Name: Ajev Vachher

Social Justice Group: Nuclear Weapons/Nuclear Proliferation

Date of Fieldwork: February 6, 2023

Name of Organization and person (people) with whom you met and their title(s):James Acton; Co Director of Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endownment

Type of Fieldwork: Interview

What I did and what I learned about my topic, activism, social justice work or civil and human rights work from this fieldwork?:

On Monday, February 6, my group left lunch early to get on a zoom meeting with a renowned British physicist and nuclear expert, James Acton. Having already read on or two of his articles both before and after my email to him requesting an interview, I was intrigued to get a more formal view of his perspective on the present day nuclear situation.

Of one of the articles I read in which he wrote, he covered the topic of a nuclear escalation if Ukraine does decide to invade the Russian-held area of Crimea that is legally Ukraine. Considering the dangers of retaliation to an extreme, when asked about his genuine fear of the situation, James said he was very worried about a potential full-scale assault on Crimean soil. If a large military operation was conducted by Ukraine to seize back the Crimean territory, James gave the chances of Putin retaliating with nukes as a 20-25% chance. James said that it would not be a massive nuclear reprisal by Putin, but a defensive assault with limited nuclear use. It wouldn’t be a dangerous escalation, but Putin would hope that by using nuclear weapons, the West would urge Ukraine to sign a treaty with Russia, and potentially cease the conflict by relinquishing some Ukrainian territory to Russia.

Another one of James’s articles covered the possibility of an accidental nuclear war through Nuclear Command Systems lack of competence. When asked, his tone didn’t change and he said that there is not a strong likelihood of it ever happening, but it is enough to worry about. Despite there being a miniscule chance of any such occurrence, if it were to ever happen, the consequences would be disastrous. A form of Nuclear Command Systems sparking an accidental nuclear escalation is through misinterpreted warnings. “In a conventional war, there’s certain kinds of military operations that could look like preparations to use nukes. In a war, one country might attack another nation’s satellites in orbit. It may look to another country that it was a potential cause of nuclear escalation.” Any form of assault on a form of aid to a countries nuclear program might be misread as a formal act of foreign assault.

On the topic of hypersonic weapons, James reminded us of their capability. They are 5 times faster than the speed of sound. Looking at its origins, the first form of a hypersonic weapon was the ballistic missile introduced in the 1950’s. Current Missile defense systems are being adapted to deal with hypersonic weapons. Their defense systems will be ore maneuverable due to new hypersonic weapons having the ability to maneuverable much more flexibly. Ballistic missiles are slowly becoming outdated. On the topic of defense systems, James said that Point Missile defenses cover smaller areas. Other defense systems like Area Defense Systems try to defend a wider area. James used to reference of defense in football. Area Defense Systems are like Offensive Linemen, and even though they cover ground wide enough to stop a running play, they were thin enough to be vulnerable by a throw over them. While the Cornerback(Point Missile Defense Systems) covers a smaller space, but tracks down the ball with greater efficiency.

Before going, James also informed us that countries dismantle and rebuild nuclear weapons all the time. He said that dismantling a nuclear weapon is “easy”. Nothing was specified on that topic, but on the section of nuclear prohibition, if you were to ban nuclear weapons (a long-term goal) you would want as James put it, “some kind of verification”. Nuclear weapons do pose a massive threat to society but also help deter foreign threats. Countries are less likely to go to war because they are in possession of nukes. James said that a strong motive behind a nuclear ban is “to find a way to create strong national law and security without nuclear weapons.” If a country relies heavily on their nuclear weapons for their own defense, there is a smaller chance of their being a solidified political structure and governmental system to keep the citizens intact. It is more so a political exercise than it is a technical exercise.

James went on to say that he himself could not formally change nuclear policy, and increase the growth of global disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. His job is to make the world a better place, but through the form of trying to influence public policy. He had received a lot of rumination after his take on the Fukushima nuclear accident. I won’t go in depth on his takes, but he was able to “distill a succinct analysis which was widely reported”. He said that a lot of what he does is incremental. He takes small steps at a time. He has raised risks of inadvertent risks to a nuclear escalation, and helped influence contemplation of the public enough to put certain measures on the governments of Britain and the U.S.