of them are vulnerable to accidents or affected by human or technical error.
“The end of humanity could arrive in minutes — that is what makes nuclear war so different from other wars.”
If there is one thing that can be counted on, it’s that nuclear accidents are bound to happen. It’s a matter of when, not if. One of the most dangerous parts of having nuclear arsenals is that accidents involving nuclear weapons could cause an acute global crisis, involving a web of interlocking states, enemies, and adversaries. The delicate balance of crisis can be spurred towards destruction when non-nuclear conflicts spill over into an escalatory spiral towards nuclear use, spelling destruction for all involved.
Part 3: Only one American can start a nuclear war: The president
The American president has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike, even if every adviser in the room is against it.
The authority to launch nuclear weapons in the United States rests on the shoulders of only one person, the President. Codified in both law and tradition, the President has the sole authority to launch a nuclear strike that once authorized is unstoppable. The established process to order a nuclear strike, using the ‘black book’, is a well choreographed procedure designed to provide the most streamlined options to the President in a time of crisis.
“The start of nuclear war, the probable deaths of millions and the choice of which cities to decimate — the black book distills these realities into a sanitized list of options that a former military aide to President Bill Clinton likened to a “Denny’s breakfast menu.”
The Constitution grants to only Congress in Article One the right to declare war. That said, a President has unilateral legal authority to launch nuclear weapons, even if the United States or its allies have not been attacked, runs counter to the way the US system was designed to operate. Such a weighty and world altering decision ought to be made using a system of checks and balances, not by one individual.
Part 4: What’s making some countries daydream about nukes again?
With or without Iran, the number of nuclear states could double, raising the risk of catastrophe.
By Jon B. Wolfsthal, Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda
The incentives for developing nuclear weapons have changed in a world that has been rising in conflict. Paired simultaneously with reduced confidence among its allies that the United States is a reliable partner, the second largest nuclear armed state, allies and enemies alike are pushed into a new paradigm. Nuclear weapons are hard and expensive to build however with the incentives of security shifting towards development, some countries are willing to front the cost.
“Deterrence and reassurance depend on both military capability and political credibility. The credibility of a promise to protect is the fragile part of the calculus.”
A mass proliferation of nuclear weapons would ultimately cause more opportunities for accidents or misuse. This alone is a major reason why limiting the development of nuclear weapons is such a pressing issue. More weapons of mass destruction is more opportunity for things to go wrong, leading to irreversible consequences.
Part 5: How a nuclear attack on the U.S. might unfold, step by step
The American reaction to an attack is classified, but details made public paint a harrowing picture.
By Mackenzie Knight-Boyle
The process of how the U.S. would react to nuclear attack is classified; however there is a predictable path that it may follow based on public data. This article follows how a response would proceed. The ramifications on U.S. soil and abroad would be devastating.
“The defense secretary interjects, urging the president to make a decision in the next two minutes or risk losing the ability to retaliate.”
In the situation room, or wherever the President is deciding to make a launch, the space and time pushes the decision towards launch. As U.S. assets are targeted, the potential for ability to respond is shortened. Making the decision window in an accident scenario potentially just as lethal as an intentional launch. Some countries in order to amend this pressure have instituted ‘No First Launch’ policies whereby a country needs to be verifiably attacked with nuclear weapons to respond in kind – such a policy could be used in the U.S. to preempt accidental launch.
With 2000 nuclear weapons on alert, far more powerful than the first bomb tested in the Jornada Del Muerto during the Trinity Test 80 years ago, our world has been fundamentally altered.
As the United States continues nuclear modernization on all legs of its nuclear triad through the creation of new variants of warheads, missiles, and delivery platforms, examining the effects of nuclear weapons production on the public is ever more pressing.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Nearly one year after the Pentagon certified the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program to continue after it incurred critical cost and schedule overruns, the new nuclear missile could once again be in trouble.