“THE NUCLEAR 101” An Illustrated Guide
A certain Presidential candidate *Trump* has repeatedly broached the subject of the Nuclear Arsenal *Trump* while at the same time *Trump* revealing a shockingly cavalier attitude *Trump* regarding *Trump* its use *Trump, Trump, Trump*
“THE NUCLEAR,” as they call it, is a combination of highly complex weaponry, the infrastructure that facilitates its delivery and the effect these weapons have on the international balance of power. Their introduction in the 1940’s ignited an arms race that fundamentally altered the flow of world power and the practice of diplomacy itself. The devastating potential of weaponized subatomic particles is not just something to be used whenever it seems convenient, and it’s important for anyone who wields them to know that.
Since it seems possible that we could elect a president who does not understand one quark about nuclear weapons, maybe we should educate ourselves.
With that in mind, I’ve compiled a wealth of information about “THE NUCLEAR,” hopefully to give you all an idea of its inner-workings, history and current importance. It is arranged in three parts; “THE PHYSICS,” “THE HISTORY,” AND “THE NOW.” If I’ve missed anything, or messed up somewhere, I welcome your corrections.
1: “THE PHYSICS”
To understand “THE NUCLEAR,” you have to know a bit about physics on the subatomic level, and how some of the smallest particles can be weaponized to create the most destructive weapons known to man.
“THE NUCLEAR” comes in two flavors:
Nuclear Bombs (AKA Fission Bombs, AKA Atomic Bombs, AKA a child throwing a tantrum)
&
Hydrogen Bombs (AKA Fusion Bombs, AKA Thermonuclear Bombs, AKA your dad when he’s hungry)
Unlike conventional weapons, which mainly use chemical energy (the bonds between atoms and molecules to unleash energy,) “THE NUCLEAR” utilizes forces within atoms to unleash almost unfathomable amounts of energy.
In Fission Bombs, the bonds within atoms are broken, setting off a chain reaction of nuclear decay within a finite amount of radioactive material, producing energy. On the other hand, Fusion Bombs fuse atoms together to form new, heavier elements in the same process that occurs in the sun all the time. Fusion bombs are far more powerful than their fission counterparts, and actually require a preliminary fission component in order to generate enough heat and pressure to ignite a fusion reaction.
We will look at each of these types of weapons individually, let’s start by breaking up.
“THE FISSION”
As you probably learned in high-school (or maybe earlier, you genius, you!) atoms are made up of three smaller components: *
The nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons, with the electrons whizzing around the outside in the electron cloud. The number of protons is unique to each element and is called the atomic number, while the number of neutrons can change, creating an isotope and a difference in electrons makes an ion.
As a rule, adding more particles to the nucleus tends to destabilize it. For example, Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 are totally stable:
On the other hand, Carbon-14 (Carbon with 8 neutrons in its nucleus) is unstable, or radioactive.
To re-stabilize, Carbon-14 will decay into a stable element over time by emitting particles as radiation. Kind of like when you get really upset and have to call your mom and vent in order to chill out. Or maybe that’s just me. Maybe I’m the Carbon-14.
SAD.
One bizarre thing about atomic nuclei is the weight of the constituent particles (protons + neutrons) does not equal the total weight of the nucleus. This problem is called the mass discrepancy and its solution gave rise to that famous equation E=mc2. This “missing mass” actually describes the forces holding the repellent protons together in the nucleus. This force can also be referred to as the nuclear binding energy.
So, how does a nucleus keep itself together despite being composed of positively charged particles? Wouldn’t the protons just fly apart because of the electromagnetic force?
Turns out, that at extremely, extremely EXTREMELY small distances (about 10^-15 m, AKA a femtometer, AKA the length of Donald Trump’s pinky finger), one of the four fundamental forces, called THE RESIDUAL STRONG FORCE, becomes 137x stronger than the electromagnetic force and holds the protons and neutrons together.
The amount of the residual strong force (or nuclear binding energy) needed to hold the particles together is equivalent to the mass discrepancy mentioned earlier.
The strength of the residual strong force is contingent on the size of the nucleus and therefore the number of protons and neutrons present. The larger the nucleus, the weaker the residual strong force becomes.
To understand this concept better, let’s think of walking a dog (because dogs are cool.) If you take a dog for a walk without a leash:
The dog will run away to eat some trash and chase some squirrels (and insult Rosie O’Donnell.) This represents the power of the electromagnetic force driving these two particles apart.
Now, when we add a leash (representing the residual strong force) you can hold onto the dog and prevent it from running away and eating trash.
Perfect!
But, as you add more dogs, eventually, the electromagnetic force wins out and the dogs can overpower you, running away again to eat some garbage and chase squirrels.
This explains the physics behind radioactivity, or why heavy nuclei are more likely to be unstable than smaller nuclei. The power of the residual strong force weakens very quickly over distance, while the electromagnetic force increases the larger the nucleus gets. Therefore, adding more protons and neutrons to a nucleus destabilizes it through a tug-of-war between the electromagnetic and residual strong forces, with the electromagnetic force winning in the end.
This tug-of-war is another way of saying radioactive!
Yay!
Radioactive nuclei are unstable. Because these nuclei are unstable, they want to become stable and to become stable again they release particles, spontaneously, in the form of radiation. This process is called radioactive decay.
There are 3 types of radioactive decay, but the most damaging is spontaneous fission, where a nucleus splits into two smaller elements, releasing neutrons and gamma rays. Gamma rays are extremely energetic and can damage cells and DNA (cancer.)
In the 1930’s, scientists including Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered that they could induce spontaneous fission (now just called “induced fission”) by bombarding these radioactive nuclei with neutrons. This opened the door to a weaponized version of the process through chain reactions.
Princeton scientists Niels Bohr and John Wheeler figured out that since induced fission produces both gamma rays and more neutrons, you can create a chain reaction using a material with a high density of radioactive nuclei. The neutrons released from induced fission can go on to induce more fission, which produces more neutrons, inducing more fission and on and on and on…until all the nuclei are split.
Bohr and Wheeler’s hypothesis was confirmed in 1940, and two elements were found to be fissile (able to undergo an induced, sustained chain reaction.) They are:
While other fissile materials exist, these isotopes are the primary nuclear fuel in fission bombs.
Materials with high densities of unstable, fissile nuclei are said to be enriched. Therefore, an enriched sample of Uranium has higher than naturally occurring levels of Uranium-235 nuclei within it (generally 90% enriched is considered weapons grade Uranium.)
This is definitely different from when your bread says it’s “enriched.”
The energy in fission weapons comes from the nuclear binding energy released with the separation of the nucleus into two smaller pieces and corresponds to the conversion of part of the nucleus’ mass into energy (E=mc2.)
The induced fission of one uranium-235 atom produces about 200 MeV or about 3.2^–11 Joules. For reference, a housefly expends 10^-7 Joules when it does a push-up.
That may seem hella wimpy, but when you consider that there are roughly 909,091,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a kilogram of uranium, repeating this reaction nearly that many times means that one pound of uranium releases 37,000,000,000,000 Joules.
For reference, the energy of an Airbus A380 moving at 89% the speed of sound is 2,500,000,000 Joules.
THAT’S ENOUGH JOULES TO MAKE CARTIER JEALOUS. Jk Cartier. Jk.
Nuclear bombs are generally measured in kiloton or megaton yields (the amount of TNT required to produce the same amount of energy) 1 pound of uranium-235 produces about 8 kilotons (or 8,000 tons of TNT.)
The “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki had a yield of about 21 kilotons (or 21,000 tons of TNT.)
The largest purely fissile nuclear weapon detonated by the U.S. was dubbed the “Ivy King” and had a yield of 500 kilotons (or 500,000 tons of TNT.)
Even those yields pale in comparison to the potential of fusion weapons.
“THE FUSION”
While fission is great and all (and by great I mean terrifying) scientists quickly figured out that far more energy could be produced through fusing nuclei together instead of tearing them apart.
PLUS!
Fusion isn’t limited by the amount of material available. As long as you have enough heat and pressure to force nuclei together, you can continue to fuse nuclei almost infinitely.
The energy in fusion bombs is derived from the mass discrepancy we discussed earlier. This “missing mass” is again converted into energy as the resulting nucleus is smaller than the sum of the two nuclei that were fused.
In fact, the energy released upon fusion is greater than the energy required to fuse the two nuclei in the first place. This is why if we could get ourselves together and build a fusion reactor we could probably fix our planet’s energy problem. But really, the amount of heat and pressure required to consistently and reliably fuse protons together is still beyond our capabilities (for the moment.)
The sun is indeed a wily mistress.
The first step in hydrogen fusion is to smash two protons together with enough energy to overcome the mutual repulsion they experience due to the electromagnetic force (AKA the Coulomb Barrier.) The amount of heat needed to overcome the Coulomb Barrier is about 10,000,000,000 Kelvins (or about 1.8 billion degrees F.) Fusion in the sun occurs at temperatures of 15,710,000 degrees Kelvin and pressures of 247,700,000,000 bars (the earth’s atmosphere is about 1 bar.) You will notice that fusion is occurring at temperatures lower than what is mathematically required to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. That is a result of the constant feud between classical physics vs. quantum mechanics and this thing called quantum tunneling…
Quantum tunneling is pretty much akin to how Trump found himself in the Presidential race. According to quantum mechanics, it is impossible to know both the momentum and position of a sub-atomic particle at any given moment. This uncertainty principle gives particles the ability to “tunnel” into the nucleus of an atom by literally just kind of “finding” itself there and spontaneously defying those energy requirements that, according to classical physics, are necessary for a particle to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. Similar to how populist opinion and ineptitude on behalf of the Republican establishment gave Trump the ability to spontaneously tunnel into the GOP and become its nomination.
Therefore, if two protons can be brought close enough to each other under the right conditions, that residual strong force we talked about earlier can bind them together.
In the sun, energy is produced through the fusion of particles in stages to form the stable version of helium (first there’s deuterium, then He3, then positrons or something…blah blah blah) because just smashing two protons together willy-nilly gets you an unstable kind.
To overcome this problem, hydrogen bombs use two isotopes of hydrogen instead, tritium and deuterium, fusing them to produce stable He4 and a neutron. In fact, deuterium and tritium react more efficiently with each other, and, when they do undergo fusion, they yield more energy per reaction than just two hydrogen nuclei.
Since tritium quickly decays and, as a gas, cannot be easily stored, bomb designers rely on a fission reaction to produce tritium from lithium-deuterate. Lithium-deuterate, is a solid compound that is stable at normal temperatures and is the principal thermonuclear material in hydrogen bombs. Due to the outlandish temperatures and pressures required to initiate fusion, a fusion bomb has a two-stage design — a primary fission component and a secondary fusion component. The high energy gamma and X-ray radiation given off in a fission reaction provides the high temperatures and pressures necessary to initiate the fusion stage.
A 1 megaton hydrogen bomb has about 80x the blast power of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki and a destructive radius of 1.7 miles.
The largest hydrogen bomb ever tested, “Tsar Bomba,” had a yield of 50 megatons, about 50,000,000,000 tons of TNT, 100x larger than “Ivy King.”
With the destructive power of atomic weaponry established, their role in history becomes more clear.
2: “THE HISTORY”
“THE WWII”
With the destructive potential of nuclear fission discovered in 1939, American scientists including Enrico Fermi and Albert Einstein, brought the concept of its military potential to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. By February of 1940, Roosevelt made $6,000 (about $100,000 today) available to start research. Because the project had started at Columbia University in Manhattan, the nation-wide effort to bring atomic weapons into existence would be known as the “Manhattan Project.” By 1945, the amount of funding would rise to $2 billion and involve 13 university laboratories, 37 installations across the U.S and over 100,000 scientists, making it one of the largest collective scientific efforts ever undertaken by man.
After the U.S. entered WWII, the War Department was given responsibility for the continuing development of atomic weapons, as it became obvious an immense amount of infrastructure would be needed.
It turned out that the U.S. was not the only country to be working on the development of nuclear weapons. Similar efforts were being made in Germany, the USSR, Britain and Canada. The U.S. formed an alliance with Britain and Canada, co-opting their know-how in a race against the Germans and the USSR.
After years of work, the first atomic weapon was detonated in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. The blast threw up a ball of fire 40,000 feet in the air and turned the desert to glass for a radius of 800 yards (crunchy.) A month later, President Harry Truman would drop two atomic bombs on Japan; at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The August 6, 1945, the “Little Boy” atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died, directly or indirectly, from the effects of the bomb. Those who were caught in the blast radius were vaporized by the intense heat. In this respect, it’s important to keep in mind that Hiroshima was home to nearly 290,000 civilians and only 43,000 soldiers. 70,000 of Hiroshima’s 76,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed, and 48,000 of those were entirely razed. In essence, the city had ceased to exist in an only instant.
Three days later, the second bomb (named “Fat Man,”) was dropped on Nagasaki, instantly killing between 40,000 and 75,000, with another 60,000 suffering from severe burns and effects of acute radiation poisoning.
The radius of destruction from the atomic blast at Nagasaki was about one mile, followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to two miles south of where the bomb had been dropped. In contrast to Hiroshima, almost all of the buildings in Nagasaki were of old-fashioned Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings with wood walls and tile roofs. As a result, the atomic explosion over Nagasaki leveled nearly every structure in the blast radius. Nearly half this city of 240,000 Japanese residents and 9,000 soldiers was completely destroyed.
President Truman defended his decision to drop the bombs as the correct and only option to end the war, but conflicting accounts by other officials muddy Truman’s explanation. For example, Joseph Grew, America’s last Ambassador to Japan before the war started, contends that the administration knew about Japan’s willingness to surrender and chose to use the weapons anyway as a show of force to the USSR. Furthermore, minutes from the meetings of the Japanese government suggest that threat of attack from the Soviet Union had been more influential in the Japanese decision to surrender than the bombs. Also, the US Air Force and Navy both published reports claiming that conventional bombing and submarine warfare against Japan would have soon forced her to surrender.
Even in the throes of one of the greatest conflicts in human history, the choice to use atomic weapons was fraught with questions. The decision to instantly annihilate hundreds of thousands of people, soldiers and civilians alike, is a decision that no Ultimately, the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the world stage ushered in a new brand of warfare that kept the world on its toes for decades. For the first time in history, armies and navies were no longer the principal objects in armed conflict.
“THE COLD WAR”
In the wake of WWII, the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union met to discuss the creation of an atomic energy commission responsible to the United Nations Security Council. On January 24, 1946, the UN General Assembly voted unanimously to form the UN Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) and in June the commission met to forge the machinery for controlling atomic weapons.
The negotiations were almost immediately derailed by the U.S. delegate when he demanded the creation of an autonomous International Atomic Development Authority that would operate independently of the Security Council. This autonomous body would have the power to punish, possibly by atomic attack, any nation that violated its pledge not to construct nuclear weapons. The U.S. pursued this route because it feared that the Soviet veto in the Security Council would negate any international efforts to police the development of a Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Five days later, the Soviet Union proposed a multilateral treaty to destroy “all stocks of atomic weapons whether in a finished or unfinished condition” within three months, knowing the U.S. would never agree to it. In effect, the negotiations concerning international control of atomic weapons were over before they began, as neither side trusted the other in regards to their potential handling of nuclear weapons.
With international control of atomic weapons appearing impossible, tensions between the U.S. and USSR only mounted as the U.S. started using atomic weapons as diplomacy. Throughout the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the Truman and Eisenhower administrations used their atomic monopoly to repeatedly impress upon communist regimes that the U.S. was in control of unfathomably destructive weapons, and would not hesitate to use them. Though in leveraging their atomic advantage, the U.S. in effect spurred the USSR and other adversaries to develop their own nuclear arsenals to protect their interests. Granted, it is unfair to lay the entirety of nuclear proliferation at the feet of the U.S., as the international climate was simply conducive to it. Invention of atomic weapons plus the ideological differences between capitalist and communist countries, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union at the center, created a pressure-cooker environment that encouraged the development of weapons of mass destruction by opposing parties.
In this environment the United States and the Soviet Union each built a stockpile of nuclear weapons, but their respective strategies behind the decision to stockpile were considerably different. Soviet policy rested on the conviction that a nuclear war could be fought and won. On the other hand, the United States adopted nuclear deterrence, the credible threat of retaliation to forestall enemy attack.
At the heart of deterrence was MAD (AKA Mutually Assured Destruction.) MAD is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. In 1961, the concept of mutually assured destruction started to play a major part in the defense policy of U.S. President John F. Kennedy after he incorporated the idea of Flexible Response into the administration’s military strategy.
The Kennedy administration believed that the United States should have a wide variety of military and nonmilitary responses to communist provocations. Flexible Response gave the president the ability to select from both when responding to a crisis and allowed the United States to meet each hostile action with a proportional reaction. Therefore, the U.S. was obligated to match each Soviet military advancement with equal measure and so both parties became engaged in a vicious cycle of proliferation in an effort to ensure destructive parity.
One of the main debates around MAD was the question of whether it would be more effective to target weapons infrastructure or civilian centers if nuclear retaliation should become necessary.
As the number of nuclear weapons increased and tensions between countries escalated, close calls became inevitable. A few examples include:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States kept bombers armed with nuclear weapons on “airborne alert.” Bombers were kept in the air 24 hours a day, every day, ready to respond to orders to fly to targets in the Soviet Union. The United States ended this practice of airborne alert the day after a U.S. bomber carrying four nuclear bombs crashed near Thule, Greenland, in 1968, contaminating the surrounding area with plutonium.
On January 24, 1961, two nuclear bombs fell to the ground when a bomber lost a wing over Goldsboro, NC. The parachute on one bomb failed and the bomb broke apart on impact. The other bomb suffered little damage on impact, but five of the bomb’s six safety devices failed during the crash. Expressing his concern about the incident, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara said that “by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted.”
On September 26, 1983, A Soviet early warning satellite showed that the United States had launched five land-based missiles at the Soviet Union. Going on gut instinct, the Soviet officer on duty claimed it was a false alarm and decided against taking retaliatory measures. Turns out he was right. Later investigations revealed that reflection of the sun on the tops of clouds had fooled the satellite into thinking it was detecting missile launches from the U.S.
But there are countless other instances as well.
While deterrence was one important piece of U.S. nuclear policy, the constant threat of nuclear disaster made preventing countries that did not have nuclear weapons from obtaining them another priority. Through a combination of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and a Nuclear Umbrella, the U.S. and its allies sought to cap the number of nations that developed nuclear weapons. According to the State Dept. the thinking at the time was that;
“…if more nations, particularly developing nations…achieved nuclear capability…the system of deterrence would be threatened. Moreover, if countries with volatile border disputes became capable of attacking with nuclear weapons, then the odds of a nuclear war with truly global repercussions increased.”
Therefore, preventing more countries from needlessly launching nuclear weapons programs lowered the possibility of global nuclear meltdown.
The Nuclear Umbrella was a particularly important strategy to this end. It consisted of military and diplomatic agreement to discourage countries from developing their own nuclear arsenal in exchange for protection by a nuclear power. Umbrella agreements don’t have to be specifically laid out in authoritative documents, rather they are rooted in military and diplomatic practices. The U.S. has continually maintained a Nuclear Umbrella since the birth of NATO in 1949, and has periodically ushered new countries underneath it. Currently, the U.S. nuclear umbrella extends to NATO countries, plus Japan, South Korea and Australia. This practice balances threats from hostile nuclear actors, but also seeks to deter further proliferation of nuclear materials which could be acquired by terrorists or rogue nations.
In 1970, another important part of U.S. preventative measures, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was put into effect. It forms the core of the global nonproliferation regime, and establishes a comprehensive and legally binding framework. The treaty incorporates a number of provisions aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Signatories that were in possession of nuclear weapons agreed not to transfer them or their technology to any other state. The non-nuclear states agreed that they would not receive, develop or acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Furthermore, all signatories agreed to submit to the safeguards against proliferation established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to continue negotiations to help end the nuclear arms race and limit the spread of the technology. The NPT was, and continues to be, heralded as an important step in the ongoing efforts to reduce or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and today it bears the signatures of 190 countries, including the U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain and China. According to the Bipartisan Security Group:
“The NPT is our strongest tool for reinforcing the unacceptability of the use of these horrific devices and sets the norm of working to diminish their threat.”
These three components, MAD, the Nuclear Umbrella and the NPT, are the pillars of Cold War nuclear policy that shaped how countries approach nuclear weapons today. They are the policies born of global events throughout the latter half of the 20th century; five decades that were rife with unsettling nuclear developments and still relatively close to the horrors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. To understand better the undulation of proliferation and prevention, a timeline would be cool (LOL Cold War.)
A TIMELINE OF COLD WAR NUCLEAR MILESTONES
In 1949, The USSR successfully exploded its first atomic bomb. NATO is formed to balance a USSR that is perceived as increasingly aggressive.
In January, 1950, Klaus Fuchs confesses that he gave atomic secrets to the Soviets while working at the Manhattan Project. By the end of the month, President Truman announces the decision to proceed with development of the hydrogen bomb.
In October, 1952, the UK tests its first nuclear device in Australia.
In November, 1952, the US tests the first hydrogen bomb, with a yield 500x that of the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
In January, 1953, scientists reset the Doomsday Clock in response to the successful testing of thermonuclear, fusion or hydrogen bomb weapons by both the United States and the Soviet Union, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists resets the Doomsday Clock to only two minutes before midnight. It stays there for seven years until 1960.
In 1953, the Soviets detonated their first hydrogen device.
In February, 1954, the United States detonates its first deliverable thermonuclear weapon at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands. The device had a yield almost three times as large as expected, leading to the worst radiological disaster in US history. Because planning.
In 1955, the Warsaw Pact is formed; an attempt by the USSR and allied Eastern European communist countries to balance the power of NATO.
In 1956, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission is established. This commission is responsible for the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.
In 1958, UK successfully tests its first hydrogen bomb in Operation Grapple.
In 1958, U.S. and UK sign the Mutual Defence Agreement, eliminating the need for independent development of thermonuclear weapons by the UK.
In January, 1960, scientists reset the Doomsday Clock from two minutes before midnight to seven minutes before midnight as they assess the threat has somewhat receded.
In 1960, France tests its first nuclear weapon in the Sahara desert.
In October, 1961, the USSR detonates the largest nuclear device ever, the “Tsar Bomba,” with a yield of 58 megatons.
In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis ensues after the U.S. discovers that the USSR has placed atomic weapons in Cuba, nearly causing a nuclear war. 1962 sees the most nuclear tests of any year, with 140 devices detonated around the world.
In January, 1963, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is signed, banning all atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.
In October, 1964, China conducts its first nuclear test at the Lop Nur site.
In June, 1967, China successfully tests a hydrogen bomb.
In February, 1967, Latin America becomes nuclear-free as parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco agree not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons.
In July, 1968, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opens for signatures. This treaty is intended to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. To date, 190 countries have signed the treaty, including the U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France and China. Only India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea have not signed the treaty.
In January, 1972, the First Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) is signed by the United States and the Soviet Union to limit the amount of weapons both superpowers can arm themselves with.
In May of 1974, India conducts its first nuclear test at Pokhran in the Rajasthan desert. It is named “Smiling Buddha.”
In January, 1979, The United States and Soviet Union sign the Second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II).
In 1983, Pakistan tests its first atomic device.
In 1985, the world reaches its peak global atomic stockpile, with about 70,000 active and retired warheads in existence.
In September, 1986, Israel’s secret nuclear program is revealed.
In July 1991, the United States and Soviet Union sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). The treaty is also approved by Russia and the other successor states of the Soviet Union. It restricts long-range nuclear forces in the United States and to Russia and the other Soviet successor states to 6,000 warheads and 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers. After START I is signed, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists resets its Doomsday Clock to 17 minutes before midnight. This is the earliest and most optimistic setting the clock has ever has had in its 65 year-history.
In 1991, South Africa signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; revealing that from 1979 to 1989, they had built and then dismantled a number of nuclear weapons.
At the end of December, 1991, the Soviet Union collapses, ending the Cold War. Through the Lisbon Treaty, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus agree to voluntarily divest themselves of all the nuclear weapons and delivery systems they had inherited from the Soviet Union, and ship them to Russia. Around this time, both the United States and Russia stop the testing of nuclear devices altogether.
3: “THE NOW”
Despite the historical implications and destructive capability of nuclear weapons, the current Republican candidate Donald Trump voices a strange mix of ignorance and skepticism when it comes to U.S. nuclear policy, particularly in regards to the Nuclear Umbrella and NATO commitments. In light of all the previous information, it is hard to digest his views on U.S. nuclear policy. In watching his interviews, it seems he hasn’t done much reading on the American nuclear arsenal. For example, during one Primary debate, Trump appeared stumped by a question about the Nuclear Triad:
Hugh Hewitt: “The three legs of the Triad though, do you have a priority?”
Trump: “For me, nuclear, is just, the power, the devastation, is very important to me.”
In fact, the Nuclear Triad refers to the land, sea and air delivery systems of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It is made up of strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs.)
He is also in favor of folding the Nuclear Umbrella and leaving our allies to their own devices, unless they can pay a premium for our protection. As he puts it:
Trump: “At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself, we have…”
Anderson Cooper: “Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?”
Trump: “Saudi Arabia, absolutely.”
Anderson Cooper: “You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?”
Trump: “No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.”
Furthermore, despite the fact that Article V of the NATO treaty says NATO members agree “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” Trump has threatened to consider history of payment as the deciding factor for providing assistance:
Trump: “If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal, I would like you to say, I would prefer being able to…”
This rhetoric seems to speak to some individuals because of its simplicity and adherence to familiar, business transactions. A quote from CATO institute senior fellow Doug Bandow illustrates the bald callousness of such a transactional approach to global security:
“But how much should Washington charge? The U.S. is offering a very valuable service. After all, governments have no greater responsibility than defending their citizens. If other states want to subcontract to America, they should pay handsomely for the privilege.”
While this transaction-based thinking may serve one well in the business world, modern global alliance systems function a bit differently. Those who see the Nuclear Umbrella and NATO as purely transactional are failing to consider the entire picture and the scope of global interconnections and how damaging them would adversely affect the U.S. The U.S. isn’t simply extending a helping hand to its allies, it is simultaneously protecting its own interests, both economically and in providing for the safety of American citizens residing overseas. The cost of a nuclear attack on an ally or trade partner would far outweigh what is paid to protect them. Just looking at maps of plane traffic, shipping lanes and Americans overseas reinforces how interconnected the U.S. and global economies are:
Retracting the Nuclear Umbrella and conditioning U.S. commitment to NATO puts a large amount of the world’s population, and its wealth, at risk. According to a 2010 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, nuclear umbrellas cover 60% of the world’s population and more than 80% of its GDP. U.S.-EU trade alone accounts for almost $500 billion in U.S. exports and supports an estimated 2.6 million jobs. A nuclear attack on this this important trade partner (which also contains the majority of our NATO allies) would negatively effect the American economy. Currently, U.S. spending on its nuclear arsenal is about 1/10 the value of its trade with Europe. Helping to secure Europe and other partners from encroachments by unpredictable actors is not altruistic, but economically necessary.
Regarding the defense guarantees Japan and South Korea, the costs cited by Trump are largely exaggerated, while its benefits are clear. These guarantees deter nuclear powers such as China and North Korea from destabilizing East Asia and disrupting trade with the U.S. In the words of Yuichi Hosoya, a Keio University international politics professor:
“By pulling away from the region militarily, the U.S. would lose political influence in the Asia-Pacific, and experience crushing economic losses…Mr. Trump is trying to do what China has constantly desired for the past five years. China wants [the] U.S. to pull away from the region as much as possible to create a regional order that maximizes China’s profit and security.”
Japan and South Korea are America’s 4th and 6th largest trading partners, respectively, losing access to them would negatively impact the U.S. economy and lead to a loss of jobs. Furthermore, backing away from defense commitments to East Asian countries would jeopardize agreements like the new Joint Defense Guidelines between the U.S. and Japan. As Sec. of State John Kerry says, these guidelines:
“…mark the establishment of Japan’s capacity to defend not just its own territory but also the U.S. and other partners as needed,”
Contrary to what we’re led to believe, Japan and South Korea pay at least half of the costs necessary to keep about 82,500 American troops stationed there. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Tokyo covers more than 90% of the cost of the 25,500 Japanese nationals working at the bases and most of the utility costs. In addition, it pays for other costs arising from the U.S. presence such as rent for private and public land used by the bases as well as noise abatement and other measures to help people living nearby.”
As for South Korea, Army Gen. Vincent Brooks says:
“the Republic of Korea is carrying a significant load” of the U.S. commitment and pays “about 50% of our personnel costs of being there.”
Moreover, nuclear weapons are not physically present in either country:
“The East Asia nuclear umbrella has been provided solely by American strategic forces … the United States’ mutual defense treaty with South Korea is no longer bolstered by the presence of tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula…”
Deterrence can be accomplished without even staging nuclear weapons in South Korea or Japan. One could say that qualifies as a “good deal” when it comes to averting global nuclear disaster and keeping U.S.-East Asia relations stable.
While Trump rails against the supposed cost of maintaining the Nuclear Umbrella and would like countries to protect themselves or pony up, he is at the same time opposed to proliferation:
Trump: “Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power…It’s a very scary nuclear world…Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.”
Yet, the Nuclear Umbrella and NATO are essential to keeping nuclear weapons at a minimum. To find an example of what happens in the absence of a Nuclear Umbrella, one only has to look at the pattern of proliferation and conflict among India, Pakistan and China.
India, China and Pakistan have had a tense relationship ever since the mid-20th century. In 1947, the breakup of the Indian empire resulted in territorial partitioning that encouraged disputes over the area of Jammu and Kashmir. The 1962 war between India and China set a precedent of insecurity between the two countries that only intensified when China tested its first nuclear device in 1964. India, for its part, launched a campaign seeking protection against Chinese nuclear attack, arguing that such assurances might make a nuclear weapons program of its own unnecessary. No agreement was ever signed.
India’s first nuclear test in 1974 seriously upset Pakistan which began its nuclear program in earnest and detonated its first nuclear device in 1983.
Arms control analysts have long identified the subcontinent as among the likeliest of global nuclear flash-points. The strong China-Pakistan alliance leaves India effectively surrounded and worried about preparing for a two-front war. India’s security concerns come mainly from the difficulty that India faces in trying to gain a military edge over Pakistan given Pakistan’s close security cooperation with China. India and Pakistan likely see nuclear weapons as the lowest-cost way to tilt the balance of power in their favor and enhance their strategic posture. Therefore, they have pursued nuclear arsenals without signing onto the NPT, meaning they operate largely outside the international legal framework designed to reign in nuclear weapons. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports:
“…no other nuclear-armed competitors have faced challenges as complex as those that Indians and Pakistanis now face, given the potential role of terrorism as the trigger for escalation up the ladder from subconventional to conventional to nuclear conflict.”
Various and recent conflicts between India and Pakistan have invoked the possibility of nuclear retaliation. A recent report finds that nuclear war between India and Pakistan would trigger a global famine that would kill 2 billion people.
Should the U.S. renege on its defense commitments, spurring countries to seek nuclear weapons, might more of the world experience these kinds of nuclear tensions? And with the rise of terrorists and non-state aggressors, how would we prevent those groups from obtaining nuclear devices in a world where proliferation was the norm?
Preventing proliferation and scaling back nuclear arsenals through defense guarantees is even more important today given the rise of non-state aggressors. Unlike during the Cold War, a nuclear attack perpetrated by another country is not very likely. Rather, the acquisition of nuclear technology by terrorist groups is what would lead to a crisis. As Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for the U.S. State Department, said in 2015,
“Today, the threats we face do not lend themselves to the classic understandings of nuclear deterrence…There are two primary pathways by which terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon: by directly acquiring a nuclear weapon itself from a nuclear weapons state’s arsenal, or by acquiring enough nuclear materials to construct an improvised nuclear device.”
Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism:
“would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty.”
By keeping the total number of countries with nuclear weapons to a minimum and reducing nuclear stockpiles and fissile materials to as few as possible, the chances of non-state aggressors getting hold of nuclear weapons can be decreased as well.
Today, 9 countries possess about 15,000 nuclear weapons.
The United States and Russia account for 93% of them.
Since their peak in the mid-1980’s, global arsenals have shrunk by over two-thirds. Furthermore, more countries have given up weapons and programs in the past 30 years than have tried to acquire them. The Mechanisms that Trump is criticizing, like the Nuclear Umbrella and NATO, have been key in preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and retaining relative stability in at least Europe and East Asia. To question their importance on a purely transactional basis is to ignore the interconnectedness of the current global system. By guaranteeing a Nuclear Umbrella, the U.S. has made signing the NPT possible for countries like South Korea and Japan, who face hostilities from North Korea. These guarantees also encourage nonproliferation, which keeps the total amount of world-wide weapons-grade fissile material down, and less likely to fall into the hands of non-state actors.
The solution to “THE NUCLEAR” is not to make other countries pay a price for their protection, but to implement international and legally binding standards towards nuclear security to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, while at the same time working towards the absolute minimum arsenal world-wide.
