Name: Ajax Vachher

Social Justice Group: Nuclear Weapons/Nuclear Proliferation

Date of Fieldwork: February 5, 2023

Name of Organization and person (people) with whom you met and their title(s):James Acton

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 February 5th, my group and I had an online interview with James Acton who is a nuclear physicist who works at the Carnegie Endownment. James is the co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is an expert on hypersonic weapons and he has published multiple books on nuclear weapons.

One of the first things James told us about was about the Danger of escalation. He told us that small and minor escalations could lead to a nuclear war. He gave the example of if a country is losing a convential war, they might use nuclear weapons to to terrify the other side into backing down. Nuclear weapons could also be used in war as a response to misinterpreted warnings. These things really stuck out to me because it’s really scary, knowing that at any time, countries can easily launch a nuclear weapon when they want to, wether if it’s because they misunderstood something and there isn’t a good reason to launch a weapon, or to just launch a weapon because they’re losing a war. Realizing that your own life and millions(possibly billions) of others’ lives is at risk just by one person’s command is terrifying.

Next we asked him about current threats. We asked him about Crimea and the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons if Ukraine invade Crimea. He said that it worried him because it was quite possible that Ukraine decide to invade the Russia held Crimea. Then he told us about the chance of a nuclear retaliation if Ukraine do invade Crimea. He said that there’s a 20-25% chance that they do launch a nuke if Crimea gets invaded by Ukraine. This also really scared me because it may not sound like it at first but 25% is a really large chance that they do use nuclear weapons. This may stop Ukraine from deciding to invade Crimea but with all the help they’re getting from NATO, it’s very possible that they do.

Although Russia seems like a large nuclear threat, which it is, North Korea is also a nuclear threat that isn’t talked about as much because of the war in Ukraine. We asked him for his opinions on this. He said that the situation in North Korea is worrying because of the chance of a North Korean provocation that gets out of hand. He came back to the idea of small escalations leading to a large-scale nuclear war.

We then started asking him about an accidental nuclear launch through nuclear command systems and the possibility of that happening. He said it’s not probable and there’s a very low chance of an accidental nuclear launch/war happening but it’s still worth worrying about because of misinterpreted warnings. An example he gave was in a conventional war, if a country worries about other countries and satellites in orbit and attacks them, the other country might take that as a nuclear threat and respond to them with the use of nuclear weapons. They may look at their satellites being shot down as a potential nuclear escalation which could trigger the use of nuclear weapons in a war.

Then we talked more about disarmament and how countries carry out a nuclear ban. Countries are constantly destroying and creating new nuclear weapons. Weapons are constantly being taken apart or being put together. The dismantling of nukes isn’t an easy process. It’s hard to ban nuclear weapons because although they’re extremely scary, countries can use them to deter a potential threat from other countries. Countries are less likely to go to war because of nuclear weapons and the chance that a country uses them in war. If you did however want to carry out a nuclear ban(which is a long term goal), he told us that you would need some sort of verification. You need to make a strong national law and make new security without nuclear weapons. The choice seems obvious but is pretty hard. Without them, countries are more likely to go to war but with them, there is a constant threat to the lives of everyone on Earth.