To the question of whether nuclear weapons exist. The big nuclear game in the 21st century: disarmament or war? Nuclear world: secrets
The aggravation of the international situation, the testing of nuclear weapons in North Korea have returned the topic of the danger of nuclear war to the agenda. How likely is a nuclear conflict today, and is there any reason to fear it in the future?
What is happening today with the role of nuclear weapons in the world?
Despite the latest news from the Korean Peninsula, I would not say that the role of nuclear weapons in the world is increasing. Over the past ten years, no new owner of nuclear weapons has appeared in the world, nor even a country that would be suspected of being interested in such weapons. For most countries with nuclear forces, they have long been included in the national security strategy, where, as a rule, they play the role of a deterrent.
Between Russia and the United States, the system of nuclear deterrence has existed for more than sixty years. There are clear, well-established rules of the game. Some experts believe that the situation is now beginning to change, including under the influence of new technologies, but, in my opinion, the system of strategic stability based on parity has not undergone a qualitative change.
For other countries of the nuclear five, nuclear weapons play a less prominent role. The arsenals of France and Great Britain have been significantly reduced, and, first of all, are important as an indicator of status. As long as NATO exists and the US covers Europe with its nuclear umbrella, this state of affairs is unlikely to change.
The arsenals of France and Great Britain have been significantly reduced, and, first of all, are important as an indicator of status
There is the least information about China, since Beijing does not disclose information about its nuclear forces. There is a feeling that, unlike the other official nuclear powers, the PRC is increasing its capabilities both qualitatively and quantitatively. But, again, this is more part of a general trend to pull the country towards the level of a great power, as they understand it, than a new emphasis on the importance of nuclear weapons.
In addition to the official nuclear states, in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a number of other countries also possess nuclear arsenals, here the dynamics are different.
In the case of Israel, everything is stable, for the last 50 years it has not recognized or denied the presence of nuclear weapons, although everyone, in general, knows that the country has them. Since there is no immediate threat to the existence of the state, it makes no sense to brandish a nuclear bomb.
Finally, India and Pakistan, unfortunately, continue to develop their nuclear arsenals. This is not surprising, Delhi is striving to catch up with Beijing, and Islamabad is chasing Delhi. Considering that both countries view nuclear weapons as a real battlefield weapon and have fought each other on numerous occasions, the risk of escalation is quite high here. But again, the situation has not changed much since 1998.
And the DPRK?
After Pyongyang embarked on the path of creating nuclear weapons, with the goal, in many respects, to achieve guarantees for the preservation of the existing state system, it maintains this course. First of all, the DPRK, of course, holds back the United States. Nuclear tests have shown that the country has a certain number of nuclear weapons, missile tests have shown that Pyongyang can reach the nearest American bases. But this is still a rather limited form of deterrence, and the North Korean leadership wants to achieve a guaranteed deterrence where any attacker (including the United States) is confident that North Korean missiles will reach them if anything happens. The latest ballistic missile launches and nuclear test show that North Korea is moving faster in this direction than we would like.
Pyongyang will continue to have a nuclear arsenal for the foreseeable future
As practice has shown, the existing system of sanctions against the DPRK has not been able and will not be able to solve this situation. For the foreseeable future, Pyongyang will continue to possess a nuclear arsenal, so the main goal now should be to reduce tensions and prevent an escalation of the conflict. It is necessary to decide on realistic goals that the world community can achieve, for example, freezing the nuclear program of the DPRK, ending nuclear tests and ballistic missile tests, and start negotiations with Pyongyang, being ready to offer security guarantees and the lifting of part of the sanctions in return. True, this cannot be done without the United States, and, unfortunately, it does not seem that Washington is ready for such a dialogue.
Is there now a possibility of the emergence of new nuclear states?
So far, the system of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is working quite effectively. Since the entry into force of the NPT in 1970, only three states have developed nuclear weapons. We can say that this is more than we would like, but all the main contenders have already achieved their goal, so far there is no one else in the queue for nuclear weapons.
The question of Iran remains, at no time did it possess nuclear weapons, but it increased its technical capabilities in this area. Now the problem is closed by an agreement between Tehran and the six international mediators (JCPOA), including the US, Europeans, China and Russia. Despite the coming to power of Donald Trump, who is negative about the deal, the status quo remains, informal pressure from other participants in the agreement and his own cabinet does not allow the US president to make any sudden moves. Of course, I do not undertake to predict the behavior of Donald Trump, but I would like to hope that the agreement will stand, since it is in the interests of all participants.
And I am already silent about the fact that if the US destroys the agreements with Iran, the agreement with the DPRK will have to be forgotten.
But there are non-nuclear countries that have everything necessary to create their own arsenal?
To launch a realistic military nuclear program, several conditions must be met.
First, it is a technical possibility: a developed industry, large resources. There is the concept of a "threshold state" - a country that can quickly make nuclear weapons, if such a decision is made. Such countries include, for example, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil. As a rule, such countries have the technology and know-how thanks to a peaceful nuclear program.
If the US destroys the agreements with Iran, the agreement with the DPRK will have to be forgotten
The second condition is a strong need for nuclear weapons, which is based on the fact that the state does not feel safe. The production of nuclear weapons requires many sacrifices, including the risk of being isolated and under heavy international sanctions. At the moment, none of the threshold countries have an existential need to engage in nuclear deterrence - they are either covered by the US nuclear umbrella or are in calm regions like Brazil. If there are no extraordinary changes in global security, they will not have such a need, here I primarily mean the development of the situation around the DPRK.
How does the international community ensure that countries do not develop nuclear weapons?
This task is entrusted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which ensures that there is no diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful to military activities. The organization's experts know where nuclear materials are located in a given country and regularly monitor their quantity and location.
Then, each state makes sure that its nuclear materials and installations are protected as much as possible from theft or sabotage. There is also UNSCR 1540, aimed at preventing non-state actors from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction. The work of the 1540 committee was recently extended for another 10 years. This committee collects reports from states on how they fulfill their obligations under the resolution, preventing illegal trafficking in nuclear materials. This is also done by special people through Interpol.
What do you mean by nuclear materials?
Now I'm talking about fissile materials: uranium and plutonium. Moreover, even in quite peaceful activities, quite dangerous things are sometimes used. So, initially, many research reactors used highly enriched uranium, it was convenient, but no one thought about safety. At some point, this issue arose, and the countries that supplied nuclear materials decided to take them back and modify the reactors for low-enriched uranium, which is much less dangerous from the point of view of non-proliferation. This process continues today.
The traditional American rule of “we will do what is convenient for us, and let the rest adjust” led to the fact that Russia refused to dispose of its plutonium
With radiological materials, things are even worse. You can’t make a nuclear bomb out of them, but you can add them to ordinary explosives and get a “dirty bomb” that infects the area with radiation. Radiological materials are used in many industries ranging from hospitals to agriculture. There is no international regulation for this area, only an advisory code of conduct for radioactive sources. Therefore, if a terrorist attack is possible, it is likely to come from these sources.
What is the issue under discussion about the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium, which is used in warheads?
There was a corresponding agreement with the United States, according to which the countries planned to dispose of unnecessary weapons-grade plutonium, making fuel from it and burning it in fast neutron reactors. The Americans built a special plant for a long time, but it turned out to be very expensive. As a result, they proposed not to burn plutonium, but to mix it with nuclear waste and bury it underground. It was unlikely that this was due to the desire to create secret stockpiles of weapons - the treaty dealt with 34 tons of plutonium, this is only a third of what the United States has. But the traditional American rule of “do what works for us and let the rest of us adjust” along with the general tension in relations led Russia to refuse to dispose of its plutonium in response.
Has the crisis in relations between Russia and the United States greatly affected the nuclear security system?
If we talk about control over nuclear materials, then the crisis, of course, could not but affect it. At the IAEA site, our cooperation seems to be continuing, but, of course, most of the joint programs with the United States have now been terminated. The first part of the initiatives was curtailed by the United States after the Ukrainian crisis, and then we ourselves began to withdraw from the agreements, in particular, on the disposal of plutonium. All this is not fatal, but very sad.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the situation was perceived in the context that America and I are no longer enemies, you can safely think about how to effectively use your weapons. Now it is difficult to talk about trust, it seems that the arms control system is bursting at the seams. The process with clear rules and procedures is starting to change. How dangerous is the situation?
There is pressure on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and to a certain extent on the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (New START Treaty).
The American administration is trying not to comment on these issues, apparently not wanting yet another irritant in bilateral relations. The last time there was a substantive discussion about the INF Treaty was last fall, back under Obama. Since then, the media and Congress have been saying that Russia has violated everything and that it is necessary to withdraw from the agreements. Trump makes no such accusations, but he does nothing to dispel them either. I hope that the question of strategic stability will be raised again in the near future, because before the midterm elections, Trump is unlikely to be ready to exchange his popularity for this.
Now we have an agreement with the United States on the mutual limitation of nuclear weapons - we know how many missiles, bombers, warheads each other has. But all this could end quickly. The START treaty expires in 2021, but there are no negotiations on an extension, and there are no guarantees that the parties will reach an agreement.
Do you think a military escalation of the conflict between nuclear powers to a dangerous threshold is possible?
To be honest, I hope not. Both sides cannot fail to understand the danger of such an escalation in the current environment.
If we remember the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, then our countries did not perceive each other as a real threat. It was important for the Bush administration to create a defense against "axis of evil" missiles; Russia did not appear on this list. We replied that we would take retaliatory actions, and that was it. Now we would not just speak out, but would immediately place Iskanders in Kaliningrad or make some other sharp gesture. Although the leadership in Moscow and Washington is absolutely not interested in such an outcome.
Issues of limiting nuclear escalation are predominantly political
Moreover, the issues of limiting nuclear escalation are predominantly political. Remember the famous initiative of the 1990s about "non-targeting" Russian and American ballistic missiles at each other in order to avoid the consequences of an accidental launch? She is still active. But when I asked one of the senior US Air Force officers in charge of nuclear forces how long the retargeting would take, he replied - a few seconds if the order came.
We again see each other as potential adversaries - this is a great danger to the whole world. At the same time, with all the power of nuclear weapons, they really cannot be used - they just lie in the mines, and you spend a lot of money on them. We need armed forces that can be used, say, for peacekeeping activities, or for the fight against terrorism, and not for the destruction of humanity.
Some experts believe that American weaponry could prevent Russian missiles from taking off.
Of course, weapons are constantly improving, but no military will ever tell you with sufficient certainty that the US can destroy Russian missiles before they take off. The same is true for American missiles. Even taking into account the deployed missile defense system, this is hardly possible. In addition to mine installations, the location of which is known, it would be necessary to destroy all submarines, which are much more difficult to detect, all aircraft with nuclear weapons in the air, all mobile complexes moving around the country.
Both Russia and the United States have deployed more than 1,500 nuclear warheads on various carriers, these weapons carry enormous destructive power. Even if only 10-20 intercontinental ballistic missiles reach the target, this means 20-30 destroyed cities. And this is not counting tactical nuclear weapons, which will not reach the United States, but will reach, for example, American bases in European countries or in Turkey. Therefore, I do not think that the US has any sense of superiority in this regard, the balance is quite stable.
Are there any new initiatives related to limiting nuclear weapons?
In New York at the end of the month, about 130 countries are due to sign the UN Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Their desire to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again is understandable: the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nuclear tests, and even Fukushima, demonstrate to us how devastating such a scenario is for humanity. But, in the end, none of the nuclear states will take part in the convention, which is likely to come into force. That is, states that do not have nuclear weapons will sign an agreement among themselves. This is unlikely to really solve at least one of the existing problems.
Israel's nuclear program is a key issue in the Middle East
If the drafting of this treaty was an attempt to put pressure on the nuclear states to speed up the disarmament process, then I would rate it as a failure. Rather, the position of the nuclear countries regarding dialogue and international disarmament control has become tougher. It must be understood that all known cases of states refusing to possess nuclear weapons (the withdrawal of Soviet nuclear forces from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the disarmament of South Africa) turned out to be possible when the countries decided that this was in their national interests and would not affect security. To discuss disarmament without considering these factors is to engage in self-deception.
What would an effective international security system look like in 2035?
If we do not want the system to be in a permanent crisis, then, firstly, cooperation between Russia and the United States must continue and intensify. Secondly, it is important to include China in this dialogue so that the country moves towards greater transparency.
In the Middle East, the key issue is Israel's nuclear program. But until Tel Aviv recognizes its existence, it is very difficult to discuss it. By and large, today Israel feels safe enough: the Arab states, against which a nuclear arsenal was created, are no longer threatened, and nuclear weapons will not help in the fight against terrorists. Therefore, the Israeli government must recognize that the uncertainty regime, like nuclear weapons themselves, is a relic of the Cold War, and one can at least discuss the possibility of changing the status quo.
We need to continue to strengthen the nonproliferation regime to avoid the emergence of new nuclear countries
A very important step is to work with other countries outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. No systematic relations have been established with them at present. It is necessary to modernize the system for discussing nuclear weapons issues and include (formally or informally) these countries in it.
Finally, the non-proliferation regime must continue to be strengthened in order to avoid the emergence of new nuclear states. Export control, IAEA safeguards, international cooperation in this area should be developed. Many countries have recently switched to disarmament, but this is no reason to forget about nonproliferation.
Andrey Baklitsky
Researcher at the Center for Global Issues and International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
In 2008-2009 studied at the University of Seville (Spain). Graduate of the International Summer School on Security Issues 2011.
In 2011-2013 - Head of the PIR Center Internet Project, since 2013 - Director of Information Projects of the PIR Center. In 2014-2017 — Director of the Russia and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Program. Member of the sessions of the Preparatory Committee for the 2013-2014 NPT Review Conference. and the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Editor of the PIR Center White Paper “Ten Steps to a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East”, editor of the report “Iran in the Regional and Global Context”. Research interests: international security, the greater Middle East, nuclear energy and nuclear non-proliferation.
Why should we worry about nuclear weapons? What makes it so important?
The nuclear arsenals now available for immediate use by the United States and Russia are capable of destroying civilization and humanity, and all the most complex forms of life on Earth. This ultimate act of destruction can only be accomplished within minutes of an American or Russian president ordering the launch of hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles carrying thousands of nuclear warheads.
How powerful can a weapon be to destroy civilization and humanity?
Nuclear weapons are millions of times more powerful than the "conventional" explosive charges used by armies in modern warfare. The largest "conventional" bomb in today's US arsenal has an explosive yield of up to 11 tons (about 22,000 pounds) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). For the smallest nuclear warhead the US and Russia possess, this figure is 100,000 tons (or 200 billion pounds) of TNT.
The heat or thermal energy released in a nuclear explosion is not comparable to what happens on Earth in natural conditions. When a nuclear warhead explodes, it is like the birth of a small star. The explosion creates a temperature that is similar to that at the center of the Sun, i.e. hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius.
The huge fireball that forms radiates deadly heat and light that will start fires in all directions if the explosion occurs over areas with a lot of flammable materials, such as large cities. These fires will quickly join together and form a monstrous single fire, or firestorm, covering tens, hundreds, and even thousands of square miles or kilometers of the earth's surface.
America and Russia each have many thousands of large, modern strategic nuclear warheads available for immediate launch and use. Just one medium-sized nuclear warhead detonated over a city will immediately create fires over the surface with a total area of 40 to 65 square miles (or 105 to 170 square kilometers).
Large strategic charges can create fires over much larger areas. A one megaton (1 million tons of TNT) charge will set fires in an area of 100 square miles (260 sq. km). An explosion of a 20 megaton charge can immediately start fires over an area of 2,000 square miles (5,200 sq. km).
The total energy released during a fiery hurricane and completely burning the urban surface is, in fact, a thousand times greater than the energy released initially directly from the nuclear explosion itself. In the incredibly lethal environment created by the fiery hurricane, virtually all life will be destroyed, and in the process, a huge amount of toxic and radioactive smoke and grime will be created.
In a major war between the US and Russia, thousands of strategic nuclear weapons could be detonated over cities in one hour. Many large cities will likely be hit by not one but several nukes each. All these cities will be completely destroyed.
Within an hour, a nuclear firestorm will cover hundreds of thousands of square miles (kilometers) of urban areas. Anything that can burn will be burned in the fire zones. In less than a day, up to 150 million tons of smoke from these fires will quickly rise above cloud level, into the stratosphere.
As noted on the home page, the smoke should quickly form a global smoke layer in the stratosphere that would block sunlight from reaching Earth. This would destroy the protective ozone layer and lead to deadly climate change, dropping the average global temperature at the earth's surface in a matter of days to levels well below that of the Ice Age. Daily minimum temperatures in the continental regions of the northern hemisphere would remain below freezing for years.
Such catastrophic environmental changes, along with the massive release of radioactive and industrial toxins, would lead to the collapse of terrestrial ecosystems on land and at sea, which are already under great stress. Many, if not most, complex life forms would not be able to withstand such a test.
There would be a mass extinction similar to what happened when the dinosaurs and 70 percent of other living things disappeared 65 million years ago. Humans live at the top of the food chain, and we would surely die along with other large mammals.
Even the most powerful leaders and the richest people with super-safe havens equipped with nuclear power plants, hospitals and years of food and water supplies would be unlikely to survive a nuclear war in a world devoid of complex life forms. Those who can push buttons should know that in a global nuclear holocaust, there is no escape from ultimate destruction.
If nuclear explosions in cities will lead to darkness and disastrous climate change, then why didn't this happen after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by nuclear bombing at the end of World War II?
The fires in two medium-sized Japanese cities did not create the amount of smoke needed to form a global smoke layer capable of causing disastrous changes in the earth's climate. In other words, millions of tons of smoke would have to rise into the stratosphere to affect the global climate, but the burning of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not produce that much.
However, new research shows that 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons detonated in large cities in India and Pakistan could create enough smoke to cause catastrophic climate change. The yield of this number of charges is only half a percent of the combined yield of operationally deployed US and Russian nuclear weapons.
In a major nuclear war, in which American and Russian nuclear weapons are detonated, between 50 and 150 million tons of smoke would be thrown into the stratosphere. This is enough to block sunlight from the earth's surface for many years.
Why are you sure that computer studies predicting climate change in the event of a nuclear war are correct? How can you check this if a nuclear war never happened?
To conduct repeated checks, American scientists applied the latest climate model developed by NASA for space research (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Model IE, in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This model is capable of fully simulating the troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere from the earth's surface up to a height of 80 km. The same methods and climate models that predicted global warming were also used to justify global cooling due to nuclear war.
While it is true that it is impossible to be accurate in evaluating the results of a nuclear war without it actually being carried out, it is nonetheless clear that this is a research method that we must avoid. However, the application of the above climate models has been very successful in describing the cooling effect of volcanic clouds. This was done both in intensive US analyzes and in international intercomparisons carried out as part of the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Models of this type have also successfully evaluated the cooling effect of dust storms on Mars (dust blocks the sun's rays from reaching the Martian surface in the same way that smoke in our stratosphere might prevent them from illuminating the Earth).
This research is also being carried out intensively by other scientists around the world as part of a common scientific process referred to as “peer review”. All important and widely accepted scientific methods are used to ensure that such research is verifiable, repeatable, and error-free.
In other words, studies that predict climate change due to global warming or global cooling are performed in the best and most respected tradition of the scientific method and are verified by scientists around the world. This process has provided us with most of the scientific discoveries and advances over the past few centuries. There is a strong consensus in the global scientific community that these results must be taken seriously and that they must lead to action.
If nuclear war can destroy humanity, then why do states continue to keep and modernize nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons prevent war?
Nations that retain nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of their military arsenals (US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan) do so because they are committed to nuclear deterrence. That is, they believe that their possession of nuclear weapons will deter other countries from attacking them. Conversely, they think that if they didn't have nuclear weapons, then there would be a greater chance of attack from countries that do.
So nuclear deterrence remains a key operational strategy for the United States and Russia—and every other nuclear-weapon state.
The U.S. Department of Defense Military Dictionary states: “Deterrence is the notion that there is a credible threat of unacceptable opposition.” Today's "plausible threat" created by the operationally deployed nuclear weapons of the United States and Russia is a thousand times more powerful than all the warheads detonated by all armies in the second world war. It is clear that a "plausible threat" based on such an arsenal means the destruction of most of the people on the planet.
The same leaders who rely on nuclear deterrence also believe that there is no realistic way to eliminate nuclear weapons. The question they cannot ask themselves is, what will be the likely choice of these two alternatives of action after a while? Should we stubbornly maintain extremely dangerous nuclear arsenals as the basis of deterrence, or should we sincerely strive for a world free of nuclear weapons?
Those who see the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons as a viable and legitimate option often tend to present the idea of destroying nuclear arsenals as a "destabilizing" goal, and apparently believe that deterrence will always prevent nuclear war. However, their long-term optimism is not supported by logic or history.
Containment will only work as long as all parties remain rational and fearful of death. For many extremist groups, however, a plausible threat of retaliation is not a deterrent, no matter how strong it might be. History is full of examples of irrational leaders and decisions that led to war. Nuclear weapons, coupled with human fallibility, not only make nuclear war possible, but ultimately make it inevitable.
Suicide is not a defense.
If the ultimate goal of national security policy is to ensure the survival of the nation, then trying to achieve this goal through nuclear deterrence must be seen as a complete failure. Because deterrence sets no rational limits on the size and structure of nuclear forces, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been created. They continue to be on alert and patiently waiting to destroy not only our nation, but every other people on Earth.
So, the consequence of only one failure of the containment system could be the end of human history. A big nuclear war will make our planet uninhabitable. Even a conflict between India and Pakistan, in which only half a percent of the global nuclear arsenal is detonated, would lead, according to forecasts, to catastrophic disruptions to the global climate.
Leaders who decide to defend their nation with nuclear weapons must face the fact that nuclear war is suicide, not a way to save their citizens. Suicide is not a defense.
If we accept the statement that “there is no realistic path to a nuclear-free world,” then we are condemning the world's children to a truly bleak future. Instead, we need to reject the 20th century mentality that still continues to lead us to the abyss and understand that nuclear weapons are a threat to the human race.
1. Nuclear weapons were necessary to defeat Japan in World War II.
In the world - and this is especially noticeable in the United States - it is widely believed that the nuclear strike against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to defeat Japan during the Second World War. However, the most prominent American military of the era, including Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Hap Arnold, and Admiral William Leahy, do not share this view. Thus, for example, General Eisenhower, who during the Second World War was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Western Europe, and who later became President of the United States, wrote: "I felt a sense of deep dismay and therefore expressed my concerns [to Secretary of War Stimson], based primarily , on my conviction that Japan had already been defeated and there was no need for an atomic bomb.Besides, I believed that our country should not have plunged world public opinion into fear by exploding a bomb, the use of which, in my opinion, was already was not a sine qua non for saving American lives. I believed that at this very moment, Japan was looking for the best way to lay down its arms without losing its "face". The use of nuclear weapons was not only useless, their excessive destructive power led to the death of 220,000 people by the end of 1945.
2. Nuclear weapons prevented the outbreak of war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Many believe that the nuclear "draw" achieved during the Cold War kept the two world powers from starting a war, because there was a real threat of mutual destruction of both states. Despite the fact that the two powers during the Cold War did not really unleash a nuclear catastrophe, nevertheless, during this time serious confrontations took place between them, putting the world on the brink of nuclear war. The most serious confrontation can be read the Cuban crisis that erupted in 1962.
During the Cold War, there were many deadly conflicts and "custom" wars unleashed by the powers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The most telling example is the Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of several million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans. All these wars led to the fact that the so-called nuclear truce turned out to be extremely bloody and deadly. At the same time, the real threat of the start of a nuclear confrontation was constantly hiding in the shadows. The Cold War was an extremely dangerous period, the main characteristic of which can be considered a massive nuclear arms race, and humanity was extremely fortunate that it managed to survive this time without a nuclear war.
3. The nuclear threat disappeared after the end of the Cold War.
After the end of the Cold War, many believed that the threat of nuclear war had disappeared. While the very nature of the nuclear threat has changed since the end of the Cold War, the danger has not disappeared or even decreased in any significant way. During the Cold War, the main threat was the nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the period following the end of the Cold War, several new sources of nuclear threat emerged simultaneously. Among them, the following deserve special attention: at the moment there is a much greater danger that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists; there is a real threat of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan; the United States government is pursuing a policy of making atomic bombs smaller and easier to use; there is a threat of erroneous use of nuclear weapons - especially from Russia, in view of the imperfection of the warning system; the development of nuclear weapons by other countries, in particular by North Korea, which can use them to "equalize" forces when confronting a stronger state.
4. Nuclear weapons are necessary for the United States to ensure national security.
It is widely believed in the United States that the United States needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from attack by aggressor states. However, US national security will no longer be exposed to unnecessary dangers if the United States assumes a leadership role in the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons around the world. Nuclear weapons are the only ones that can realistically completely destroy the United States, and the existence and proliferation of such weapons appears to be a serious threat to US security.
A state that now has a terrorist threat level marked orange, develops smaller and easier-to-use nuclear weapons, and pursues a highly aggressive foreign policy should be aware that its actions leave weaker countries feeling vulnerable. The weakest states may begin to perceive nuclear weapons as a means of neutralizing the threat from another state with nuclear weapons. Thus, in the case of North Korea, the threat from the United States could spur Pyongyang to acquire nuclear weapons. The fact that the United States continues to build its military power around nuclear weapons sets a bad example for the rest of the world and puts the United States itself at risk instead of protecting it. The United States possesses a sufficient number of traditional weapons and will feel more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.
5. Nuclear weapons enhance the security of a single country.
There is a very widespread opinion that the presence of nuclear weapons can protect any country from a strike from a potential aggressor. In other words, fearing a retaliatory strike from one or another nuclear power, the aggressor state will not attack it. In fact, the exact opposite is happening: nuclear weapons undermine the security of countries that own them, as it gives them a false sense of security.
Although such measures to dissuade the enemy may provide a certain sense of calm, there is no guarantee that the fear of retaliation will deter the aggressor country from attacking. There are numerous possibilities that the policy of dissuading the enemy will not work: misunderstandings, communication errors, irresponsible leaders, miscalculations, and accidents. In addition, the presence of nuclear weapons increases the threat of the spread of terrorism, the proliferation of weapons and significant losses during a nuclear conflict.
6. None of the leaders of the states will be so reckless as to actually use nuclear weapons.
Many believe that threats to use nuclear weapons can be heard indefinitely, but no leader of state has yet reached the point of insanity to actually use it. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons have been used before, and today it is quite possible that many - if not all - leaders of nuclear powers, having found themselves in a certain situation, will use them. The leaders of the United States, considered by many to be quite rational people, used it only once during the course of the war: when striking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of these bombings, the leaders of the nuclear powers have repeatedly been on the verge of using such weapons.
At present, the United States considers it justified to use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack on the United States, its bases and allies. One of the prerequisites for the United States to launch a preventive war is the belief that other countries can launch a nuclear attack on the United States. The exchange between India and Pakistan of threats to launch a nuclear strike can be considered another example of brinkmanship (balancing on the brink of war), which can turn into a nuclear catastrophe. Historically, the leaders of various countries have done everything possible to show that they are ready to use nuclear weapons. It would be unwise to assume that they will not do so.
7. Nuclear weapons are an economic means of national defense.
Some observers have suggested that, due to their amazing destructive power, nuclear weapons can serve as an effective means of defense at minimal cost. With such arguments, endless research can be carried out to develop nuclear weapons of limited range, which will be more convenient to use. According to a study by the Brookings Institution, the cost of developing, experimenting, building and maintaining nuclear weapons exceeded $5.5 trillion in 1996. With advances in technology and nuclear weapons, the costs and consequences of nuclear conflict will reach unprecedented levels.
8. Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance of them falling into the hands of terrorists.
Many believe that nuclear weapons are well hidden and unlikely to fall into the hands of terrorists. However, since the end of the Cold War, Russia's ability to protect its nuclear capability has declined significantly. In addition, a coup d'état in a country that possesses nuclear weapons - such as Pakistan - could bring to power rulers who are ready to supply said weapons to terrorists.
In general, the following situation develops: the more countries on Earth that possess nuclear weapons, and the more units of these weapons on our planet, the higher the likelihood that terrorists can take possession of them. The best way to prevent this is a significant reduction in the world's nuclear potential and the establishment of strict international control over existing weapons and materials necessary for their production with a view to their subsequent destruction.
9. The United States is doing everything possible to fulfill its disarmament obligations.
Most Americans believe that the United States is living up to its commitment to nuclear disarmament. In fact, the United States does not comply with the conditions written in Section VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, according to which they must do everything possible for nuclear disarmament for more than thirty years. The United States did not ratify the Total Test Ban Treaty and withdrew from the ABM treaty.
The Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the "START Treaty") signed by the Russian Federation and the United States removes part of nuclear weapons from active use, but says nothing about the systematic reduction of such types of weapons and runs counter to the principle of irreversibility achieved in 2000 on conference to revise the ABM treaty. The agreement signed between Russia and the United States is an example of the most flexible attitude towards the possibility of nuclear rearmament, instead of an irreversible reduction in nuclear arsenals. If the agreement is not renewed, it will expire in 2012.
10. Nuclear weapons are essential to combat the terrorist threat and rogue states.
It has been repeatedly suggested that nuclear weapons are necessary to fight terrorism and rogue states. However, the use of nuclear weapons for dissuasion or defense proves ineffective. The threat of a nuclear strike against terrorists cannot be a measure to dissuade them, because such organizations do not occupy a certain territory that can be struck.
Nor can nuclear weapons be used as a dissuasion measure against rogue states: their reaction to a nuclear threat may be irrational, and dissuasion is based on rationality. The use of nuclear weapons as a means of defense will lead to huge losses among civilians, the military and will deal a significant blow to the environment. With the help of nuclear weapons, it is possible to destroy any of the rogue states, but the efforts spent to achieve this goal will be disproportionately large and deeply immoral. It is useless to use such weapons against terrorists, since the strategists of military campaigns cannot accurately determine the location of the object of attack.
Q. Were nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they really nuclear bombs?
A. Nuclear bombs.
Q. Were nuclear weapons used after World War II? Just like a weapon, not a test.
A. It was used, the Guardians say, like, somewhere in Vietnam ...
Q. Is it true that there were saucer fights in Vietnam?
A. There were.
Q. Why were there saucer fights in Vietnam and, say, not in Afghanistan?
A. Something to do with the Grays and the technology transfer from them that was going on at the time. The Americans at that time began to use their technology.
Q. Does Russia or the United States now have combat-ready nuclear weapons?
Oh. Hmm... The Guardians say no.
Q. No nuclear weapons? What happened to him?
A. Withdrawn. It is stored somewhere in one place, both ours and American.
Q. And who took him there?
Oh. They don't say...
Q. What about atomic briefcases?
Oh. Bluff.
Q. That is, neither Russia nor the United States, no organizations and terrorists have access to combat-ready nuclear weapons?
A. Corporations have access. Terrorists… no, not really.
Q. Was nuclear weapons used in Fukushima to create a wave?
A. No, it has not been used.
Q. Does Russia have more powerful weapons than nuclear weapons, such as ultra (hyper) sound, plasma, tectonic weapons, etc.?
A. Yes, hypersonic and something related to radio frequencies.
Q. What about the USA?
ABOUT.HAARP. I don’t see anything so special, they have a lot of conventional weapons, we have more powerful ones.
B. The Moscow heat of 2010 isHAARP?
Oh yeah.
Q. Why didn't Russia answer, since we have better weapons?
A. There are certain agreements. These were tests and both sides were interested.
Q. Is there a connection to the test facility in Saudi Arabia at the same time that the abnormal rains occurred there?
A. Yes, there is a combined effect.
Q. Earthquake in Armenia in 1988 - the result of the use of tectonic weapons?
A. No, somehow it’s not right ... There is some kind of overlay of a natural process and something else ... a feeling that there was an underground explosion. Keepers say - a nuclear underground explosion carried out by ours. Well, in general, it turns out that the tectonic weapon, they experimented with the possibility of provoking tremors with an explosion.
Q. Is it true that the main reason for the extraction of all minerals is the creation of cavities to fill them with water and form a reserve of drinking water under the surface of the planet?
A. Not all of them, but some - yes, for this too. 10-15 percent somewhere. Such places are evenly dispersed over the surface.
THEMATIC SECTIONS:
| | | | | | | |
In recent days, the Korean Peninsula has become the center of attention of the entire world community. The United States and North Korea are threatening each other with pre-emptive nuclear strikes, Japan is putting its Self-Defense Forces on alert, and the President of the United States is promising that he will not let his brilliant comrade down. collected all the information needed by those who are seriously interested in the prospects for a nuclear conflict.
What is the "nuclear club" and who is in it?
The "Nuclear Club" is the unofficial name for a group of states that possess nuclear weapons. The United States was the pioneer here. In June 1945, they were the first to detonate the atomic bomb. According to the father of the American atomic project, Robert Oppenheimer, when he looked at this, a quote from the Bhagavad Gita came to his mind: “If hundreds of thousands of suns rose at once in the sky, their light could be compared with the radiance emanating from the Supreme Lord ... I am death , destroyer of worlds." Following the Americans, the USSR, Great Britain, France and China acquired their nuclear arsenal in 1949, 1952, 1960, 1964, respectively. These five states constituted the "nuclear club", the entrance to which was closed in 1970, when the vast majority of the countries of the world signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Does anyone else have nuclear weapons?
Yes. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was not signed by Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan. These countries have become unofficial members of the "nuclear club". India first secretly tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, and in 1998 did so openly. In the same year, India's rival, Pakistan, detonated an atomic bomb. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons in 2006. India tried in this way to protect itself from China, Pakistan from India, and the DPRK from everyone around, and primarily from the United States.
Photo: U.S. Library of Congress / Handout via Reuters
Israel has a special status. This state neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons. However, experts are almost unanimous: Israel has an atomic bomb.
Relevant developments were carried out in South Africa, but in 1991 the country abandoned them under pressure from the international community. Their military nuclear programs existed at different times in Sweden, Brazil, Switzerland and Egypt. Iran has been repeatedly accused of seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but the Islamic Republic authorities insist that their research program has always pursued purely peaceful goals.
Why are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea not part of the official nuclear club?
Because the world is not fair. The countries that were the first to obtain nuclear weapons reserved for themselves the right to possess them. On the other hand, their political regimes are stable, which makes it possible to at least partially guarantee that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of terrorists. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, the whole world community was very worried about this. In the end, the Soviet atomic arsenal went to Russia as a state - the successor of the USSR.
What are nuclear weapons?
In general, all such munitions are divided into two large groups: atomic, in which the fission reaction of heavy uranium-235 or plutonium nuclei occurs, and thermonuclear, in which the reaction of nuclear fusion of light elements into heavier ones takes place. At the moment, most of the countries of both the official and unofficial nuclear club have thermonuclear weapons as more destructive. The only known exception is Pakistan, for which building its own thermonuclear bomb proved too costly and difficult.
What is the volume of nuclear arsenals of the countries of the nuclear club?
Russia has the most warheads - 7290, followed by the United States with 7,000. But on combat duty, the Americans have more warheads - 1930 versus 1790 in Russia. The rest of the nuclear club follows by a wide margin: France has 300, China has 260, and the UK has 215. Pakistan is believed to have 130 warheads, India 120. North Korea has only 10.
What level of uranium enrichment is needed to build a bomb?
The minimum is 20 percent, but this is rather inefficient. In order to make a bomb out of this material, hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium are needed, which must somehow be stuffed into the bomb and sent to the head of the enemy. The optimum enrichment level for weapons-grade uranium is considered to be 85 percent or higher.
What is easier - to create a bomb or build a peaceful nuclear power plant?
It's much easier to make a bomb. Of course, to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, a sufficiently high technological level is required, but to create a uranium bomb, for example, you don’t even need a reactor - gas centrifuges are enough. But uranium or plutonium can be stolen or bought, and then it's a matter of technology - in this case, even a moderately developed country can make its own bomb. Much more effort is needed to build and maintain a nuclear power plant.
What is a "dirty bomb"?
The purpose of the "dirty bomb" is the spread of a radioactive isotope over the widest possible area. Theoretically, a "dirty bomb" can be both nuclear (for example, cobalt) and non-nuclear - say, an ordinary container with isotopes, which is blown up with an explosive device. So far, no country is known to have created "dirty bombs", although this plot is often used in feature films.
How big is the risk of leakage of nuclear technology?
Big enough. The biggest concern now is Pakistan - the "nuclear supermarket", as the head of ElBaradei once called it. In 2004, Abdul Qadeer Khan, head of the weapons development program, was revealed to have been selling nuclear technology left and right, particularly to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. In recent years, however, security measures in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal have been seriously tightened - as the Islamic State, banned in Russia, threatened to acquire its own bomb by bribing Pakistani scientists and the military. But the risk remains - if technology leaks from Islamabad can still be controlled, then from Pyongyang they cannot.
Where did North Korea's nuclear weapons come from?
Work on the nuclear program in the DPRK began in 1952 with the support of the USSR. In 1959, the Chinese joined the Soviet assistants. In 1963, Pyongyang asked Moscow to develop nuclear weapons, but the Soviet Union refused, and so did Beijing. Neither the USSR nor China wanted the emergence of a new nuclear power: moreover, in 1985 Moscow forced the DPRK to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in exchange for the supply of a research reactor. It is believed that the Koreans have been working on their nuclear bomb since the second half of the 1980s in secret from the IAEA.
Where can North Korean missiles reach?
It is hard to say. South Korea and Japan are definitely within range, but it's not clear if the US missiles reach. Official Pyongyang traditionally claims that its missiles will hit the enemy anywhere in the world, but until recently these threats were perceived by experts with a certain skepticism. Even the successful launch of a satellite into orbit did not mean that North Korean missiles were really capable of hitting large targets on the American coast. However, the display of the Hwaseong-13, aka KN-08/KN-14 missiles, at a parade in October 2016 suggests that Pyongyang appears to be on the verge of building a truly ICBM. And it is possible that this step has already been taken over the past six months.
Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?
Definitely yes. In 1962, during the Caribbean crisis, it was the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse that prevented a war between the USSR and the USA: Khrushchev and Kennedy had enough common sense not to cross the “red line” and not strike ahead of the curve. Nevertheless, at least two cases of conflict between nuclear powers are known: in 1969 between the USSR and China over Damansky Island and in 1999 between India and Pakistan (formally, militants of the Azad Kashmir quasi-state participated from the Pakistani side) over border heights in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the first case, the possibility of using an atomic bomb was not considered at all, in the second, both sides fought as carefully as possible so as not to provoke the enemy to use nuclear weapons.