On Thursday, my group went on a 20 minute zoom call with Nuclear Expert Jamie Kwong. Most of our questions were based on her Carnegie Endowment Description, so she was able to go in depth in every question we asked. Having previously interviewed another member of the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, James Acton, we were interested on what separate topics of nuclear weapons they covered.

The Western public is allowed to be vocal because it is a democracy. Russia has succeeded in drowning any attempts of a revolt against its governmental structure and it functions as an authorization state. If Putin does frighten the Western public, that could influence their leaders and the credibility of Putin’s nuclear threat. The likelihood of a Western urge for their leaders to take measures to cease the aid to Ukraine if Russia uses nukes could factor in Putin’s decision making.

Another section of her expertise was the p5 process. It is recognized within the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the largest nuclear treaty in known existence. It involves 195 member states which is virtually universal and consists of the Grand Bargain(humanitarian aid). All the nations in the world that have nuclear arsenals ranging from the USSR to France agreed to work towards an eventual global elimination of nuclear weapons. The states that did not possess any nuclear weapons agreed to never pursue the creation of a nuke in exchange for assistance with their own nuclear energy programs. The only 5 states in the world with nuclear weapons at the time(Britain, America, France, China, Russia/USSR) are recognized as the p5, and are permanent members in the Security Council. The process which was initiated by the United Kingdom, was done due to an anger in which non-nuclear states were angry that the countries containing nuclear weapons didn’t work together for nuclear disarmament. It has been going on for over a decade now. They meet annually, with the United States as the chair. The meetings have been challenged by Russia’s war in Ukraine, so at a time like this, it is essential the meetings cover how the 5 states think of nuclear weapons and how they can use them in a proper fashion.

Jamie went on to say that the U.S.’s public opinion towards N.K. has varied over time. There have been spikes on concern levels on different North Korean activities. Not just America, but the entire Western public was concerned by missile testing and military exercising done by North Korea in the fall. The Chicago Council annual foreign policy survey found that while the American public is concerned about North Korea, they want the Biden administration to focus on other foreign policies. Perhaps the threat of Russia in Ukraine and China on Taiwan have overshadowed a tyrannical run countries threats.

Onto the topic of a direct nuclear blast, there is radiation after the detonation of the bomb. From the perspective on the well being of the global environment, there are concerns on nuclear waste impacting the environment around it. But direct influence from global warming can also influence a nuclear operation. The Submarine Bases are faced with the issue of flooding and rising sea levels. There can also be personnel impacts, such as a global warming caused flood impacting an active personnel. Systems that were designed to last for decades are impacted by unexpected climate changes.

After a nuclear bomb is detonated, within the area of the direct blast there will be utter destruction. Buildings will have been leveled and most people within that area will be dead. As you work past the blast impact and towards the shockwave impact, there will be debris, fires, people will be burned and have scars. That is the radiation effect. The long-term effects depend on which blast radius you’re in and how you’re exposure to the radiation. Radiation poison will result in your death a few days after the initial exposure. Victims from the nuclear tests in the Cold War era have long term effects such as cancer later on in life or children born from radiation victims having deformities.

The TPNW, a recent treaty formulated in 2017 is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. A group of states were frustrated with the lack of progress the p5 had on their promise of nuclear disarmament. The nations negotiated a treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons related activity with a goal for a widespread norm that nuclear weapons are not good. No nuclear member state is a member of the treaty. The treaty has the desire to spread a normative impact that nuclear weapons should be eradicated from the globe.

After 20 or so minutes of responses to our questions, Jamie ended it off on a final note. “Young people need to be thinking about nuclear weapons and their impacts and how they can shape these discussions”.

Read more

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.” 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.

Read more

On January 27, 2023, the nuclear weapons group (Me, Tyler, Erick, and Ajax) left school to head over to midtown and take a tour of the United Nations. What was expected to be a virtual interview with head of the Department of Peace Operations, Daniel Prins, auspiciously wounded up being a full on tour of the United Nation’s buildings and Department of Peace sector along with an informal interview at the fainting minutes of the previous but valuable time we spent with Daniel.

At first, we had to go through the necessary security precautions, and followed through with a recollection of how the U.N. situated it’s base at the most Eastern side of Midtown, Manhattan. What was once a slaughterhouse, evinced by the miniscule windows in an old building, the owners of the location (The Rockefeller Family) decided to donate the entire land to the United Nations after they were formally created in 1948 for no charge whatsoever.

The territory is not under neither New York or American control whatsoever. The jurisdiction of the country and city instantly vanish the moment your foot steps into the premise. It is the World’s property, and there will be United Nations guards instead of New York Guards, and laws that could suppress a person are uplifted. Only if the rare instance of an emergency are the New York Fire Department or Aide Services allowed to intervene.

After a short period in which we got a gist of the types of gifts from foreign countries were sent to the U.N. regardless of their worth or look, we went inside the iconic building. After our chaperon (Momii) had her id checked, Daniel headed us in the direction of the United Nations Meeting Room. Unfortunately paused in speech due to what was soon to be a direct meeting due to the date being International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we had to be ushered off the chairs and into a different room, not before we took some pictures though.

For the next part of the tour, we stumbled upon a display of landmines. There were different variations of land mines. Some would not explode if a human would step on it, but would detonate if a 6,000 pound vehicle drove over it. There was a collectives treaty to forbid land mines in countries, and despite a majority of the 193 countries in the U.N. that agreed to prohibit the buying and usage of land mines, some countries opted to not abide by those rules. Russia for example, decided against the removal of land mines, so they are openly using land mines in the war against Ukraine.

To the next section of chemical weapons, these extremely deadly and effective weapons were used in World War 1. Instead of filling up artillery guns or cannon launchers with ammo, they were filled up with the deadly toxins. These were highly ineffective on most occasions, as if the wind would change it’s trajectory, the weapons would push right back on the people who launched it. The targets were also not perfect and sometimes it would kill innocent civilians who were miles separated from the front lines. This danger to humanity lead to the majority of countries, including Russia, prohibit chemical weapons usage in war.

Onto the section of nuclear weapons, and the reason we went to the U.N., still in the same room, we shifted to the focus of nuclear usage and disarmament. Proliferation means spread, and non-proliferation means controlling the spread of something. That was the purpose Daniel Prins was working for the U.N. for many years. After the United States launched two devastating nuclear weapons on two of Japan’s major cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and after a continuous cold war that spanned the span of almost half a century and threatened the very existence of humanity, the world decided that the best way to save humanity from this threat was instead of increasing nuclear weapons arsenal as to prevent other sides from firing in fear of retaliation, it was decided that the best option was to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.

This obviously was very hard as many countries were defined on their nuclear might, and might not have anything else to show in terms of importance to the global balance of power besides that. For example right now, North Korea and Russia as quoted from former missileer Lawrence Bullock, “want to become the U.S.’s enemies by increasing nuclear weapons, because if the U.S. are enemies with them, they will be able to somewhat dictate global decisions”.

The Five Major nuclear powers, who are permanent members in the Security Counsel, France (300 estimated nuclear weapons), Britain (350), China (600), American (5,500), Then Soviet-Union present day Russia (6,500) devised a plan that would make these five powers second guess on a nuclear assault on these countries territory. If one of the countries were to send a nuclear weapon to the other, the country that received the nuclear attack would respond in kind by sending their own nukes. Though it would guarantee continual mass destruction and a possible end to humanity, the plan was devised so that the very thought of responding in kind would never be pondered because none of the countries would think of sending a nuclear weapon on another country.

The Achilles heal in this plan though is that countries who have just developed nuclear weapons are not in the deal. North Korea, one of these nuclear powers was once in the deal, but pulled out because they didn’t want to be puppeted around due to their dictator (Kim Jong-Un)’s utter hunger for power and fame. Along with that country with a nuclear arsenal still on the loose, border rivals India, and Pakistan, along with the 74 year old Israel all boast a nuclear arsenal and are not under restrictions from the deal as it remains as just those five powers.

On the other hand, I wondered what in the world could possibly excuse the launch of a nuclear weapon? What could a country possibly be able to use as an alibi for the direct usage on humanity with a weapon of such mass destruction? Daniel said that if a country were faced with an existential threat, they would perhaps only be excused to use a nuclear weapon if there was a direct threat to the complete dissolvement of the country and its foundation. In the Russo-Ukraine War, despite heavy sanctions being imposed on Russia, and multiple world powers sending in military might to aide Ukraine, Russia still hasn’t stated that there was a direct threat large enough to crumble their government which could excuse a nuclear launch. Saying something that radical when they started the war, and when you would think it would make them sound like they are losing the war which is the opposite of what Putin wants them to think would seem non sensical. So the likelihood of a nuclear assault the help change the tides of the war in Russia’s favor seem unlikely.

How a country would be able to abide by these treaties depends on their power, and genuine influence over the country. To assert laws, you need enough man power and technology. In some countries, the government doesn’t even control the country due to their lack of power. Military strength is critical in deciding a government’s hold on a country.

All of this might seem a bit hard to digest, but if you take time in reading all these short mini paragraphs, you realize that there is a certain pattern interconnecting every claim. For every threat to human life, or weapon that can be used inappropriately and in mass amounts is quick to be thrust down and be only trusted in the hands of the highest leaders in the highest countries, regardless of whether they’re idiots or not. To prevent from the destruction of the whole world if a major nuclear power has an absolute baboon for a president, The United Nations has and is still keeping the world in check. As quoted from the second U.N. Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, “The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell”.

Read more

On Friday, January 20, the Nuclear Weapons Group consisting of Ajev, Tyler, Erick, and Ajax interviewed a former missileer Lawrence Bullock. Tasked with being one of the two men who were situated at the launch zone. Armed with a pistol, both of the men had to turn the key at the same time, and once given the go to launch, had the ability to shoot the other missileer if they showed any signs of hesitation.

It turns out that despite general consensus that it was two men only, there was actually a third man behind the other two, armed with a machine gun who he too would shoot anyone if there were any signs of hesitation. Acceptance into the missile silos did not consist of any physically grueling training, but more so research about your back ground and past. Lawrence stated that you could be any citizen, regardless of your size or skin. But the government would track all of your history, all the way back to your childhood and keep a vigilant eye on any forms of a bad moment such as a robbery or time in jail. This would help them decide whether or not you would be loyal and dedicated to the nation to turn the key regardless of your perceptions on whether or not the nuke should be launched.

When soldiers would go in the silos, they wouldn’t leave it for 2 to 3 days. Meaning there would be no sunlight at all. The living quarters were somewhat decent, comprised of a gym, a kitchen, a place to sleep, and a work area. Lawrence went on to say that all of his peers went in the silos in countries in Europe which were situated at strategic geographical locations all across Central Western Europe which would be within striking distance of the Soviet Unions military locations. He said it was hell being there because civilians know you’re there. Lawrence and his peers thought that America was doing these countries a favor by aiding them in the standoff against the USSR, but it turned out that the civilians didn’t want nukes on their soil. Quoting Lawrence, “Once you’ve been in a country for a while; they don’t see you as an ally – They see you as an occupier”.

When asked upon how nuclear weapons modernized overtime, he said the equipment was more agile and had the ability to maneuver more quickly and had the ability to be launched much quicker than air dropped missiles/bombs. Currently, nuclear weapons hold enriched uranium which Lawrence said was “a lot more potent” than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Military spending would also alter depending on the presidencies. The Democrats, he said, would “try to undercut the military and take funding away”. He said the Democrats would try to find ways to ensure protection of the nation and the rest of the NATO nations through treaties and peaceful talks. The Republicans had the ideology that since they were the number one military, the only nation that could oppose them (The Soviet Union) military wise would be able to lead the race in terms of military power. Backtracking from military strength, but to technological strength in general, a lot of Americans had thought that the USSR was a bit more advanced than the U.S. due to the Soviets being able to be the first nation to send a man in a full orbit around the planet. The Republicans, especially Reagan, believed that a strong military would benefit the country, and they spent a lot of money to get high tech equipment.

In conclusion, it was hell for both sides, always military standoffs that marred many relations, all for a threat that resulted in nothing. But could it be worth it? Maybe all that military spending was the reason that there was no nuclear escalation, for fear of retaliation from the other side. Maybe no side decided to strike first, because they were scared of the capability of the other superpower. Nuclear weapons still today pose a massive threat to society, but those few men such as Lawrence Bullock have ensured that there has been no nuclear use since over 3/4 of a century ago.

Read more