April 1 - Introduction, Doomsday clock, Nuclear Annihilation - Questions

[jamesallenevans]

Questions for Rachel Bronson, about and inspired by: 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, Rachel Bronson and Sharon Squassoni, “More hands needed on the nuclear football”, Elisabeth Eaves, “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?”, Martin Hellman & Vinton Cerf, “An existential discussion: What is the probability of nuclear war?” with useful background information at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Outrider.org.

Questions: Every week students will post one question here of less than 150 words, addressed to our speaker by Wednesday @ midnight, the day immediately prior to our class session. These questions may take up the same angle as developed further in your weekly memo. By 2pm Thursday, each student will up-vote (“thumbs up”) what they think are the five most interesting questions for that session. Some of the top voted questions will be asked by students to the speakers during class.

[JAZ42]

When faced with an existential threat like Nuclear Armageddon, can we as humans comprehend the apocalypse or is it beyond or comprehension? What I mean by this is when faced with such a massive threat, are we able to think in a way that would lead to the disarmament of nuclear weapons, or are we not able to understand what the end of civilization would look like and we will simply do nothing because we have no notion of the threat at hand? I suppose this is applicable to every disaster we will talk about, but is it more clear to us when the consequences are immediate rather than over decades (like climate change)?

[seankoons]

When faced with the limitless ways in which the human race and life as we know it can be destroyed, what is the most likely factor that will lead to our demise, statistically and in your opinion? We read about a lot of different possible endings; ones that come from nuclear war, even accidental nuclear war caused by misinformation, a worse pandemic, climate change issues such as increased temperature, sea level’s rising, and the increase in number of tropical storms, bioweapons, etc. Will it be any of those? Or do you think that the human race has enough incentives to “work against the clock” and it is instead possible that none of those events or factors will ever take place or be grave enough to lead to the “Armageddon?”

[mesber1]

Do you think a man-made apocalypse is inevitable, be that through nuclear war or another self-inflicted catastrophe? Do you believe that it is too late or too unrealistic for the human race to be able to make an effective and conscious effort to keep the earth habitable? Do you believe mankind would be willing to put aside short-term gain (economic or otherwise) to improve international relations and climate conditions for the sake of future generations, or will we inevitably be the bringers of our own destruction, which can only be postponed but never eliminated?

[chasedenholm]

Now that climate change is continuing and as "governments have failed to sufficiently correct it" do you see bioterrorism potentially becoming more common? If yes, in what ways has climate change helped contribute to that growth? I have also heard that there are a tremendous amount of viruses frozen in the ice caps, and as our planet warms, what is the timeline in which those ice caps will melt enough so that those viruses escape into the atmosphere?

[louisjlevin]

How do we balance the hypothetical threat of nuclear armageddon with the more real and immediate threat of climate change? I don't mean to seem naive here -- I understand a) the need for the US to have a strong deterrent program and b) the fact that nuclear investment partly helps local economies. I also recognise that we don't necessarily need to pick -- we can spend money and energy on both of these objectives. But, in my mind, nuclear weapons and climate change are in many ways directly opposed. One is oriented around competition and threat, and the other is all about collaboration. So, at what point do we say enough is enough, and it is time we focus on the threats we know will come to pass, rather than those we desperately hope will not?

[TimGranzow7]

Is there an end goal of nuclear armament? We see all these countries (mainly the US and Russia) arming themselves with thousands of warheads in preparation for the eventuality of nuclear war, but what is the point of that if only a couple are needed to effectively sterilize the planet. We have more nukes than we could ever possibly use, even if it was just the US launching them. The arguments can be made for their importance to many local and regional economies, and I understand that they serve as a symbol of America’s military strength (in some ways acting as its own deterrent) but there must be an upper limit to this. At what point are there too many warheads, such that they effectively become useless wastes of money. China has a solid plan, they only need a few hundred so they can spend money elsewhere. So why keep building nukes?

[bdelnegro]

The atomic clock was first set to 7 minutes because it “looked good” to Martyl Langsdorf’s eye. What does the clock’s current status, 100 seconds to midnight, mean to you? As our situation becomes increasingly dire, how do you balance between alarming the public and doomsday fatigue? When educating around existential threats, is a quantitative approach (like Martin Hellman’s) or qualitative approach (like Vinton Cerf’s) better? Lastly, as the consumption of traditional news sources continues to markedly decline and new media mediums arise, how do you expect the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’s messaging to evolve?

[fdioum]

If countries like the US can withdraw from pledges like that of the Paris Agreement, what ensures that more countries stepping up to pledge will in any way decrease the risk of nuclear war? Who is holding these countries accountable for their pledges and who do you think should be?

[jmackerman310]

As we move closer and closer to midnight on the doomsday clock what threat should we be paying the most attention to? While nuclear weapons and the constant threat of nuclear war pose an unacceptable level of risk is it more important to spend our time and resources on climate change and trying to stop the increasingly devastating events such as wildfire already occurring?

[shanekim23]

While I understand that the unilateral authorization of nuclear launches appears to be less of a problem now (with Biden in office), you still highlight the importance of a no-first use (NFU) policy. I also acknowledge that a NFU policy can deter nuclear armageddon; yet, have you considered the newfound implication that the allies of the United States may no longer feel safe (due to the lack of, or even the absence of, a nuclear umbrella)? And if you have, do you believe that these countries may develop their own nuclear weapons as a result of this mistrust?

[Junker24]

With President Biden speaking on the importance of Nuclear Power today, Will Nuclear Energy have a change of reputation in the next few years from a dangerous scare, to a safe and low-carbon emitting energy source? I personally think that Nuclear Energy will be taking huge steps in the near future, and become a headlining energy source to combat climate change and provide mass amounts of energy. I think with these emergences, the idea of Nuclear Holocaust will fall as people become more educated on the matter, and realize the benefits of Nuclear Energy.

[brettriegler]

As you mentioned in your article, the Obama administration was close to implementing a no-first-use policy. However, US allies got in the way from the administration following through with the policy. Why did/do US allies not want the US to implement a no-first-use policy? To me, it would make sense that many countries would want the US and other nations with massive nuclear arsenals to declare no-first-use policies. The US could set the example by implementing it first and maybe other nations would follow. As you mention in your article, the no-first-use policy is an important step in avoiding nuclear war. (Brett Riegler)

[benindeglia]

On the topic of nuclear weapons, what do you believe is the best approach to talk about the other reasons that proliferate nuclear warheads beyond the noble justification of defense? To me, it seems reasonable to suggest that ambition, power and the idea of being a strong international force all can encourage the production and investment into nuclear weaponry. Do you think discussion about these other aspects are productive and/or necessary to try and rid the world of the possibility of nuclear Armageddon?

[bbroner]

What are situations where a nuclear attack would actually be in the best interest of a country. It seems to me that with the mutually ensured destruction that comes from having multiple nuclear powers a strike would never be in a nation's best interest, but can you think of situations where it would be?

[ghost]

In 2020 we all witnessed the failure of public messaging around the Covid-19 pandemic, which allowed deep partisan divisions to surface and made the infection rate, death rate, and economic toll of the pandemic much worse than it could have been. Have you observed or do you envision similar failures around the threat of nuclear war? What do you think would be most effective for avoiding these types of communication breakdowns for future existential threats?

[cdimuro]

The cluster of readings we examined this week approached nuclear disarmament as the panacea to preventing a nuclear holocaust. If more nuclear weapons exist, the probability of a such a weapon being used, whether it be on purpose or by accident, obviously increases.

However, the University of Chicago’s esteemed John Mearsheimer, most well known for his magnum opus The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, often advocates that the world would be less prone to war if states in geographically unstable regions possessed nuclear weapons. For instance, in the 90s he supported a nuclear Ukraine and in 2012 he agreed with another neorealist titan, Kenneth Waltz, that a nuclear Iran would bring structure to the Middle East.

How would you respond to Professor Mearsheimer’s often repeated idea that, in certain circumstances, more nuclear weapons could bring less war and devastation to our planet?

[laszler]

Following the riot at the US Capitol in January, we later found out that rioters came within approximately 100 feet of the 'nuclear football' that Mike Pence's aides had in their possession. Even though countries including China and Russia have adopted a no-first-use policy in regard to nuclear weapons, do you see it possible—even if not likely—that a nuclear weapon could be launched either inadvertently or by someone who is not supposed to have access to it? Does the fact that the rioters came close to having access to US weapons—combined with the rise of the spread of misinformation—increase the likelihood of such an event happening?

[a-bosko]

My question for the week revolves around the unilateral access to nuclear launch codes. In the article "More hands needed on the nuclear football", it is discussed that in 1985, President Nixon considered using nuclear weapons on four separate occasions. My question is, how did unilateral access to nuclear launch codes begin? It almost seems intuitive that a single person should not have access to such a large amount of power without the guidance and opinions of others.

Also, the article mentions that the United States and other countries should declare that they will not use nuclear weapons first. Even if other nations declare that they will not use nuclear weapons first, what is stopping them from breaking the promise and attacking? What would be the repercussions for violating this pact?

[dramlochun]

The article “More hands needed on the nuclear football” leads me to wonder about potential downsides to having a “two-person rule” in the authorization of use of nuclear weapons. The goal of this policy would be to reduce the risk of impulsive decision-making. However, the same action may result in indecisiveness and politics interfering with necessary action. Moreover, if it is implemented as stated in the article where any cabinet official could be the second to concur with the president, what would make the Secretary of Agriculture, for example, qualified to make such a decision? If we allow the president to choose the second person, how can we be sure that person is significantly different enough in thought process and character from the president that it would affect? Overall, my question is how can we choose a second person such that it would serve the purpose of reducing risk. Moreover, who would make that decision?

[ishaanpatel22]

In the 2021 Doomsday Clock, the author suggests that, given the evidence of new hypersonic weapons and increased nuclear endeavors in various countries across the globe, the world is at an increased threat of stumbling into a nuclear war. Would you agree with this statement? Or do you think the ideas of mutually assured destruction and improved communication channels opened from globalization could help deter a full-fledged nuclear war?

[abertodano]

I would like to elaborate on @louisjlevin's question: is it justifiable for concerns about nuclear war to stunt our response to climate change? Fission technologies have been available for more than 60 years, and they have already demonstrated the ability to provide a non-polluting, on-demand backbone for modern energy infrastructure at more than acceptable cost and low fatality, even including accidents. Lack of development in fission energy has been justified by non-proliferation concerns. When can fission's assured contribution to the fight against climate change outweigh its potential contribution to the threat of nuclear war?

[janet-clare]

The 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement refers to the need for the United States government’s need to “restore the primacy of science-based policies”. Understanding that this is a change that could be, hopefully, imminent could you elaborate on what current institutions specifically you would like to see more involved? How do you foresee this integration? What new institutions may be in the offing? What creative scientific roles could be carved out for policy making and implementation?

[chauck26]

How have your expectations been met or unmet in nuclear affairs as we have gone through this change of administration? Specifically surrounding the continuation of the talks or lack thereof around the JCPOA and our country's foreign policy with Iran?

[isabelmw]

From my understanding, the Doomsday Clock originated as a device that depicted the threats of the nuclear age, and as the years went on it has come to include climate change and even the mention of other "threat multipliers" like the spread of misinformation. My question is how the Bulletin made the decision to start including other threats beyond nuclear tensions and what was under consideration. Was there ever the discussion to make a completely different clock for climate change altogether? Rather than compounding different potential catastrophes into one visual portrayal? How was the decision made to start including a topic like the spread of misinformation in the statement? Lastly, does the Bulletin ever worry about including too much into the clock/statement and conversely reducing the impact of each threat to its audience?

[katie-hughes]

The farthest from midnight the doomsday clock has been was 17 minutes in 1991, and the closest was 100 seconds both this year and last. Is the difference of about 15 minutes between 1991 and today appropriate in your opinion? Do you believe that how the time to midnight is calculated has changed significantly when compared to when the clock first originated? Additionally, is there ever discussion of increasing the scale of the clock to better differentiate between different years and threat levels?

[smichel11]

The looming presence of a potential doomsday is ever present as we only have 100 seconds to midnight. While much of the course of action depends on government agencies or large companies to make necessary reforms, what do you think individuals of the general public can do to address the widespread dysfunction? In particular, what can we as college students do?

[AlexandraN1]

From one perspective, US military spending could actually substantially grow: peak expenditure during the Cold War in 1985 was at 7.5% of its GNP, where as today (2021), the US spends 3.6%. To what extent do you believe that military spending on nuclear warheads is justified by the realist logic of deterrence? Alternatively, do you feel this spending actually proportionally increases the threat we face?

[jatkins21]

Nuclear war is generally considered a mutually catastrophic event, essentially indicating that one would likely only occur as an act of spite or retaliation. Is this assumption correct, or are there any perceivable instances in which nuclear war might actually benefit a country?

[ktavangar]

One of the most interesting aspects of the Doomsday Clock statement was the characterization of the "infodemic." This problem appears to have grown more and more significant over the past four years, coming to a head with the 2020 election and COVID-19. In the Doomsday Clock Statement, you suggest that governments and other organizations must cooperate "to combat internet-enabled misinformation and disinformation." This is obviously a very complicated task, but do you have any more specific suggestions as to how to approach and deal with this issue? Second, if disinformation continues to be widespread among the general public, how much of an obstacle would that present to governments dealing with the current global crises? In other words, if the US government for instance, is committed to addressing climate change, can they do so effectively in spite of mass disinformation or does it cause a significant hindrance to the progress?

[starmz123]

The entwinement between Ground-Based Strategic Deterrents and the local economies in which they are sited reminds me of the perceived economic threat that a transition to clean energy poses for regions heavily involved in producing fossil fuels. One frame that climate advocates have used to reconcile this is justice—for example, a just green transition might involve providing training programs. This is often linked with racial justice too, as communities of color are disproportionately affected by climate change and pollution. Given the racial reckoning America is undergoing, might economic and racial justice be an effective frame for persuading Americans to move towards disarmament?

[ghost]

For this week's class, we read an article about the importance of dismantling unilateral authorization of nuclear weapons. The Doomsday Clock article also raised this concern in the context of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Is there a way to balance both the need for quick action in a case where nuclear weapons would be a viable option and the importance of not giving unilateral authority to one person? Can there be a system where several individuals would need to be consulted before the use of nuclear force could be authorized, or is that simply impractical in practice?

[EmaanMohsin]

As we learned from America's construction of a $100 billion nuclear missile, defense companies like Northrop Grumman have associated individuals donating around $1.55 million to political campaigns. Additionally, these same companies have spent money hiring professional influencers to persuade certain legislation (involving limitations on nuclear missile construction) from passing. In the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement it was mentioned that citizens can, through public protests and ballots, encourage governments to prioritize the risk of nuclear war and climate change. To what extent is the power to effect change truly in the hands of the citizens? In other words, do you believe that citizens can have a significant impact on nuclear policies especially when larger companies have shown previous control over senators? How can we take steps to curtail the influence that private companies have on legislation relating to nuclear war?

[stellaslorer]

Considering the various forms of apocalypse that our world might face, I find what's interesting about the question of nuclear armageddon (overlooking the potential for human error, which as Hellman and Cerf address is in itself a massive unknown) is the fact that it is, fundamentally, an immediate end that is self-inflicted in the form of a single, immediate action. It is an end that we construct through the narrative of enemies and allies––a division that in itself feels so strong that it can inhibit global cooperation on the scale of such other causes of apocalypse such as climate related disasters which ultimately affect all of us and thus can be considered as a united end that consequently requires totalizing, united measures to combat. How can we expect to perform such actions however while simultaneously engaging in nuclear proliferation? What is the role of political actors and policy in avoiding such an end and inciting meaningful, tangible change simultaneously?

[c-krantz]

As mentioned in the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, the slowdown of the economy as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in temporarily reduced carbon dioxide emissions that are known to cause global warming. Although these numbers have already begun to rise, were there any substantial changes and/or improvements that have come from the pandemic that can coexist with a healthy economy? That is, are there any positive alternatives that were discovered from the pandemic that can be used for lasting sustainability in the future? Also, as the U.S. government continues to provide relief packages to combat the negative effects of the pandemic, are there any specific ways in which the government can combat emissions through such a relief package, and ultimately reverse the Doomsday Clock even slightly?

[panunbali]

In doing the readings for the class, I was struck by how high the risk of nuclear holocaust felt to me. But it was not something I'd ever seriously considered before or even read about very much. I discussed this with my roommates and they felt a similar way. I'm just quite surprised that this is not something a large segment of the population thinks about and discusses seriously and regularly. Other civilization threatening events like climate change or the increase in antibiotic resistance of bacteria are part of the public discourse but it doesn't seem like the threat of nuclear holocaust is something that the average person takes seriously or feels threatened by. My question to you is why is this? Given that the threat of this (especially in the short-term) is so high (arguably higher than any other similar threat), why do you think is it that people don't really care an appropriate amount or more often, aren't even aware of this threat in a serious way?

[nobro011235]

Through each of these papers, I've been trying to brainstorm solutions for how to stop nuclear annihilation. The Hill article presents putting more hands on the nuclear football as one solution, but that only applies to USA, which doesn't chip away at the possibility of another country (or group) starting a nuclear war. With a growing number of foreign powers that have nukes, this seems like a shallow solution (although nonetheless important). In AP US History I remember learning about Reagan's "Star Wars" SDI and the failure thereof. However, it seems like the most plausible solution to impending nuclear annihilation is a failsafe technology that could destroy nuclear missiles. Are we any closer to acheiving a system that can stop a nuke before landing than before/are there any new similar ideas?

[blakekushner]

Space travel and technology has been a somewhat complex place as it started the Space Race, but it is also a place of cooperation with the building and manning of the ISS and other missions, so how do you think the growth of space travel and its technology is affecting the way the people and governments are handling nuclear and climate crises? A follow-up question is do you think people are less worried about these issues now because they think a new technology will reverse any bad effects, or if something happens humans could just leave Earth?

[vitosmolyak]

After all of the readings for today, it is clear that the high of a nuclear water happening in our lifetimes is unnecessarily high. With the amount of money being pumped into new nuclear weapons along with how many nuclear weapons already exist, the world can pretty much be destroyed at any moment. Do you think this issue was something that was brought up 80 years ago when the first nuclear weapon was being made? Surely scientists had to understand the deadly potential that nuclear warfare would have on the planet and humanity as a whole. Why did they proceed to make these weapons? Did scientists believe that the risk of the loss of humanity due to nuclear warfare could be this high when they were making these weapons?

[gracecwagner]

The readings we did before class framed the risk of nuclear armageddon in many ways, each emphasizing the risk in no unclear terms. I liked Vinton Cerf's example of the risk being a person in a TNT vest, which frames the risk in a way that is much easier to understand than wading into politics and the ensuing confusion. Why do you think people are unwilling to look at this risk? Or do you think people are looking at the risk and deciding they are willing to have these risks in exchange for the "advantages?"

[BuffDawg]

The risk of nuclear warheads is clearly apparent - what I am interested in understanding is how much the existence of nuclear warheads directly impacts the expected duration of human existence on Earth. If it is not materially impacted, then the risk is not serious. However, if the existence of humans on this planet is shortened because of the creation of nuclear weapons, then that is an existential threat that needs to be addressed. My question is: how can we truly quantify how risky the existence of nuclear weapons are? Because we cannot, it seems like this is a futile question. Clearly, we have survived 50+ years while they have been pervasively produced by a handful of the most powerful nations on Earth.

[jtello711]

My impression of the impending doom of the apocalypse has always been of the silent variety. In a way, the type that would hit quick and hard, leaving little time for society to scramble for an effective countermeasure, if any at all. Disease has always been at the forefront of my mind, and I have to wonder just what the US response to the coronavirus pandemic is indicative of on this front. Are we in a position to handle complications of diseases of this caliber? Or even worse strains or diseases as a whole? Can we expect there to be reasonable assurance given how healthcare is currently adminsitered and privatized in many situations? Why hasn't the coronavirus pandemic caused more people to seriously question the caliber of the world's current response to deadly strains in the future given how ineffective preventative measures were at preventing the spread of COVID-19? How is this risk perceived when compared to that of nuclear warfare?

[brycefarabaugh]

Many scholars of international relations argue nuclear weapons have been integral in deterring war between great power states since the end of WWII. Indeed, it seems implausible that the end of modern great power wars and the advent of nuclear weapons coincide exactly (1945) and that nuclear deterrence hasn’t played a significant role in the absence of great power wars over the last 75 years. From your perspective, what utility do nuclear weapons provide (if any) and can methods in pursuit of nuclear disarmament (for example, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) be successful without a fundamental transformation of the international system?

[kottenbreit]

In “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?”, the author calls out proponents of the GBSD for trying to balance describing Minutemen III as old, to incentive funding for GBSD, but no so old as to “undermine its deterrent effect.” The next paragraph discusses many of the aging problems surrounding Minutemen. Even if the Bulletin does not believe that building more nuclear weapons is the best way avoid the destruction of civilization, through deterrence, why would it publicize something (the weaknesses of our current weapons) if it could be potentially dangerous? Even if the probability is low, isn’t it possible that other nuclear powers doubting the second-strike capabilities of the United States could increase the probability that an irrational actor decides to attack the US? As mentioned in the Doomsday clock article, shouldn’t we make the safest decision at every turn?

[djstein98]

My question for this week is mostly inspired by the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement: in the statement, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recognizes a lot of the drastic and historic events that occurred in the last year, but the clock itself remained at the same time as it was set to a year prior. Does the community view these events as emblematic of larger trends so a clock change is unnecessary, or should the hands have been moved forward to recognize the advancement of threats towards our society?

[LucLampietti]

As discussed at length in the Elisabeth Eaves article, much of the motivation behind defense spending–specifically the latest round of GBSD funding–is rooted in the military-industrial complex. Even if the legal structure that allows for such egregious instances of lobbying were rewritten, the issue seems as much bottom-up as top-down in terms of its advocates; small-town Americans have come to rely on defense jobs as a result of urbanization and ironically government acquisition of farm lands. What potential solutions exist for dismantling the military-industrial complex, and the nuclear arsenal therein, that would appeal to such everyday Americans?

[aj-wu]

In its barest conception, government is designed to deal with market failures. But what are we to do when, as in the case of potential nuclear armageddon, global governments are themselves unable to coordinate? Is there a role for private citizens to take action, or does the fate of the world depend on soft international law?

[atzavala]

After reading the quantitative vs qualitative way of assessing the threat of nuclear annihilation, I began to realize I actually didn't understand how much of a threat nuclear war was currently. I was wondering what the next steps are in creating larger exposure for this information. Cerf asks why society has just 'sat there' assuming that this threat will never actually happen, but I think that's because I don't think this information is as widespread as warnings about climate change are to the general public. Could there be more effective change if there was increased media exposure about nuclear annihilation?

[jrgill-coder]

How has the politics of nuclear energy as a war tool affected the politics of nuclear energy as an energy source and vice versa? Have they complemented each other? Has one helped developed the other more so than the other? Are their expansions and contractions correlated?

[cjcampo]

Do you believe that the United States still has the credibility on an international scale to "lead by example" with more progressive membership in / adherence to international treatises and accords (i.e. START, Paris Climate Agreement, etc.)? At what point does the international disapproval of recent administrations outweigh the U.S.'s influence in economy through its heavily imperial/interventional history? Do you foresee other global economies, such as China, leading the charge on this in spite of the U.S. ?

[vtnightingale]

Given that the effects of nuclear radiation is well documented and the impact of using a single nuclear weapon, let alone tens or hundreds of missiles, being devastating if not world annihilating, is there any real reason to expect a nuclear armed country to use them? Especially if conditions such as no-first-use and removing the power from one person are implemented, there doesn't seem to be any use for nuclear weapons without it being self-destructive.