Defusing the nuclear threat

Welcome to the home page of this project, Defusing the Nuclear Threat. I'm Martin Hellman, a professor at Stanford University, and this web site introduces you to an innovative approach for trying to solve the nuclear dilemma: The United States cannot unilaterally eliminate its nuclear arsenal, nor can any of the other major powers. Yet continually threatening to destroy the world can only lead to disaster. By reading this page, in less than five minutes you can begin the process of helping us find a new and better path for ensuring our security. Of course, there's much more that will need to be done – "defusing the nuclear threat" implies a step-by-step process. But, as Lao Tzu said, "The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step." Let's get started!

 

How risky are nuclear weapons?

Discussions about nuclear weapons often get bogged down in specialized language that leaves many people lost and confused. Fortunately, there's a simple narrative that cuts through that fog to illuminate the risk we face:

Imagine that a man wearing a TNT vest were to come into the room and, before you could escape, managed to tell you that he wasn't a suicide bomber. He didn't have the button to set off the explosives. Rather, there were two buttons in very safe hands. One was in Washington with President Obama and the other in Moscow with President Medvedev, so there was nothing to worry about. You'd still get out of that room as fast as you can!

Just because we can't see the nuclear weapons controlled by those two buttons, why do we stay here? As if confronted by that man, we need to be plotting a rapid escape. Instead, we have sat here complacently for over 50 years, trusting that because Earth's explosive vest hasn't yet gone off, it never will.

If you agree that it's high time we got off our butts and started solving this problem, please read on.

 

Isn't the Cold War over?

While the risk of a full-scale nuclear war is less than during the Cold War, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism have added extremely dangerous, new dimensions.

To be accurate, the story about the man in the TNT vest should have additional buttons in London, Paris, Beijing, Jerusalem, New Delhi, Islamabad and Pyongyang. Nuclear proliferation is a growing danger, especially considering that India and Pakistan fought wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999, and India suffered a major attack by Pakistani-based terrorists as recently as November 2008. Just those two nations have enough nuclear weapons to cause unprecedented damage to the global ecosystem, and such a regional nuclear war could spark a global conflict.

Osama bin Laden has made no secret of his desire to obtain nuclear weapons and kill millions of Americans, a task made easier because society is ignoring some obvious dangers. For example, highly enriched uranium from South Africa's now dismantled nuclear arsenal is stored at their Pelindaba facility that was shown to be insecure when, in November 2007, armed men attacked and entered it for almost an hour. While they were scared off before obtaining any HEU, the danger should be obvious and has not been adequately addressed.

 

 

In light of such information, it is not surprising that former Secretary of Defense William Perry has quoted the odds of a nuclear terrorist attack within the next ten years as roughly 50-50. Republican Senator Richard Lugar conducted a survey of 85 national security experts that reached a similarly alarming conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, the danger of a full-scale nuclear war did not end when the Berlin Wall came down. As just one example, in 1995 Russian air defenses mistook a meteorological rocket launched from Norway for an American submarine launched ballistic missile, and the Russian "nuclear football," used to authorize a nuclear attack, was opened in front of President Boris Yeltsin. Fortunately, Yeltsin was sober enough to make the right decision and this did not occur during a crisis, such as the 2008 Georgian war, when there would have been a much greater chance of mistaking a false alarm for the real thing.

That war was particularly dangerous because, while objective investigations concluded that Georgia attacked first, mainstream media coverage has most Americans believing that Russia was the aggressor. Reflecting this mistaken view, Sarah Palin has said that we should be prepared to go to war if Russia invades Georgia again. That event that is more likely than most people realize because Georgia's recent military provocations seem designed to bring the conflict back to center stage even though poking the Russian bear carries grave risks.

The Cold War may be over, but the need to reduce the risk of a nuclear disaster is crying out for our attention.

 

What role can an individual play?

While solving this problem will require action on the part of world leaders, the first key step must be taken by ordinary citizens like you and me. The 19th century French politician Alexandre Ledru-Rollin is reported to have said: "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." Any politician who gets too far in front of the crowd ceases to be a leader.

In 1840, questioning slavery was seen as a fool's errand. In that environment, anti-slavery candidate James Birney received just 0.3% of the vote. Twenty years later, Abraham Lincoln could only question slavery and still become president because enough ordinary citizens had challenged the societal conviction that it was impossible to end slavery. In the same way, little will change with respect to nuclear weapons until enough of us have the courage to say that the nuclear emperor has no clothes – except for that stupid vest!

 

Creating pockets of nuclear awareness

Ultimately, the entire nation must be involved in changing our nuclear strategy. Because that goal is far beyond our current resources, we are utilizing a business technique called market segmentation that was designed for just that kind of situation. When a creative company develops a product with a potential market much larger than it can afford to reach, it focuses its limited resources on a smaller market segment, for example a single city. Only after achieving success there does it tackle the larger market, making use of the new resources gained from its initial success.

In the same way, our project seeks to form "pockets of nuclear awareness" – small, interconnected populations that give this issue the respect it deserves. By focusing our limited resources on small groups, we can accelerate the process of reaching a tipping point, after which the process spreads of its own accord within the group. This approach applies to any small, interconnected population such as a neighborhood, a church or a school. It is explained in more detail using the Stanford University campus as an illustrative example.

 

The language of risk

Defenders of the nuclear status quo frequently point to the 65 years since the last world war as proof that any change in our nuclear posture would be far too risky: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" But, given that a child born today has an expected lifetime of roughly 80 years, we need to ask if those arguments are like a man jumping off the Empire State Building and, as he passes the first 65 floors, claiming that all is well.

I have tried to answer that question by applying the same techniques that have been used to reduce the dangers associated with nuclear power plants and other complex systems. Known by the somewhat daunting name of Probablistic Risk Analysis, my preliminary analysis showed that relying on nuclear weapons is as risky as living in a town surrounded by thousands of nuclear power plants. That wasn't a misprint: THOUSANDS! That's a ridiculous picture, but it's how we all live right now. Watch a minute and a half video to see what that looks like:

 

 

Another advantage of using the language of risk is that market research has found it to be highly effective in reaching America's "persuadable middle." The Executive Summary starts on page 2 and is a valuable, quick read.

Talking in terms of risk also bypasses many arguments. Some say that we need to abolish nuclear weapons, others that we must work toward world peace, and yet others see arms control as the solution. In our risk-based approach, the goal is to reduce the nuclear risk to an acceptable level. It's easy to argue that "zero" or world peace or stringent arms control are unrealistic goals, but it's hard to argue against reducing the risk to an acceptable level.

Given that the current level of risk is thousands of times greater than living next to a nuclear power plant, we have a long way to go. Getting there probably involves some elements of those specific solutions, but if that is the case, it is better discovered further along in the process when their goals will not sound as fantastic and unachievable as they now do.

 

Who else supports this effort?

The following individuals have endorsed a statement supporting this project's effort to estimate the risk of nuclear deterrence:

  • Dr. Richard Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus, former member President’s Science Advisory Committee and Defense Science Board

  • Adm. Bobby R. Inman, USN (Ret.), University of Texas at Austin, former Director National Security Agency and Deputy Director CIA

In addition to Profs. Arrow, Kays, Kennedy and Perl (listed above), three other prominent members of the Stanford community support this project's effort to make Stanford a pocket of nuclear awareness:

  • William Perry was Secretary of Defense under President Clinton. Along with George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn he is one the four principals of the Nuclear Security Project that is questioning the conventional wisdom about nuclear weapons. He is currently a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor at Stanford University.

  • George Shultz was Secretary of State under President Reagan and was a key figure in ending the Cold War. Along with William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn he is one the four principals of the Nuclear Security Project that is questioning the conventional wisdom about nuclear weapons.

  • Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, and has written a letter encouraging Stanford students to become involved in this project.

 

What can I do to help?

The first step in the process is to form pockets of nuclear awareness. Only after that has been achieved is there hope for more global awareness. That in turn is needed before real progress can be made on reducing the nuclear threat. If you agree that we need to defuse Earth's explosive vest, we hope you will take three simple actions:

  • Share your concern with friends. It's the most effective way to increase awareness and, until more people are aware of the risk, nothing will happen to reduce it.

  • Keep up to date via the JOIN US box in the left margin near the top of this page or at our blog.

 

 

Home  |  Blog  |   FAQ  |  Resources  |  Risk Analysis |  Stanford