Derek Johnson is a managing partner of Global Zero which is an orginization that was formed in france which is focused on bringing world leaders together to talk about this issue. Derek was suprised on how we stumbled oppon this topic and was very curious on the reason why we picked this topic out of all of the other topics. He was happy to talk to us because one of their companies goals it to inform the youth about the nuclear crisis.

Overall Derek was verry happy to talk to us. We had a meeting planned with him the week before but he postponed it due to him being sick. We started off the interview by asking about his orginization Global Zero. He said that the orginization was focused on rallying global leaders together to discuss nuclear disarmenment. The goal for their company is to bring the nuclear weapon count to zero.

He told us that many people doubted him and said that it never will happen. They said that there will always be nuclear weapons and the nuclear threat will never go away. He said that his responce to those people was, “What a lot of people don’t realize is that there used to be (30 years ago) there was 70’000 nuclear weapons in the world. Now there’s 13,000. There’s been a loss of 80% of nuclear weapons in thirty years.”

Their company’s plan is to first get the United States and Russia to decrease their nuclear arsenals because they feel that the countries with 500 and less nuclear bombs wont lower their arsenals unless the US and Russia lowers their arsenals. They have a four stage rollout for their plan. During the feildwork I wondered how their orginization was funded and he said that they are mostly donation funded and from countreis without nuclear weapons.

Read more

On February 10, my social justice group – nuclear weapons, had an interview with Derek Johnson who is the head of Global Zero which is an organization focused on eliminating all nuclear weapons. They plan to make an agreement which eliminates all nuclear weapons by the year 2045 or before.

His work really interested me and made me wonder how they plan to eliminate all weapons by 2045. We first asked him about the background of his company and his journey which started at Global Zero in 2010. Global Zero used to be focused on rallying global leaders and other people so the threat of nuclear weapons is widely known across the world. Global Zero thinks it’s logical to eliminate all nuclear weapons. When he took over, he started a new approach to rally people who don’t have as much power as global leaders because it’s their job to make people think about this topic and realize the damage it can do so that they can take actions toward the disarmament of nuclear weapons. The feedback he received was mostly people telling him that his goal was never going to be achieved by eliminating all nukes but his response was the fact that over the course of the last 30 years, the amount of nuclear weapons 30 years ago(70,000) has reduced by 80% to roughly 13,000.

Then we asked him about how he planned for all 9 countries with nukes to get rid of them. He told us that it was a 4 step process. Russia and the U.S. possess around 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons(around 5,000 each). His theory is that if you can get the U.S. and Russia to keep working to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons, countries will also eliminate their weapons but this won’t happen if Russia and the U.S. only get rid of a few hundred weapons, the other countries won’t do anything because the 2 countries with the most nukes have practically done nothing eliminating only a few hundred.

Global Zero’s plan is to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2045 so we asked him about a potential nuclear war happening before 2045. He said that every day, there is a risk, that isn’t very high, but there’s still a risk. But then he talked about current threats like in Ukraine and how the chances will keep increasing if countries are careless. Another thing that we thought would be a problem is the loss of jobs because if there aren’t anymore nuclear weapons, wouldn’t the people working with them lose their jobs? He responded to this and he’s prepared for the people who will lose jobs. He said that there aren’t many people working to build nukes anyways but for the people that are, their work will be useful when there aren’t any nuclear bombs such as making sure that no nuclear bombs are being made after all are eliminated. Then we asked him about non-nuclear countries obtaining nuclear weapons. He said that it is a concerning matter that he should care about but there isn’t much he can do. There are many countries who can build a nuclear bomb but decide not to but can pull out of treaties to make nuclear bombs so he plans to get rid of nukes before they get in the wrong hands.

He also told us about how the public has influenced government decisions of nuclear weapons. In 2005 protesters who demanded change and the U.S. president at the time, Ronald Reagan, and Russian president, Vladimir Ivashkowhich were notified and this led 30 years of progress.

This interview, I learned a lot about how the public can protest and make a change in eliminating nuclear weapons and his work was really interesting. He has planned for multiple inconveniences in Global Zero’s plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons and has a plan to make all countries get rid of their nuclear arsenal. We learned a lot about Global Zero and how we can make a change.

Read more

On February 9, my group mates and I left lunch early for an interview with Jamie Kwong. Jamie also works for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is an expert on the situation in North Korea and she gave us a lot of information on current nuclear threats and treaties.

The first thing we asked her was about how she believed the west’s public opinion about the Russo-Ukraine war affected Putin’s probability to launch a nuclear attack. She proceeded to talk about how the general public’s views could affect nuclear issues. She said that the effects would be different in a democracy than in an authorization such as Russia. She said that if Putin does perceive the western public and influences their leaders, that could factor the decision Putin decides to make. The West constantly shares their opinion and helps Ukraine which just leads to a larger chance of Russia using nuclear weapons.

The next thing we asked about was the p5 process. The p5 process sits within the non-proliferation treaty which is the largest nuclear treaty(195 member states). In 1968, all the countries with nuclear weapons agreed to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons and all the non-nuclear states agreed to never pursue nuclear weapons. We know that this didn’t happen and that there are still countries with nukes. The 5 countries with nukes at the time – the p5(permanent members in security council), still had nuclear weapons even though they signed the treaty. The non-nuclear countries got angry that there were still countries with nukes because they agreed on something but it hadn’t happened.

We also asked her about the nuclear situation in North Korea and how alarmed U.S. citizens are about it. She told us about how the opinion on North Korea by the U.S. has changed a lot over time. It has spiked sometimes but the public was most scared when there was a lot of missile testing and military exercising. We also asked her about the effects of climate change from nuclear weapons. She told us a lot about the negative effects on the environment. After detonation, there is a lot of radiation exposure which not only can kill people and have long term effects on people, but it can also impact the environment. Submarine bases are facing rising sea levels and she told us about the chance of people’s homes getting flooded. She also talked about the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. People have obviously died, buildings have collapsed and there will be a lot of fire and debris even far from the explosion.

She gave us more information about her work and what she does in relation to nuclear disarmament but one thing she said at the end really stood out to me. “Young people need to be thinking about nuclear weapons and their impact.” She also talked about how we can make a change. These really stood out to me because they were saying that young people and people in general need to have an impact.

Read more

Although this interview was short we learned a lot. Her answers were directly helpful in our project and I feel as though it was one of the most informative interviews we had. Jamie seemed very intrested in our project and how we stumbled apon our topic of nuclear disarmenment. A few days prior we met with another member of the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Program, James Acton, and we were intrested in the different topics they covered in their orginization.

Jamie talked to us about the p5 process which is an agreement with 5 of the countries with nuclear weapons that only they are allowded to posess nuclear weapons and they shall not be used unless its despretly needed. The p5 process sits among the non proliferation agreements, which is one of the largest nuclear agreements. The p5 process was also signed by other countries without nuclear weapons and by signing this agreement they agree that they will never posess a nuclear arsenal. In exchange in these countries signing this treaty they recieve help in their nuclear power programs. Countries like Pakistan and Isreal didn’t sign this treaty so they wouldn’t have to promise that they wont grow their nuclear arsenals and grow their nuclear technology.

She also talked about how nuclear weapons can and do pose a threat to climate change. If a nuclear bomb is detonated on land the nuclear fallout will spread because of the wind. If the bomb is detonated in New York City it could reach as far as Boston! Obviously if a nuclear weapon is used then there will be debris and fires spread out miles away from the blast location and the radiation effects will pose a threat in that specific enviornment.

Jamie Introduced us to this website called NUKEMAP made by Alex Wellerstein. You can choose your nuclear weapon for example you can use the bombs dropped in Japan or up to the size of the Tsar Bomba. You can also pick where you would drop the bomb. The intresting thing about this website is that you can view the casualties and injuries from the nuclear blast wherever you place it. If you place a Tsar Bomba in Bangladesh you can get 17 million deaths.

Jamie Kwong left us with a wonderful quote revolving around young people like us. She said that we need young people involved in these important topics so there can be a change. This quote left us off thinking about what we can do to make a change. We thought about orginizing protests or even our teach in, where we are teaching kids about this important topic. This quote made us realize that our job for the Teach In is to bring awareness to these super important topics therefore making a change in our community.

Read more

On Febuary 6th, we orginized an interview with James Acton. Ajev orginized this meeting during our lunch period. He joined a few minutes late and it was no big deal. James Acton is a physict and holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

We talked about a wide variety of questions. A question that I thought was helpful for our topic was, how does a question roll out a nuclear ban? He replied saying that countries are disembling nuclear weapons and replacing them all of the time.he also mentiond that dismanteling nuclear weapons is easy and the countries would want some kind of verification or proof that it would change their countries nuclear reputation. However countries would want the reputation of having a nuclear arsenals so it would be less likely for an invasion.

James Acton is a specialist in hypersonic weapons (Missiles that can reach a speed of Mach 5 which is 5 times the speed of sound). He talked about how difficult it can be to intercept a hypersonic missile, but countries are developing next generation missile defence systems to handle these types of weapons.

James ended our chat by saying he doesn’t directly affect the growth of these weapons but his job is to overall make our world a better place without these weapons.

Read more

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.

Read more

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 the day of January 27, 2023 I was very eager to take a trip to the United Nations (U.N.) Building and learn all about the U.N and other countries on Earth as well alongside Ajax, Ajev, and Tyler. When we arrived we were greeted by a man named Daniel Prins. He worked in the Security Reform and in the Department of Peace Operations. Daniel met us at the outside of one of the buildings consisting of the U.N. and showed us the treaties that were placed outside and the other buildings that were a part of the U.N. For example, we were shown the gift of Italy which was called the Sphere within a Sphere and a chunk of the Berlin Wall from Germany.

As we walked inside the building we were greeted with more gifts from a multitude of countries. There was a gift from the Soviet Union which is a replica of Russia’s first Sputnik. This was the first ever satellite to orbit the Earth. As we took one of the elevators to the third floor we passed more gifts that were everywhere I put my eyes to but more importantly we saw the U.N. meeting room. This is the room where 7 people from each state speak on their countries behalf and it was amazing to see in person. Sadly we weren’t able to stay long because the K-9 unit had to sniff all around the room for safety precautions due to it being Holocaust Remembrance Day. People from their respective countries would come and speak on the Holocaust in that room.

We took a right after we exited the Meeting room to go to a room that is meant for tourists I’m assuming because it looked like a mini-museum. This room was called the Disarmament Room and it had a bunch of interesting information on land mines and nuclear weapons. Daniel informed us about the different types of landmines like the ones for human beings or the ones for vehicles. He also talked about the different types of nuclear bombs. For example, a way you are able to detonate a nuclear bomb is if you are able to connect a phone to the bomb to send a code to explode the bomb. After that, we talked about the treaties that countries had with each other and I was blown away by how many there were. 2 of the treaties I found remarkable are the Outer Space Treaty (O.S.T.) and The Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (T.P.N.W.). The O.S.T. states that there cannot be any form of nuclear weapons stored in outer space. This was placed because this limits the space where countries are allowed to store the nuclear weapons and it is remarkable to me because Outer Space is enormous. The T.P.N.W. tells us no countries aren’t allowed to own or experiment with nuclear weapons except for 5. Those 5 consist of the United States of America, France, China, United Kingdom, and Russia but North Korea backed out of the treaty and is now experimenting with nuclear weapons and trying to get to our level.

After the Disarmament room we ventured off to a table and chair set to take a short break because our legs were tired. The set of the table and chairs was actually a gift from Finland. We all sat down and asked questions before we had to leave due to Daniel having a meeting at 10:30. It was 10:15 at the time and he gave us one last look of the U.N. Meeting Room before we went back to the first floor and departed. It was an amazing experience and I will cherish it for the rest of my life. Thank you again to Daniel Prins and taking the time out of your day to give us an interview.

Read more

On the Friday of January 20th and on the Friday of January 27th Ajax, Ajev, Tyler, and I interviewed Lawrence Bullock, an ex-missleer. Lawrence gave us a multitude of answers to our questions. First he gave us answers to what the experience was like as a missleer. He explained that during war, there were a total of 3 men in a secret bunker. 2 men were waiting eagerly with a key to turn when the President would give them a code to launch and he was one of them. The code would also have to be decoded by the 2 men to determine whether it was a code to either stay put or to launch at the same time. There are 2 keys because in order to launch the nuclear bomb, the 2 missleers would have to turn their key at the same time in order to launch. This is the case because it is almost impossible for 1 person to lanuch the missle by themselves because they would have all the power in this case. Going back to the bunker, the third person would stand at the entrance while being armed in case someone intrudes their base. If one of the 2 missleers hesitated the command from the President to fire the armed soilder had the right to shoot that person. Moreover, even if the armed soilder killed both of the people awaiting the President’s command, it still wouldn’t be possible for him to launch the nuclear weapon by himself. There would be a new shift of soilders awaiiting for their time to come. There is always the question of what happens when the soldiers think that they should set off the bomb because they think it is the right time to use it. Well yes it could be done but the armed soldier in the back will try to make sure that doesn’t happen. Another question that can be asked is who is checking the President. Most people don’t have an answer for that; some people say the Secretary of Defense should keep the President in check. That is just one flaw of the military when it comes to nuclear bombs.
He also talked to us about the training needed for in order to be a missleer which isn’t a tough task. There would have to be a background check done on you to make sure you have no criminal history on your record and these backgroud checks surpirisngly cost the government a lot of money to perform them. They cost around $7,000-$9,000 dollars to perform said Lawrence. This is the only task perfomed in order to be a missleer.
Going back to the bunker, Lawrence would have to wake up very early, 4 a.m. specifically, and live atop high peaks to get a good view of the battle. For example, one time he lived on the highest peaks of the Alps.
Lawrence came to work during the 1970’s specifically in 1976 and he told us about some of the treaties that has been made around his time. One of the treaties during this time was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (I.N.F.T.) was a treaty between Russia and the U.S. that decreased the number of nuclear weapons owned by both of the countries. There are also treaties like the Outer Space Treaty which denies access to store nuclear weapons in outer space. Overall there is a lot to nuclear weapons and new information keeps on pouring out of our world.
One of the outstanding stories was when he got an alert that Russia is attacking them. He was in a state of shock he couldn’t believe what he saw. When he realized what he was facing he looked through a scope on a van and saw 30 aircrafts coming his way. Lawrence and the rest of his soilders were quickly used the radar to track the movement of thr aircraft but the Russians used fake radars to confuse the U.S. Overall, it was very bad time for the U.S.
When we asked Lawrence are there any other countries that the U.S. should be scared of, we didnt expect the answer he gave us. Lawrence said North Korea is a big threat and arguably a greater threat than Russia. We were all in shock when we heard this and we of course asked why. North Korea recently backed out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.). The N.P.T. is a treaty which states only 5 countries are allowed to have nuclear power in their weaponry. Those 5 countries are the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Since North Korea backed out of the treaty they are aloud to own nuclear weapons and use them in warfare. They have already started a nuclear program says Lawrence and even though they don’t pose a genuine threat to us at the moment, they are slwoly trying to creep up to our level.
The difference in presidency is also notable when it comes to nuclear weapons. Since Lawrence has had experience with many different presidents, he told us information on what presidents tend to do. Democrat presidents and Republican presidents are very diffrerent. While Republican Presidents tend to give the military more money to upgrade tech and more, Democrat presidents tend to fund the military less. An example of each of these is when Ronald Regan was president. He thought having a strong military is best for the U.S. and I agree. Democrats like Jimmy Carter think more about the democracy and the people. Jimmy also wanted more treaties to prevent nuclear warfare being used.
Lastly he talked to us about nuclear weaposn modernized and are still fitting the new tech today. Lawrence told us that highly enriched uranium is the core, the item that makes the bomb active and the explosion was thought out very thouroughly by scientists. The military does have to be careful with it because it is very fragile and you do not want to make the bomb blow up on your land accidentally.
We all learned a lot which was showed in the paragraphs above. Lawrence had so much to say and it was great listening to his voice and stories and really listening to him speak made about it from experience made it all the better. I want to give a huge shout out to him and all of my groupmates.

Read more

On January 27th, 2023, the nuclear weapons group with me, Ajev, Tyler, and Erick had the chance to get a tour of the UN building led by Daniel Prins. He has worked at the United Nations for over 15 years now and is the Chief, Security Sector Reform, Department of Peace Operations at the United Nations; he previously was the Chief of the Office for Nuclear 

We got to the UN building and met Daniel outside at around 9:00. We had to go through security, and when we were through, Daniel told us about the land the UN building was on and its history. The land that is now occupied with the UN building was previously a slaughterhouse owned by the Rockefeller family, and they decided to donate their 16 acres of land for the United Nations headquarters. The United Nations headquarters is geographically located in America, but it doesn’t belong to either America or New York. There aren’t NYPD police; instead, there are UN police, and the laws of the United States do not apply when you go to the UN headquarters. Even though it is located in America, it doesn’t belong to America and is the property of the world.

After we entered the UN building, Daniel brought us to the UN meeting room, but we were only there for a few minutes and we had to leave because they had to have all the seats checked for an upcoming meeting because it was Holocaust Memorial Day. Down the hall, he brought us to the disarmament room, where we saw landmines on display. There are also multiple kinds of land mines, such as ones that, if you step on them, blow up, and others that wouldn’t blow up but would cut off your legs, making it so that you were stuck there. There were also ones that wouldn’t react if you stepped on them, and they needed large and heavy vehicles, such as tanks, to explode them. There was a treaty made to stop the use of land mines, but some countries didn’t agree to that and can still use them.

The next part of the tour was about another weapon, and a treaty was made to remove all of them. These were chemical weapons or gases. These were extremely effective and would kill people who inhaled them in only a few seconds. However, this backfired a lot. There were some chemical weapons where you couldn’t see the smoke and wouldn’t know it was there. When you threw one of these, you couldn’t predict the direction of the wind, so sometimes the chemicals would come back and kill the person who threw it, as well as fellow allies. Sometime the wind would just push it in a totally different direction, and it wouldn’t affect anyone. A treaty was made for this that prohibits the use of chemical weapons and gases during war.

Another part of the disarmament room contained nuclear weapons. Daniel’s work with nuclear weapons was to prevent or slow down the increase in nuclear weapons. The TPNW (The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) makes it so that countries can’t test or use nuclear weapons except for a few select countries consisting of America, France, Russia, China, and Britain. Countries that didn’t sign this treaty can possess nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, but the countries that did agree to it besides the 5 I listed can’t test or make nuclear weapons. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world believed that the only way to prevent a nuclear attack from happening again was to stop making and testing them, but this is extremely hard.

Not every country has to listen to someone when they say to stop making nuclear weapons, which is why treaties such as the TPNW were made. Other treaties were made, and one even made it so that you couldn’t test or store nuclear weapons on satellites in space. We saw the destructive damage the atomic bombs did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the people there, and nuclear weapons are thousands of times more powerful than those.

After looking at the nuclear section of the disarmament room, Daniel brought us to an area with a table and a few chairs (which were a gift to the UN), and we had the chance to interview him. The interview lasted around 15-20 minutes because he had to go to a meeting, but I still learned a lot. He explained how, if a country launched a nuclear weapon, it could use certain tactics to avoid punishment.We also asked him about the nuclear threat posed by some countries and the US’s relations with other nuclear-weapons states.

During the tour and the interview, my group and I learned a lot, and I’m really glad we got this opportunity. I’m also looking forward to doing more research on nuclear disarmament.

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 20th, and Friday, January 27th, my social justice group with Erick, Tyler, Ajev, and myself interviewed Lawrence Bullock. Lawrence worked in the nuclear bomb launch zones, and his job was to clean the nuclear weapons. I had originally thought that there were 2 people in the missile silos to launch the missile but it turns out that there is a third person behind both of them ready to shoot one or both of them if either of them show any hesitation to launch the bomb.
 
Lawrence told us that every 48 hours, there would be a shift change, and that when he went down there, he wouldn’t go back up for 2-3 days. The conditions didn’t seem that bad, even though they couldn’t go up for multiple days. He had to wake up at 4 a.m. every day he was in the missile silos and get to work. There was a gym, a kitchen, a place to sleep, and the place where they worked. Although the conditions inside seemed nice, Lawrence said that the civilians outside would make it stressful for him and other people because the civilians would know who was in there and when they were in there, and they would protest because they didn’t want nuclear weapons on their soil, and then Lawrence said how they didn’t see the people who worked in the silos as allies but rather as occupiers of their space.

The process of launching a nuclear weapon seemed pretty controlled from the way Lawrence described it. First, authorization from the President of the U.S. had to come in via flash traffic messages or coded messages. The launch is commanded by a captain or lieutenant who reports to a brigade commander, who then reports to a two-star general, and it’s controlled by a NATO commander, who is mostly going to be a four-star U.S. general. Lawrence said that they only take orders from a U.S. general who gets orders from the president. It seems complicated but also under control, and Lawrence said that he didn’t see a nuclear weapon being launched accidentally.

In Russia, their nuclear launch policy is different. If Putin says launch, they launch, but in America, when the President wants to launch, he’s only going to do it if he is advised by his commanders. Russian missiles are also more worn out and less up to date than U.S. missiles. In Russia, Lawrence said that there isn’t really any reason for them to launch a nuclear weapon because the only thing stopping Russia from taking over Ukraine is the rest of the world, and using a nuclear weapon would cause many difficulties and make it look like Russia is using their last resort because they are losing. Ukraine is getting help from the rest of the world, though. They recently got sent tanks from the U.S., which sent M-1 Abrahms, but it will take many months for them to arrive in Ukraine, and it’s also harder to maintain them because they run on jet fuel, which is more expensive, and the tanks won’t be of use for a long period of time since they don’t arrive for many months. Ukraine has been getting assistance from many countries, and Lawrence said that Russia could launch a nuclear weapon if they were losing terribly because they thought they would run over Ukraine, but Ukraine got what they wanted. Russia probably won’t because they know the consequences of launching a nuclear attack and the problems it would cause.

The amount spent and the amount they got paid depended on the presidents. Lawrence said that you would get more funding if the president was a Republican because Republicans believe that having a stronger military is better. When Ronald Reagan was president, the U.S. spent a lot of money to get high-tech equipment and worked to develop the military. Democrats on the other hand are trying to undercut the military and take money away from funding and to spend less money on the military. When Jimmy Carter was president, he wanted more democracy in the country and worked to form treaties instead of improving the military as much. Both examples of presidents believed that different things would benefit the country, and the amount spent was different because one thought that a stronger military would benefit the country and the other thought that a country with a strong democracy would be better.

Lawrence gave a lot of information in both interviews, and I was able to learn a lot from him. Our first interview was pretty successful, and even though the second one with him wasn’t as long, I still learned a lot from him. There is still a threat to society from nuclear weapons, but they haven’t been used in a pretty long time and hopefully won’t be used again. This was an amazing opportunity to get to interview someone who worked right next to nuclear weapons, and I learned a lot from him.

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