Nuclear War Comes Close Than We Realize, Harvard Expert Warns; Risk Could Be Far Worse Than Cuban Missile Crisis
The risk of nuclear warfare is currently at its highest point in decades, becoming a more complex one involving more countries and more technologies.
Dark Clouds Loom
According to Matthew Bunn, a professor of energy, national security and foreign policy in Harvard, we are at a time when leading experts who were key to preventing nuclear conflicts are "aging out". He pleads that leaders should urgently ask for the help of a new generation of scientists and engineers.
Bunn refers to a worldwide landscape that is marked by increasing nuclear tensions. These include China's construction of missile silos, Russia's nuclear threats in the Ukraine conflict, North Korea's missile testing, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the current nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan.
In response to these events, policymakers in the US consider a potential nuclear arms buildup. Military balances are also destabilized by advancements in technologies such as artificial intelligence and hypersonic missiles.
In his paper "Reducing nuclear dangers," Bunn reported that "dark clouds lay on the nuclear horizon, with threats from all directions." He warned that the 2010 New START Treaty is the last remaining agreement that limits the nuclear forces of the US and Russia. However, this treaty will expire in 2026, with Russia blocking the required inspection and without new talks underway.
As of 2024, there are over 12,000 nuclear weapons around the world. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US has about 5,100 warheads, Russia has around 5,580, China has 500, the UK has 225, and France has 290. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan each have about 170 warheads, North Korea has 50 and Israel has 90.
Becky Alexis-Martin, a lecturer in Peace Studies and International Development at the University of Bradford in the U.K., agrees that we are currently in a time of nuclear tension. He believes that there is a real risk of nuclear war as long as humanity has nuclear weapons.
The risk of nuclear war has not been so high since the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. It was a direct and dangerous confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was considered the moment when these two superpowers came closest to a nuclear war.
READ ALSO: Nuclear Weapon Innovator Demands Public Attention for Possible Impact of Nuclear War
What Should Be Done to Avoid the Catastrophe?
Historically, arms control agreements were facilitated by non-governmental conversations among scientists and engineers. According to Bunn, the initial steps should focus on reducing US tensions with Russia, China, and North Korea, as well as establishing communication and risk reduction policies
Bunn believes that there should be in-depth technical dialogues in the scientific community to address issues such as the reduction of conflict in outer space and cyberspace. World leaders should also discuss how new technologies like artificial intelligence and commercial space systems can verify the next generation of arms restraints.
Bunn suggests that the US, Russia, and China should think of ways to reduce hostility, build predictability, and prevent the perils and costs of unrestrained competition. These parties should end their dependence on "launch on warning" policies and take their missiles off alert. This way, decisions on life or death for millions of people will not be made in a matter of minutes.
 |
| ONE OF THESE MEN IS NUKELESS |
Putin's nuclear warning: A Canadian expert
explains the threat level
Genevieve Beauchemin
CTV National News Quebec Bureau Chief
Updated March 14, 2024
At the height of the Cold War, a statement like Russian President Vladimir Putin's warning to the West that his country is militarily and technically ready to deploy its nuclear arsenal(opens in a new tab) would have shaken the world to its core.
Now, says a Canadian expert, his words are telling of the deeply antagonistic relationship between Russia and the West, but for now, not a clear sign a nuclear attack is any closer than it was when the war in Ukraine broke out more than two years ago.
"It brought us up a notch, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But at the moment, we are still at a place where we have not gone up a notch again," says Jane Boulden. She is a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, as well as fellow at the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen's University.
Boulden says Putin's aim is likely to be a message both domestically and abroad as Russia's presidential election, one he is all but certain to win, is about to get underway on March 15. He is likely to get another six-year term, adding to his already 24-year-long rule over the country.
"He is trying to signal domestically that Russia is strong and powerful, but also stable. The message to the rest of the world is 'Remember we are a nuclear power,'" she says.
Putin has made similar remarks before, but what experts are closely watching is whether there is any change on the ground. Boulden says the United States is closely monitoring the troop and equipment movements in Ukraine that would hint at a nuclear deployment.
Still, Dr. Ira Helfand, of the International Steering Group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), believes the threats should be taken seriously, saying they underline the extraordinarily dangerous situation in which the world finds itself.
"Nuclear weapons should not be available to any country to be used in this way," he says, adding that nuclear powers have to begin negotiations on joining the treaty on prohibitions of nuclear weapons and eliminating their nuclear arsenals. He says while this may seem counter-intuitive, this may be the right moment to start this process, while tensions are high between the U.S. and Russia.
"We need to remember there was a similar period of tension in 1962 after the Cuban missile crisis, in 1983 at the height of the Cold War, and both of those moments were followed by rapid progress towards controlling the arms race," explains Helfand. He suggests it is time for nations to try and reach an agreement.
Canada, as a non-nuclear country, is likely to have a limited role in striking any such deal.
"It is not that we shouldn't try, but it is unlikely that if Canada took initiative and brought both sides together that would somehow make a change," says Boulden.
But, if there was a deal, Canada could carve itself a niche role.
"Canada, traditionally, when it has had a role to play in these areas, it has been in areas where we have expertise. For instance, how do you verify a treaty, how to make sure both sides are compliant," she says. "We don’t have nuclear weapons, but we have a lot of nuclear technical expertise."
Any agreement would be up to nuclear powers and their willingness to negotiate, she says, and for now, Putin's warnings indicate no movement on that front.
No comments:
Post a Comment