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

[jamesallenevans]

Leave below as comments your memos that grapple with the topic of the existential threat of nuclear war and nuclear holocaust, inspired by the readings (2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, "More hands needed on the nuclear football", “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?”, “An existential discussion: What is the probability of nuclear war?” with useful background information at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Outrider.org. Outrider.org), movies, novels (but only one per quarter), your research, experiences and imagination! Also add a thumbs up to the 5 memos you find most awesome, challenging, discussion-worthy!

Recall the following instructions: Memos: Every week students will post one memo in response to the readings and associated topic. The memo should be 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

#origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context. #risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout). #policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution. #solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk. #framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”). #salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for? #nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

Movie/novel memo: Each week there will be a selection of films and novels. For one session over the course of the quarter, at their discretion, students will post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

#movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office / retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[JAZ42]

movie #nuclear

In a time of great anxiety, when “man holds in his mortal hands, the power to abolish… all forms of human life” (JFK Inaugural Address), Kubrick showed the world that man’s hands are the worst possible place for this power. Man is too focused in sex, dominance, and impotence to see the nuclear threat as anything other than a dick measuring contest. Kubrick’s film has scene after scene, dialogue after dialogue revolving around these themes of man’s sexual insecurity. The opening scene of the planes refueling mid-flight, to the motivation of Ripper as to protect his “precious bodily fluids,” Gen. Turgedson acting like a child—fighting with the Soviet ambassador to Slim Pickens riding the phallic nuke toward a massive explosion: all of this contributes to the main theme of the movie being that man is small, selfish, lustful, and stupid—far too stupid to have the power of total annihilation. The movie portrays the bureaucratic issues leading to one crazy general having the ability to end the world through a series of failures and mistakes on the part of man and his machines. The movie, based on the novel Red Alert, shows how easy it is for the end of the world to happen because men are inherently insecure. It is a terrifying possibility that we can only hope does not come true in reality, but seems likely it could to the general public. As Kubrick realized how absurd the existential threat the movie portrayed was/is, he decided to lean into that absurdity and make the movie a comedy with an existential humor that is dependent on laughing at the abyss. The movie I think perfectly toys with the existential threat man has created and man’s competitive and lustful nature inevitably leading to self-destruction. Where a movie like Fail Safe portrays the crisis very solemnly, DR. Strangelove tackles the issue head-on and finds that maybe we as humans have no ability to conceive of such a momentous disaster so all we can do is use catharsis and laugh at the absurdity.

[fdioum]

salience #solutions #climate

It is extremely hard to think and talk about climate change because for one, people have so many different opinions and beliefs, some based on disinformation. There are also many people’s lack of willingness to accept our dark future. Specifically, there is some incentive in downplaying the risks associated with climate change because it gives us peace of mind and we don’t have to think about all of the negative outcomes nor fear the unknown on a daily basis. The biggest reason why much isn’t being done about climate change is simply that most people in this present generation will die before the worst of climate change comes around and so people simply don’t care or can’t conceptualize the value of working hard to reduce emission to nearly zero. That large reduction would require much sacrifice from the people in this present generation. This will be the ultimate sacrifice of accepting high taxes to have the funds go to finding a solution for climate change, as well as changing how we live completely from the cars we drive, maybe not being able to travel long distances or abroad plus the minor everyday changes of recycling. People would need to also set aside nationalism and class and racial resentment and in order to effectively and consistently work towards reducing the effects of climate change. Everyday, people would have to acknowledge the tragic consequences of not effectively reducing their carbon footprint on a daily basis which can be scary and affects people's mental health by consistently living in fear and under pressure. Quite frankly, people are not willing to make these sacrifices when there are so many differences in opinion about climate change and misinformation, especially for a future generation. People need to be sure and confident that their specific action will yield their desired results. Until confidence and certainty are set in place, people will remain inactive in fighting against climate change but also until people can learn to not be selfish and think of their grandchildren before themselves, the emission of CO2 will only keep increasing.

memo 1.docx

[chasedenholm]

risk #climate

This post will be more geared towards climate threat from the Doomsday readings rather than Nuclear threat. Our climate has changed constantly throughout the lifetime of Earth with several periods of heavy glacial advance and retreat. Granted, our current warming period is as a result mostly of our own doing. The increased levels of greenhouse gases, mainly due to our CO2 production has caused increased insulation within our atmosphere. Our surface temperature has risen above 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the back half of the 1800's. However, the majority of growth has come more recently (past 40 years), with the Earth hitting its warmest years in 2016 and 2020. The ice caps and the arctic are extremely crucial to observe during this period of continued climate change. Climate warming happens at a much faster pace in the arctic region compared to the rest of the globe. This is important for not only recognizing rising sea levels caused by the ice melting, but also what could potentially be released in our atmosphere that is trapped in the permafrost.

An important distinction here is that the permafrost is not the glacier or ice itself, it is a frozen subsurface layer of soil. This is often found underneath glaciers, rivers, and streams. As the glaciers continue to melt, the permafrost underneath is subject to thawing and increased heating as well. The heating of the permafrost would release a substantial amount of CO2 and methane that has been trapped there for so long. If this were to happen, we would experience a runaway climate change effect as the CO2 emission would increase dramatically. Beyond continued climate change, what we fear is the release of unknown bacteria and viruses. There are countless bacteria species and viruses that have laid dormant in the permafrost for thousands of years. These viruses are a threat as animals have been moving around due to habitat destruction from climate change and even more direct human influence. As these animals migrate, they are subject to higher risk of exposure to these viruses and bacteria, and thus the chain starts. The risk right now is relatively unknown, but the shift in thought that viruses and bacteria can be revitalized after such a long period of time is terrifying. If they are to awaken, who is to say that our bodies will be ready for them. Some may be curable from antibiotics, and some our bodies very well may have never seen before.

According to the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, governments are not doing a sufficient job in contributing to correcting climate change. I completely agree. The rippling effects of climate change are evident and we tend not to focus our fear on it as it is still sometime in the future. I can only hope we see increased interest and effort in the coming years towards helping find continued solutions.

References: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/07/03/arctic-permafrost-pandemic-life-uh-finds-a-way/ http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up Pictures: https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+emissions&sxsrf=ALeKk01rwxujj_KTIbmSJUldaVd7QCpmYw:1617209037472&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj71dKR_drvAhVSWs0KHf0oDfIQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=770&bih=718#imgrc=Mvll_HMc3xj6AM https://www.google.com/search?q=permafrost+melting+rate&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwizlKDxgdvvAhURL6wKHa2CBvYQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=perma&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgAMgQIIxAnMgQIIxAnMgcIABCxAxBDMgUIABCxAzIECAAQQzIFCAAQsQMyBQgAELEDMgUIABCxAzIICAAQsQMQgwEyBQgAELEDOgIIAFCqT1iuU2CUXWgAcAB4AIABVYgB6QKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=x6tkYPOUK5HesAWthZqwDw&bih=718&biw=770#imgrc=J_1P9SgNtIP1hM

[jmackerman310]

framing #nuclear

I found the qualitative framing of the nuclear conflict very interesting as well as persuasive. It reminded me of another qualitative framing of the same issue. I am not sure how accurate this is, but I remembers hearing about how with the creation of nuclear weapons and with the that the president’s ability to launch said weapons at will a discussion on how to make sure rash decisions were not made occurred. A suggestion was made that the launch codes be stashed inside a person’s body this person was to follow the president around and if they ever wanted to launch any nuclear weapons they single handily had to kill the person with the launch codes. This idea was shot down as that would mean the president may never use the codes. However that was the point setting off these codes would cause mass destruction and death, and by having to kill someone to get it the president would have to cause death in a way that feels more personal, and thus stop them from possibly using it without great need. Whether this meeting actually happened or not I do not know; however I think it is an interesting way to think about the use of nuclear weapons. It is assumed that the president would have an ethical frame that stopped them from actively killing an individual not matter the reason, but why would this ethical frame not stop them from using the codes if freely available, or general non-nuclear bombings, airstrikes, etc. that kill millions of innocent people? I think this idea of an ethical frame is similar to the variation of the trolly problem where by moving the lever the track changes so one person dies, but if you do not touch the lever five people die. Moving the lever makes the person feel more responsible for the one person’s death but by not moving the lever the person does not feel as responsible for the five people’s death. I have gone on a bit of a tangent here, but overall I think framing concepts like nuclear weapons and warfare in a qualitative way that makes the issue seem more personal is the best way to stress the importance and severity to everyday people.

[TimGranzow7]

salience #risk #nuclear

It’s kind of terrifying how little the general public knows about the US’ and other countries’ nuclear programs. You hear blurbs on the news about Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea arming themselves but the impression is always given that “the West” is firmly against this and is acting like an intimidating guard dog to inhibit further nuclear escalation. But what gives the US or Europe the right to do this while currently arming ourselves to the teeth. The articles, More Hands Needed on the Nuclear Football by Rachel Bronson and Sharon Squassoni and Why is America getting a $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon by Elisabeth Eaves both address the plethora of concerns regarding nuclear armament, but what struck me most powerfully was the realization that there is a significant portion of the country in strong favor of building more warheads, while the opposing side makes few genuine attempts to rout this, and the majority of the public is ignorant to the extent of support. Most of the country does not realize the power of the nuclear lobbies in keeping us on the track toward annihilation for short term monetary and political gain, and the major (largely midwestern) communities which are so strongly in support of and supported by nuclear weapons manufacturing act as buffers to any sort of positive change. The US nuclear program sits like a cancer in the military and national budgets, draining the economy of hundreds of billions of dollars ($100 billion on one missile alone) simply to provide the means of our own destruction. There is no plausible situation where thousands of warheads are needed; a few hundred would easily wipe out humanity. The general public would easily vote to put these funds to better use if they realized: A) how many nukes we already have and what they are capable of doing, B) that we are sabotaging ourselves in the long run both monetarily and physically, and C) what is actually occurring in our military. The government actively avoids dealing with the issue because a few senators and lobbies are worried about a couple state economies. Economies that could easily reorganize to produce renewables, other goods, and could even probably use the same facilities. The government doesn’t want to incite a panic, but it also doesn’t really attempt to hide the nuclear program. Instead, it touts it as a globally-reaching, surface-to-air shield that protects Americans and Our Freedom, naming rockets impressive names like Titan and Minuteman. But what sort of shield functions by killing hundreds of thousands on the other side of the planet from the thing it’s supposed to protect? In essence, the nuclear program is allowed to persist purely through ignorance, an unwillingness to change or look at numbers, and by sunk cost fallacy. I would wager the actions of Russia, China, North Korea, etc. actually play very small roles in the arms race; it’s a race against ourselves and against time. Just another example of money being the driving force behind everything, even the 6th Great Mass Extinction.

[seankoons]

origin#risk#nuclear

Before reading these articles, I never would have thought that a Nuclear Armageddon is an actual possibility and not just something from the movies. The end of the world through explosions and war was definitely not what I expected as an actual end to humanity and our nation. However, after reading these articles, it’s hard to not believe it. Historically, the United States has always had the nation’s welfare in mind but the way in which we act has never been efficient and even moral. In the most recent case with the corona virus pandemic, our nation’s leaders were unprepared to manage the virus and administer a safe reaction to it, which ultimately led to the deaths of 2 million people by the start of 2021. With that, what if there is another pandemic in the near or distant future? How will we be able to respond differently and change the initial reaction we had as a country? All these questions and concerns are the same ones we have to ask ourselves about nuclear warfare and the Armageddon. I didn’t know that Trump was a realistic nuclear threat to our world. In ‘More hands needed on the nuclear football,” the first line talks about fears the administration had that Trump in his final days would call a nuclear strike on, and ultimately nuclear war with, other countries. As a systematic issue, if Trump wanted to and just said “let’s do it,” no one could’ve stopped him. And this isn’t the first president or time in which the country has been scared that someone will call a nuclear strike. In the 1970s when Nixon was president, his administration was also worried about the ease in which a president could call a nuclear strike. Nixon once said, “I can go back into my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” That’s a horrifying thing for a president to say. Even with pushes from congress to have other people, including congress themselves, to authorize any strike the president wishes to conduct, none have worked. Even the no-first-use pledge, which says that nuclear weapons won’t be the first response against an enemy country, hasn’t been taken seriously. Now, with Biden in Office, it seems like things will die down in scariness in terms of nuclear warfare, climate change, and the handling of the pandemic, but we can only hope for the best.

[Junker24]

nuclear #emerging #policy.

After reading "More hands needed on the nuclear football" it was quite terrifying to learn some of the problems we have faced with Nuclear Policy over the years. When reading about President Nixon's attempted uses and comments regarding Nuclear Policy it makes me fear what could happen if someone with the wrong mindset was in control of these all-powerful launch "codes". Although i agree with a NFU policy it makes me fear that this policy would used immediately in response of a Nuclear Attack. This would lead to Nuclear Armageddon. I fear as if the United States were attacked, we would launch many Nukes resulting in the USA being a main contributor to Nuclear Fallout. Nuclear Armageddon is very relevant in our world today with the growing number of countries with access to Nuclear missiles and other devastating technology. Rachel Bronson in this article provides a great quote from Scientists " The avoidance of nuclear war is the first of all priorities. Whatever our visions for the future — getting from here to there must be our overriding concern. So, we must first buy time. But we must buy it for a larger purpose: the universal recognition that international disputes cannot be settled by nuclear war. The principle of no-first-use (ultimately the principle of nonuse) must become the cornerstone of all relations between nations.” Personally, I would love to see a World Nuclear Policy implemented. This would create a system to allow countries to put the burden of releasing Nuclear Missiles on many elected officials, not just one highest ranking official, allowing possessors of Nukes to make collaborative and well-thought out decisions between officials. As i posted a question regarding Nuclear Energy, i would love to see the world have a new understanding of Nuclear Power. Many people think of Nuclear Energy as the final straw, due to potential for destruction. Personally, I think this understanding can change, and many people will come to realize that Nuclear Energy can be used for production rather than destruction.

[bbroner]

risk #framing

While I always knew that the vast majority of countries were not nuclear powers I did not understand how much the nuclear arms race was driven by the US and Russia. As Tim Granzzow’s image on his post illustrated, of all the nuclear warheads in existence the US and Russia account for over 92% of them. When considering the fact that Putin in Russia and the President in the US can launch nukes within an hour of when they make the call the world is clearly leaving too much to chance. On the whim of one of two individuals that are inclined to act for their own self preservation life as we know in could be wiped out. That is why both Martin Hellman and Vinton Cerf’s arguments convinced me we are in trouble with our current situation. Since I come from a mathematical background the qualitative approach was the clearest to me. I agreed with Hellman’s rationale behind saying the lower limit for the probability of nuclear catastrophe was .1% which would make it probable that sometime in the next 500 years a catastrophe would occur. Since that is the lower limit the math makes it clear something needs to change in the global nuclear landscape. When it comes to the threat of climate change I can sometimes understand the issue of how costly reversing our emissions would be. However, there is no monetary reason for living in a world that could be wiped out by nukes at the decision of 1 or 2 individuals. That is why Cerf’s tnt vest analogy really hammered the crisis home. I don’t think for any amount of money I would put a tnt vest on where the triggers were held by 2 individuals I barely know. Two questions however I still have when it comes to nukes are how are capable our defensive systems are, and how the number of warheads affect our danger. I previously took a class on counterterrorism in Israel, and we learned about how life changing and effective the Iron dome is. I’m curious if any sort of defensive system could defend a country from nukes.

I also found that while there are under fifteen thousand warheads worldwide today at one point that number was close to seventy thousand. Interestingly the doomsday clock has gotten closer to midnight steadily since 1995 during a time period when warheads has been on the steady decline.

[bdelnegro]

nuclear #risk

Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden can afford a nuclear bunker. Can you?

In 1953, Eisenhower addressed the inherent inequality of nuclear weaponry: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Since his speech, little has changed. The most recent addition to the military-industrial complex, the GBSD, will cost $100 billion dollars. According to the article “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?,” this price tag “could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for Covid-19 patients.” Instead, the money is being pocketed by Northrop Grumman, politicians, lobbyists, and the like. Concerningly, those responsible for the construction of our nuclear arsenal are the same individuals who can avoid its implosion should we enter into nuclear war. Traditionally, nuclear destruction is thought of as the great equalizer. After all, nuclear weapons wipe out entire cities and countries indiscriminately. However, the emergence of luxury nuclear bunkers suggests that income inequality will not only survive doomsday- it will thrive. ‘Billionaire bunkers’ are being built across the world and sales have spiked in recent years. Inside a granite mountain in Switzerland, one such bunker can sleep 1,500 people and features roads, reservoirs, and unlimited internet. Anyone hoping to stay must demonstrate the capacity to spend $35 million dollars before the details of the bunker’s location are even revealed. In Texas, an $8 million dollar bunker (aptly named “The Aristocrat”) comes equipped with a bowling alley, home theater, game room, sauna, and a swimming pool. In Germany, the Europa One facility has its own airport for easy access via private plane in the event of an emergency. Perhaps the most awe inspiring bunker is the Survival Condo Project in Kansas. Built into a former Atlas missile silo, the compound is a 15 floor luxury condominium complex designed to withstand any natural or man-made disaster. In addition to a pet park, climbing wall, water slide, classrooms, and cinema, the condo has its very own deli serving three different species of tilapia from the aquaponics facility next door. The unit prices start at $1 million plus an extra $5,000 a month but have already all sold out. CEO Larry Hall recently began construction on a second survival compound nearby. In the case of nuclear war, these luxury bunkers would represent the ultimate form of segregation: the rich relaxing in their below ground swimming pools while the less fortunate suffer radiation, climatic destruction, and mass starvation above. Even more alarming are the specific people who have purchased (or could easily secure) nuclear bunkers. Donald Trump, who only months ago had the power to launch the U.S. into an international nuclear war, has three bomb shelters located under his infamous Florida Mar-a-Lago resort. Bill Gates and Kim Kardashian are among other celebrities who already own luxury bunkers. Kathy Warden, who is worth at least $65 million dollars, could certainly afford one. This points to the existence of perverse incentives when it comes to nuclear stockpiling and entering into war. As long as luxury bunkers exist, we do not share the same stake as politicians and the elite in avoiding doomsday and the nuclear Armageddon.

Works Cited:

Baker, John Carl. “Income Inequality Will Survive the Nuclear Apocalypse.” The New Republic, The New Republic, 14 July 2017, newrepublic.com/article/143860/income-inequality-will-survive-nuclear-apocalypse.

Eaves, Elisabeth. “Why Is America Getting a New $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 8 Feb. 2021, thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/.

Garrett, Bradley L. “Weapons Rooms, Fake Windows and a $3m Price Tag: inside a Luxury Doomsday Bunker.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Aug. 2020, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/aug/01/3m-price-tag-inside-luxury-doomsday-bunker.

“Kathy Warden Net Worth (2021).” Wallmine, Wallmine, 19 Feb. 2021, wallmine.com/people/39328/kathy-j-warden.

Reilly, Claire. “Inside the Luxury Prepper Bunker for the Rich and Frightened.” CNET, Red Ventures, 6 July 2020, www.cnet.com/features/inside-the-survival-condo-nuclear-bunker-protecting-the-ultrarich-hacking-the-apocalypse/.

Image Cited:

Survival Condo, 8 Jan. 2021, survivalcondo.com/.

[dramlochun]

#climate #policy #origins #solutions

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light many deep-rooted issues in society, but one, in particular, stands out as outlined by the 2021 Doomsday Clock article. As part of the large stimulus bills worldwide, more funds were directed towards fossil fuel energy providers rather than clean energy providers. At first glance, this seems preposterous. But examining it further, it becomes clear that tens of millions of jobs are tied to the fossil fuel industry, and any disruption without government aid (like the oil price crash during the pandemic) could have detrimental effects on the livelihoods of many blue-collar workers and their families. How, then, can we help these workers to continue providing for their families while pushing our world to make the transition to clean energy? One thing is for certain: we cannot blindly provide aid to fossil fuel companies without incentivizing cleaner production and an eventual transition. Perhaps one solution already taking hold among major oil companies is a push for carbon capture technology.

As discussed previously, simply stripping aid to the fossil fuel industry is not the solution. By doing so, tens of millions of people have their livelihoods put at risk. Instead, the focus should be on how aid could be provided to the fossil fuel industry that, first, incentivizes cleaner production in the form of reduced carbon emissions. Second, it provides the necessary capital to allow the fossil fuel industry to transition to clean energy without destroying shareholder value. Aid that incentivizes the development of carbon capture technology is one potential solution to the issue at hand. In 2021, some of the world's largest oil and gas names are already pushing in this direction but cite large initial capital expenditure requirements as barriers to further progress. For example, Occidental Petroleum Corp. intends to invest hundreds of millions to build the world’s first direct air capture plant in the Permian Oil Basin. This plant would capture 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere (equivalent to the yearly emissions of 215,000 cars) and store it deep beneath the earth’s surface. Occidental’s CEO Vicki Hollub sees carbon capture being their primary business within the next 15 – 20 years. Similar trends can be seen among other large oil and gas names. For example, Exxon Mobil plans to invest $3 billion into carbon capture and has discovered a material alongside Berkeley researchers to capture 90% of carbon emissions. Still, this pales in comparison to Exxon’s $23 billion in capital expenditures in 2020, and that’s where targeted aid with certain conditions could be crucial. By focusing aid on certain technologies like carbon capture rather than being unconditional, the trade-off of jobs versus clean energy transition would not be a contention point. This might allow the fossil fuel industry to transition to clean energy without destroying shareholder value and jobs due to targeted government aid.

Sources: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2020/0407_ExxonMobil-reduces-2020-capex-by-30-percent-cash-opex-by-15-percent

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/business/energy-environment/exxon-mobil-carbon-capture.html

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200724005048/en/ExxonMobil-Collaborates-on-Discovery-of-New-Material-to-Enhance-Carbon-Capture-Technology

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-13/occidental-oxy-wants-to-go-green-to-produce-more-oil

[ishaanpatel22]

nuclear #risk

In the early and mid 1900s, two of the most catastrophic events in human history occurred: World War 1 and World War 2. These events were so calamitous because, unlike violent conflicts of the past, they involved countries across the globe. In World War 1, almost 20 million people were killed and 75 million were killed in World War 2.

Since World Wars 1 and 2, the world inventory of nuclear warheads has skyrocketed. After World Wars 1 and 2 (World War 2 ended in 1945), the world was on high alert. After the conclusion of the war, the uneasy wartime alliances between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies began to unravel. Almost simultaneously, in 1945, the first atomic bomb was detonated. Thus, as alliances unraveled and the grapple for world power ensued, countries began to stockpile nuclear weapons. The peak of the world nuclear inventory was in 1985, which was right at the height of the Cold War. The Cold War was extremely unique in human history: many human conflicts in history were solved through violent conflict. However, the Cold War was waged more through political, economic, and propaganda fronts and very limited used of weapons. The reasons can be seen in the article, More hands needed on the nuclear football: In 1974, Richard Nixon said “I can go back to my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” Nixon’s quote from that article hints to the idea of mutually assured destruction: At the time of this Nixon quote, many other countries, like Russia, had the same capabilities Nixon described. Therefore, during the Cold War, the United States and Russia were deterred from using their nuclear weapons on each other because of the fear the other country would retaliate with their full nuclear arsenal, resulting in catastrophic destruction and death that far exceeded the two World Wars. This is why George Orwell coined the term, Cold War; to describe the nuclear stalemate between “two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds.”

Therefore, when thinking about the idea of nuclear war occurring in the present day, an argument could be made that the risk of such a threat is quite low. In the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, the section regarding the world’s nuclear landscape notes that the nuclear actions being undertaken by many countries are quite worrying. For example, the author mentions that the nuclear modernizations efforts from countries like the U.S. and Russia and nuclear developments in Northeast Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia mean that “the potential stumble into nuclear war […] has grown.” However, as was evidenced by the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons by many parties often deters their use, and global nuclear stockpiles have been declining, which could hint that the probability of nuclear war/fallout is quite low.

Sources: Image: https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

Other: https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II/Costs-of-the-war https://www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War#ref284221 https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-bomb

[benindeglia]

nuclear #origin #framing

In the course of human culture, war has been a constant and ever present threat, and nearly a century ago weaponry got to the point where mutually assured destruction seems like an inevitability. Once that happened, war changed fundamental, and the weapon of choice chosen by super powers became the threat of destruction rather than it’s active use. This choice has led superpowers to move conflicts into proxy wars and conflicts, where individuals like Sir Basil Liddell Hart believe that proxy wars “endow warfare with intelligent properties that raise it above the brute application of force.” This intellect ascribed to the victory of war is very persuasive and damaging, providing justification for bullying action. This comes to what I believe to be the current framing of non-nuclear war, which comes down to at least it isn’t nuclear war. This shifting baseline makes it so anything that isn’t nuclear armageddon becomes much more justifiable in the human mind as long as it literally isn’t armageddon. This helps convince people that live in Great Falls that the target put on their back and support given to military contractors is valid and justified because they genuinely believe that their sacrifice, those 10 million individuals dying will make a difference in nuclear war. The baseline slips to be whatever is slightly above that of nuclear war has it so a large amount of band aid solutions that get propped up and justified. These considerations need to be kept in mind when talking about the end of the world, since it is so extreme it is really easily perverted to make the argument that if it avoids extinction, it’s relatively fine. One of the more egregious examples of this is the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a convention that the United States refused to sign off on. Cluster bombs are terrible, and known for having horrific effects on civilians, with duds sometimes lying dormant among scrap metal before being grabbed by someone unsuspecting and becoming mutilated because of it. The US has refused to ban these weapons, and the last administration attempted to remove the self imposed limits made to try and prevent civilian casualties. What becomes so difficult about arguing this is the shifting baseline, of the retort that this, no matter how terrible it is, is better than nuclear armageddon. This is similarly true for proxy wars, for no matter the consequences of the Cold War, we know it would be worse if the superpowers were much more direct. This is where my concern comes in, for striving for a world better where the solution to something terrible isn’t something slightly less terrible becomes harder and not at the forefront of minds when the threat is so great.

Citations: Basil Liddell Hart, Strategy: The Indirect Approach (Revised Edition) (London: Faber and Faber, 1967), p.17. US Embraces Cluster Munitions. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/12/01/us-embraces-cluster-munitions (accessed Mar 31, 2021). Soga, M.; Gaston, K. J. Shifting Baseline Syndrome: Causes, Consequences, and Implications. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2018, 16 (4), 222–230.

[janet-clare]

Week I, Introduction, Doomsday Clock, Nuclear Annihilation

Ideally, existentially, the probability of nuclear war simply should not be a question. Sadly, we, as human beings in our arguably inward spiral of self-destructive evolution, have brought ourselves to this very real and potentially catastrophic query. So here we are, and if we need to ask, well then... If the question itself of probability validates its reality, then we should be compelled to answer with solutions, but are there any?

It seems that real solution can only occur on the highest levels. The international community, despite all other current global trials, continues to show some commitment through treaties. A revived commitment to the JCPOA and the new START agreement are a good start (or in these cases a continuation) at international acknowledgment of the need to keep nuclear weapons proliferation in check. The sheer number of extant, and planned production, weapons is chilling, and ludicrous, indeed how many would it take? At the same time, we need to double down in vigilance against exacerbating risk factors: “’advances’ in the space and cyber realms”, weapons development, recognition of the viability of nuclear weapons, increased defense spending, and corporate avarice to name a few. While the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons arises from the other arena of non-nuclear states in an appeal to world disarmament, important, yet disheartening, is its focus on the “humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons.” Dispiriting because why does this aspect need to be recalled? Where is our humanity?

Also troubling is that while nuclear weapons may be under the jurisdictions of national and international laws, in the end the decision to use them comes down to individuals, elected? trusted? At this juncture we need to recognize that there is no place for unilateral authorization, regardless of which side of any political fence you are on, no single individual should be doled that responsibility. I counter that even a two-person rule is a heavy proposition. With consequences so devastating and instantaneous, the employment of a committee or rapid decision succession tracking system would offer a broader and hopefully safer and more evasive alternative.

As we “believe that human beings can manage the dangers posed” by these threats of our own making, the fact is that believe, or not, there is noone else, so we have no choice. Will we “be able to manage all the risks”?

policy #risk #solutions #humanity

Do you want the ball? Maybe we should call a huddle Lucy Football. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2021, from I2.wp.com website: https://i2.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LucyFootball.jpg?resize=600%2C423&type=vertical

[cdimuro]

policy #solutions #saliance #nuclear

Nuclear disarmament, from the perspective of realist international security scholars, is a chimera. No rational state would willingly dispossess a technological advantage and superiority it has over a rival. Although the value of deterrence cannot be logically proved via negation (given that x has not happened, it must be due to y), the danger posed by nuclear weapons will never be overlooked. The purpose of traditional warfare, in the age where conquest could feasibly pay, was to dominate an enemy so thoroughly that a victor could collect any reward from the subjugated that they preferred. With nuclear weapons, no state profits or gains. A victorious, nuclear war-making state can’t farm a wasteland, tax corpses, or withdraw money from a rival government that no longer exists. Nuclear war involving Russia, China, or the United States would be so devastating to the global economy that no state would ever think to pursue such a venture. Likewise, launching a nuclear weapon would be a such a grave mistake that rational states have developed safety mechanisms to prevent inadvertent detonations (although these mechanisms could be improved as elucidated by this week’s articles).

Given that players invested in the international system would never rationally use nuclear weapons, and states will never transparently articulate their nuclear weapon protocols, because such information is proprietary on the military level, the largest threat of Armageddon in my mind is a potential terrorist group or rogue actor using a nuclear weapon. Rather than focus on state-level nuclear disarmament campaigns that are infeasible and where states suffer from collective-action problems, all nuclear weapon possessing states have a vested interest in working together to make it so only states, not private actors, can own and operate nuclear weapons. Terrorists’ groups are not invested in the international economy. They, rationally speaking in the most irrational way, have something to gain from launching a nuclear weapon (fame, ideological vindication, religious validation). Therefore, I fervently believe the bulk of nuclear safety measures taken by the global community need to focus on limiting the access of the materials needed to make nuclear weapons only to state level actors.

Although the idea that a terrorist would come to possess nuclear weapons appears far fetched today because said weapons are so complex, even though this plotline is a Hollywood mainstay, as technology advances in the next century it will become increasingly probably that private individuals or groups could possess WMDs. While I certainly agree that U.S. and Russian ownership of 1000s of warheads is futile and a waste of money, I think these warheads pose a far lesser risk to the existence of humanity. Such state-owned weapons have rigorous oversight by competent scientists, engineers, and military officials. All and all, New York City is far more likely to be nuked by a terrorist cell than by another sovereign state.

[laszler]

policy #risk

I found one of the most alarming parts of More hands needed on the nuclear football to be when Richard Nixon said, “I can go back into my office and pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” Aside from the fact that any kind of weapons technology with this kind of capability exists, to me the more worrisome element was the ease-of-use that was associated with it. Though no-first-use pledges are certainly a start, I wonder whether the barriers to enacting a ‘two-person rule’ for nuclear launches are as simple as they seem.

For instance, in the 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, they write, “Social media, search engines, always-on mobile computing technologies, and other technology applications have exploited human cognitive propensities to be misled and enraged to react impulsively, exacerbating political ideological differences.” If US Citizens can be misled to the extent that they riot in both state (Michigan) and federal (US Capitol) government buildings, I would imagine it would be quite simple for even the most earnest or honest attempt at instilling a no-first-use or two person rule to be mischaracterized on social media as a show of weakness or vulnerability, even if that is not the case. Furthermore, given the propensity of politicians to take advantage of the malleability of law or governmental procedure, even if President Biden were to attempt to change the authorization rules for nuclear launches to have a minimum of two people, what’s to stop future and potentially more unhinged politicians from simply reversing the rule back to unilateral authority? This is not to suggest that he shouldn’t; rather, it is just a question of feasibility. Given the fact that rioters came very close to Mike Pence and the possession of the ‘nuclear football’ during the events on January 6th, the need to make it more difficult to launch an attack is apparent.

[louisjlevin]

solutions #framing

Doomsday Clock. It doesn't sound particularly jolly, does it? In fact, it's downright depressing. And scary too. A thought I had as I read through the texts for this week, and as I looked at that name again and again and again, was what it means to motivate by fear. There's been a realisation in parts of the climate community that the only way to catalyse real action is to generate hope. The way, it turns out, to get people to actually do things is to incentivise them with positive outcomes. That might mean presenting her with the economic benefits of creating a more sustainable business, or showing him a vision for how cities could operate in 2050, or talking them through how action to tackle climate change will be collaborative on a scale we've never seen before, bringing the global population together in the process. What it comes down to is the fact that scientists have been droning on about the impending risk we all face for years, and not enough people have done anything. So, the climate community is trying out hope. And it's working. We like to think of fear as immensely motivational, but I would contend that hope is the ultimate trump card. Where does that leave the doomsday clock? Well, I would ask what it means to have a clock specifically designed to determine our proximity to near-certain death? It's effective, yes. But I can't help but wonder what it would look like to try and tackle the question of nuclear weapons and disarmament with hope. Hope for a future that doesn't require a doomsday clock. Does the clock not risk adding fuel to an already unruly fire? How about we try throwing on a bucket of rose-scented water instead!

[katie-hughes]

origin #risk #nuclear The readings for class today made me realize how little I knew about the prevalence of nuclear weapons in the US. In particular, I was very troubled by the article “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?” and its discussion of the ground based missiles across the US. The purpose of these missiles is deter attacks, but also provide a sparsely populated target area in case an attack is inevitable. First, these sites provided an economic boost to the surrounding region. Eaves writes that the air force base in charge of missiles in Montana brings lots of jobs and in particular has led to larger cities in this region of the state. This was extremely worrisome to me, as the silos were designed to be far away from highly populated areas to minimize the devastation of a strike, but the new jobs brought by the military have encouraged people to move closer to the missile sites. This makes me think that it is impossible to have these missiles stationed “in the middle of nowhere”, as there needs to be people to provide maintenance, construction, etc., which will always draw people in over time if job options are limited elsewhere. I also was interested in the silo locations themselves, which lie across huge swaths of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, and Missouri. Until these readings, I had no idea that these sites existed. I found a related article published by the National Parks Service (https://www.nps.gov/articles/mappingmissilefield.htm) which describes how after the Cold War, many Americans simply forgot about the ICBM’s, and did not remember where the facilities were located. The missiles were still there, as was the potential for disaster, but people just did not think about them as much anymore. In the 1980s, an anti-nuclear group called Nukewatch formed a Missile Silo Project with the goal of mapping all of the missile locations. Volunteers would drive to the sites of the missile fields via public roads and record directions of how to get to every silo. A map of South Dakota created by this project in 1987 is shown below. I think this image provides a very strong qualitative argument against the continued presence of these high grade weapons. Seeing the missile locations overlaid onto a regular map of roads and town names is really striking. It’s supported by the fact that the silo locations are in red, signifying a hazard or danger. It also gives a real sense of how expansive these fields are, since you can compare them to other map features which you might be more familiar with the scale of. The knowledge of where these missiles are located and the damage that they could induce should be common knowledge, regardless of where in the US you live, and I think seeing them on maps is a good way to accomplish this.

[shanekim23]

nuclear #policy

(Disclaimer: While I acknowledge that other deterrence mechanisms exist, to be congruous with what the articles say, I focus on the existence of nuclear weapons as deterrents, and even their creation as deterrents. In addition, I am not supporting the existence and creation of nuclear weapons, but at this point, I believe it is important to maximize their value as deterrents.) The NFU (no-first use) policy attempts to ensure a reality wherein nobody launches nuclear attacks first. In an ideal world, because nuclear weapons are so useful as deterrents, no world leaders would use these weapons first. However, as delineated in “Why is America getting a new $100 billion weapon?”, “the absence of alligators doesn’t prove the banana worked.” Ostensibly, the NFU policy is a deterrent; and these articles imply that the policy is effective since it roots out the possibility of initiating nuclear attack, as well as increasing the possibility of ultimate nonuse. However, this strategy cannot be effective because of its underlying implications. U.S. allies (like Korea) rely on this “nuclear umbrella” for retaliation. For example, if North Korea launched nuclear attacks on South Korea, the Americans would subsequently launch their own nuclear attacks on North Korea. This is the idea of a deterrent: North Korea’s government would be too afraid of nuclear retaliation. Yet, when attacks are non-nuclear, a problem arises vis-à-vis the NFU policy. Let’s say that North Korea attacks South Korea, but this time they attack with lethal biological warfare. The North Koreans are no longer deterred by nuclear weapons (because of the NFU pledge); and as they have little reason to believe the Americans are also preparing biological warfare, they will execute these attacks. From the perspective of the North Koreans, the only reason they wouldn’t attack is if they fear American retaliation will ruin their country more than they would benefit from attacking South Korea. And this deterrence mechanism is most effective in the form of nuclear weapons. In addition, if we think of this issue from the standpoint of the South Koreans, the whole nuclear landscape may change. The South Korean government, after learning that the U.S. cannot engage with nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear conflict, starts to ponder the possibility of building their own nuclear weapons. Not only would this lead to more countries crafting more nuclear weapons, but it would also raise the question: is everyone going to join the NFU pledge? And if so, this gives more room for error; the more countries that are bound together by this illegitimate contract, the more countries will start to break it. While this idea of mistrusting the U.S. seems far-fetched, the slim possibility that the U.S. may be unable to help is more than enough to strike fear and panic in many of the U.S. allies. And, for these allies, the NFU policy only reinforces this fear of being helpless in the vast pool of nuclear and biological warfare.

[a-bosko]

nuclear #climate #solutions #policy

Climate change has become a strong partisan issue, such as masks have become during the pandemic. Even with an abundance of scientific evidence, some government leaders still refuse to believe that global warming, increased emission of CO2, and pollution are real problems that need to be addressed. As mentioned in the 2021 Doomsday Clock statement, “Existential threats of nuclear weapons and climate change have intensified in recent years because of a threat multiplier: the continuing corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision-making depend.” This statement emphasizes the increase of false and misleading information not only in news sources, but over the internet. The lack of accurate scientific evidence and an increase in “fake news” can be seen today with the pandemic; there has been an uprise in misrepresentations of COVID seriousness and the politicization of face masks.

At the end of the 2021 Doomsday Clock statement, the authors list possible solutions to both avoid a full-out nuclear war and to protect against global threats that can destroy human civilization. There are three solutions that stick out to me the most:

1. The US President can show leadership by reducing the reliance on nuclear weapons by placing limits on their roles and missions, and by decreasing funding.
2. The US President should eliminate his own and future presidents’ sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, which can reduce fears of a single person ending civilization.
3. Banks can implement policies that can limit the investment in fossil fuel projects and redirect investment towards climate-friendly investments.

In order to reduce nuclear warfare risk, I believe that it is important for every country in the world to work towards peace. If the U.S. starts to increase funding and building nuclear weapons, it is certain that other countries, such as Russia and North Korea, will follow. Therefore, the leaders of the US should aim to decrease funding towards nuclear weapons and redirect the investment towards helping citizens. As mentioned in the Elisabeth Eaves “Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?” article, $100 billion is enough to pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for COVID-19 patients. Since it isn’t proven that increasing the supply of nuclear missiles is an effective deterrent, the new solution of reinvesting missile funding towards the community will demonstrate that the lives of our citizens are valuable by decreasing the chance of full-out nuclear warfare and supplying them with more money and opportunities to live more comfortably. With a decrease in funding and an agreement that the US will never launch missiles first, other countries are more likely to follow in their footsteps and reduce the risk of destroying civilization.

The picture attached emphasizes how much money is actually invested into nuclear weapons in the United States.

[AlexandraN1]

salience #nuclear

The readings prompted me to reflect on a very strange puzzle. On the one hand, humans are world-class fear-mongers; ever succumbing to risk inflation and fearful propaganda, allowing such fears to manipulate their every voting decision and personal action. This is evident across newspaper headlines, bloated budgets, alarmist reports, and campaign speeches. In fact, a 2016 Chapman Survey placed being a victim of a terrorist attack as the fourth greatest fear of Americans. With 40% self-reporting as “afraid or very afraid”, this figure sits far above the fear of losing a loved one, personal phobias, or even illness.

On the other hand, humans have an extraordinary capacity to overlook significant risks, which are far more likely, and even existential. This presents a curious puzzle: If individuals are so easily motivated to fear, and public officials are so easily motivated to scare, why then is there so much less attention to the abysmally deficient mitigation of the nuclear threat?

I am interested in identifying various biases and cognitive issues that explain these discrepancies. Here are a few I believe are worth thinking about:

1. Imagination threshold: Above a certain threshold, threats become too large and all-encompassing for individuals to sensibly process.
2. Present generations bias: Threats to the current generation are weighted far more highly than threats to future generations, even if those threats are far more serious.
3. Compassion fade: We are more likely to be compassionate towards a small number of visible victims than many anonymous victims. Nuclear threats fall into the latter category.
4. Outcome bias: When we hear about ‘near misses’ in nuclear history we are more likely to rest in the outcome that “nothing went wrong after all” than to judge the level of risk as it actually was at the time.
5. System justification bias: We have a bias towards defending and protecting the status quo.
6. Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias leads individuals to focus on information that confirms one’s preconceptions. Realism, for example, creates the preconception that building our nuclear arsenal further protects against nuclear war; evidence against this is less likely to be accepted. Militarism, as another example, creates the perception that the military protects us, rather than endangering us.

[starmz123]

framing #nuclear #climate #salience #solutions

My question on the potential to apply the frame of justice—which has been used effectively by left-leaning advocates for other issues such as climate change—to nuclear disarmament led me to find African Americans Against the Bomb: Nuclear Weapons, Colonialism, and the Black Freedom Movement, a book published in 2015 about the history of Black activism around nuclear disarmament. This reminded me of the fourth paragraph in Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?

$100 billion could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for covid-19 patients. It’s enough to build a massive mechanical wall to protect New York City from sea level rise. It’s enough to get to Mars.

Much like the movement to defund (i.e. shift resources away from) the police is centered around the potential for that money to create so much more social good, perhaps one way of messaging nuclear disarmament is to outline the current costs these nuclear weapons enact on Americans. It is unfortunately difficult to envision the future (hence why Vinton Cerf prefers the more ‘relatable’ qualitative argument), so noting that every dollar spent on nuclear weaponry is another dollar not going to fund schools, healthcare, or climate solutions could help make this existential risk more salient. I am partial to Martin Hellman’s argument for quantitative framing, and I think quantifying present-day costs could alleviate some of the issues that Cerf raised.

Thinking about @louisjlevin's comment, I am also advocating for this framing because I think it is all too easy to fall into despair when talking about existential risks. This sometimes poses a barrier by turning people off even thinking about such a potentially catastrophic issue, let alone taking action to solve it. It happens with climate change—another potential existential risk—but nuclear disarmament doesn’t yet seem so entwined with that kind of messaging, so there is more hope here!

Finally, I am taking a page out of a storied tradition in some fiction circles. Narrative change practitioners who emphasize the importance of hope in messaging about catastrophe note that this kind of narrative work has long been done through sci-fi, futurist, and speculative works. Yes, we need to warn people of the futures in which we haven’t done enough – in which we have multi-handedly caused the extinction of the human species (or worse). But we also need to help people imagine futures where we have successfully averted catastrophe – and then we can talk about how we can get there.

[blakekushner]

[jatkins21]

nuclear #risk #externalities

Hellman & Cerfs' article regarding the probability of nuclear war led to me to some interesting musings regarding potential benefits of nuclear armament. While nuclear weapons obviously pose a massive threat to the well-being of humankind, they also represent something of the ultimate militaristic dissuasion: "if you attack me, I have the ability to lethally retaliate with ease." Assuming there is no actually utilization of nuclear weapons (which is certainly a major assumption), I'd hypothesize that the presence of nuclear weapons can really quell a lot of global damage (see the Cold War for example). Obviously, the majority of countries (specifically the weaker ones which are more prone to attack) do not possess nuclear weapons. However, many have allies that do, which forms a sort of integrated nuclear system that offers the benefit and threat of protection to most nations. While nuclear weapons won't likely be employed over the relatively petty disputes many countries have, they may dissuade a lot of violence. Ultimately, though, if and when people realize more and more that nuclear weapons serve as more of a dissuader rather than an actually implementable tool, will countries test others more and more? I guess while there are certainly some positive externalities attributable to nuclear weapons, it all reconvenes at their sheer power and unpredictability that will be a lasting cause of fear.

[panunbali]

origin #framing #salience

I think it's quite interesting to think about the different ways in which we currently conceive of the nuclear holocaust. As someone who watches a lot of movies and TV, I think the most prominent and commonplace examples take place in movies that are set during the Cold War, with the classic image being of an American and Russian general having their fingers on a button, ready to let the missiles fly. I obviously wasn’t alive during the Cold War, so it is hard for me to understand how the average person felt about the threat of nuclear holocaust at the time. Given the repeated reference to and exploration of this time in movies today (especially from media creators of that generation), it feels like it would have been something that touched everybody. It feels like that one period alone, above any other period was one in which we felt the threat of nuclear annihilation.

This is very interesting to me. The rising availability and prominence of nuclear missiles today, it should still feel like a threat today, something that we’re all collectively and actively aware of and yet, it does not. I think the average person associates any threat of nuclear holocaust or annihilation with the Cold War and the Cold War alone and not something that they’re worried about happening today. I discussed this in my question for today’s class as well but it really does surprise me that most people (myself included before the readings) would not even be aware that this is a threat. So fundamentally linked are the ideas of the Cold War and nuclear holocaust that it almost diminishes the perceived threat of nuclear annihilation today.

Maybe this is because people don’t really know what exactly a nuclear holocaust would look like. I’m not sure I do. It feels like it is something that has degrees of intensity and not something that would happen and immediately destroy humanity as we know it. It feels like worst case, maybe we lose New York and Moscow, but the rest of us make it, more or less unscathed. That feels naïve, but I’m not even sure. Maybe the true scope of nuclear annihilation is hard for me (or really, any of us) to grasp. It doesn’t help that it feels poorly defined, something that we know about mostly through movies like X-Men: First Class and not much else. I’ll be interested to see whether popular depiction of this shifts soon and why it might, if it does end up doing so.

[c-krantz]

origin #nuclear #policy

Upon completing my readings for this week, I noticed that only two of the articles in which we were assigned had (barely) mentioned that we have already seen the capabilities of what Nuclear War can result in directly from the nuclear warheads that were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end The Pacific War in 1945. Now I am in no place, nor informed enough, to make an opinion as to whether or not this was the correct decision by then President Truman; however, I think it is important for all inhabitants of the world to understand the everlasting damage and destruction these bombings did. As Americans specifically, it is all too easy to gloss over this section of our history because we did not face the brunt of the death or destruction; however, over 200,000 people were killed as a direct result of these bombings. The fact that we are now building a “warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima”[1] is beyond frightening and seemingly unnecessary.

It is in many ways a surprise to me that the reality of what happened in Hiroshima did not deter countries from wanting to reach a moment in time where more of these weapons would be made, or a position where more of these weapons would need to be used. Instead, as we are all too familiar with, the Cold War occurred and has been followed by the steady and continual creation of nuclear warheads (the majority of which are owned by both the U.S. and Russia). Unfortunately, I believe that if there was ever a time in which nuclear warheads could have ceased to exist, it has already passed. Despite the lofty policy ideas of “no-first-use”[2] and the potential extension of nuclear responsibilities and “checks” of a sitting U.S. President, the threat of nuclear war and the capabilities of our country, our allies, and our enemies is all too real. If we have seen anything throughout the history of mankind it is that countries, dynasties, and regimes alike are obsessed with power, and if that power is in the form of a nuclear warhead that can travel 6,000 miles and decimate an entire city, so be it? While every country maintains the mindset that they would rather have nuclear capabilities than not, I see no reversal in the direction the world is headed.

[1] https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/ [2] https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/535527-more-hands-on-the-nuclear-football?rl=1

[ktavangar]

risk #nuclear #solutions

When reading the articles for this week, it becomes clearer than ever that we are living dangerously close to mutual nuclear annihilation. We may not have recently had such near misses as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we have had our own share of crucial moments in recent years, perhaps most notably when Hawaii was told to shelter in place for an imminent ballistic missile attack. Thankfully that proved to have been a false alert, but the ramifications of nuclear war seemed more clear that day than ever before. Therefore, it is obvious that we need to take whatever steps necessary to mitigate the possibility of such a catastrophe. Although it does not always work because it can be counteracted by powerful corporate forces, one way of effecting policy changes is to convince a large proportion of the people that we must act in a certain way. With regards to nuclear policy, this seems to be something quite manageable. After all, why would any informed person actively want the constant threat of nuclear war if we could avoid it? I therefore found it striking that only 61% of the US thought we should phase out our nuclear missiles (Why is America Getting a $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon?) Furthermore, for those living near both Yellowstone and missile silos, the threat of a volcano erupting in the former seemed a much more real threat than a nuclear strike targeting the latter. This seems to be a dramatic miscalculation of the risks of both events and speaks to a possible lack of information about the threat of nuclear war. This leads me to believe that it is vital for the public to be better informed so as to put pressure on the politicians of both this country and the world concerning nuclear disarmament. But what is the best way to do that? The points made by Martin Hellman and Vinton Cerf are both compelling but I admit I personally believe the quantitative argument is more convincing. Although Cerf argues that a more qualitative argument is more relatable, I actually believe that the framing the current situation in terms of the probability that a child born today will experience nuclear war in their lifetime is far more powerful. It is harder to ignore numbers, especially when those numbers concern babies born today, perhaps the most precious things to many people on this planet. In any case, Hellman's argument made a strong impression on me and I believe it is important to spread that quantitative message as quickly as possible to as many people as possible. Only then do we have a chance to convince world governments to disarm before it is too late.

[isabelmw]

nuclear #risk #salience

What I found to be the most disturbing and struck me the most from the readings was the high potentiality nuclear warheads create for accidental disaster. While the actual diplomacy of nuclear missiles and the given tensions between each country are variable, the ostensible randomness and volatility of these weapons is what caused me the most unsettlement. The amount of times that the United States, as well as other countries, have come close to full-scale nuclear firing is astounding to me; the incoming ballistic missile text sent to Hawaii residents is a powerful example of this. Personally, I think that nuclear weapons, nuclear policy, warfare etc. are very detached topic for the average person. But when you see a screenshot of the alerts Hawaiian residents received on their phone, it feels relatable and real (it’s reminiscent of the storm alerts we’re used to seeing). I can imagine receiving that text and can walk through the ensuing confusion I would have about where to go and what to do.

I think what I find the most disturbing about nuclear weapons, particularly America’s land based nuclear missiles referenced in “why is America getting a new 100 billion nuclear weapon” article, is that even if diplomatic relations reach a high level of peacefulness or a universal declaration of NFU occurs, the possibility of nuclear destruction is still prevalent due to sheer accident (such as early warning system malfunctions.). Last quarter I took a class where our Professor, Professor Holz, was a guest lecturer and he taught us about Stanislav Petrov. I had never heard of Petrov, but in 1983 he legitimately saved the world from nuclear destruction by interpreting that a nuclear warning was a false alarm. It’s incredible that had he not utilized his judgement for the better, the world would be a very different place today. The story is very interesting and can be found simply by googling his name or “1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident”. I bring him up because it’s one of the most powerful examples of the threat of nuclear warfare via false alarm. Furthermore, the Bulletin article also discussed the potential for hackers to get into nuclear weapons systems and obstruct them or worse. The potential for sheer accidental launches or cyberthreats seems to be greater evidence that there should be some kind of additional check to the President when it comes to nuclear weapon retaliation. Imagine if Petrov hadn’t got to make the call and was, say, second in command. Either way had his opinion not been present the world would have descended into full scale war. It makes me almost wonder if our weapons and technologies were more faulty and prone to more mistakes that would ironically be better for the world because then there would be a universal requirement for disarmament -- each nation would independently realize that nuclear weapons pose too much of a risk for erroneous retaliation. Of course I don’t know whether that kind of realization would actually occur amongst government officials and if some terrible erroneous tragedy would have to occur (retaliation against a false alarm) to jumpstart disarmament.

Stanislav Petrov:

[gracecwagner]

framing #policy #nuclear

I found Elisabeth Eaves’s article very interesting and though provoking. She discloses the various perspectives of the United States’ nuclear arsenal in ways they are not often thought of. Nuclear missile deals are rarely thought of as opportunities in urban centers on the east coast, or anywhere that does not spend lots of time and money on missile silos and the associated facilities. Even the concept that roads and other infrastructure are improved for the transportation of the missiles is important, as this impacts the people who are not involved with the missiles, directly or indirectly. What alternatives can be proposed, so that infrastructure can be updated, and economies can flourish, without needing to buy $100 billion dollars’ worth of nuclear warheads. However, this is difficult as many people, especially those who have a say in policies and spending surrounding nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles are proponents of modernizing and expanding the current, already very large, arsenal. Martin Hellman and Vinton Cerf both make excellent points about the risk, how it can be seen both quantitatively and qualitatively, so we can (hopefully) conclude that the people making decisions are not blind to the risk. So why are there still efforts to continue expanding. The articles made points about the silos being an alternative target, to draw missiles away from more populated areas, as well as the economic impact they bring to their areas. But these so called “advantages” do not decrease the risk, they only serve to justify it.
The Doomsday Clock article makes many good points about the continued failure of legislators to take us away from midnight. While reading this article, it was compelling to think of the people who are making more headway than legislators and politicians in climate change and new developments for Covid-19. The scientists who contributed to new renewable energy technologies and those who used mRNA to create a vaccine for Covid-19. What efforts has there been to get these people, and science in general, to the policy making table, where they can advise the policy makers? At the beginning of the article, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says, “The pandemic revealed just how unprepared and unwilling countries and the international system are to handle global emergencies properly.” While I agree that the international system and global leaders were not prepared, I think that because of this unseen group of people, part of the world was ready.

[EmaanMohsin]

origin #nuclear #solutions

After reading Elisabeth Eaves's article "Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon" I realized how passive Americans have become to the threat of nuclear war. There are missile silos placed near homes, farms, and schools. However, they are not seen as a threat, especially in communities where local economies are dependent on their existence. Although individuals may be conscious about the effects of a nuclear disaster, they often do not dwell on the consequences. In fact, Eaves mentioned how certain communities have even encouraged government projects to continue to be utilized in their towns.

This attitude towards nuclear arms sits in stark contrast to the 1950s where "Duck-and-Cover" drills were incorporated into schools days to train students how to act in case nuclear weapons had been launched towards the U.S. President Truman's Federal Civil Defense Administration created the mascot Bert the Turtle to help school children understand why the drills were being implemented. The reason for these drills stemmed from the Soviet Union detonating its first nuclear device in 1949, showing the U.S. it was not longer the only country that had the ability to use nuclear weapons. As the U.S-Soviet arms race continued, the U.S began to build fallout shelters as further protection from a nuclear attack. Neither of these responses would have been adequate enough to protect individuals from nuclear attack. In fact, many argued that the U.S. was normalizing the threat of nuclear war by incorporating trainings that would not realistically help. However, the implementation of safety exercises and educational films still served as a warning to both children and adults on the devastating effects nuclear war could have.

Of course we cannot directly compare the climate during the cold war to present day. The tensions and arms race that existed during the 1950s, had a much greater intensity than what we see today. However, with the increasing amount of countries that now of nuclear weapons, it is a curiosity why Americans do not perceive nuclear weapons as a greater threat. Although we should not go back to an era of nuclear war drills and the promotion of fallout shelters, it does seem that Americans do need to be better educated on the impacts of nuclear war. Greater education on nuclear weapons, the countries building these weapons, and America's relationship with these countries and its own nuclear inventory can help citizens better understand the threat that nuclear weapons still pose to us today. Additionally, when talking about nuclear weapons, schools should connect the present day probability of nuclear war when talking about previous moments in history when nuclear war seemed to be a greater threat. The more we continue to disconnect the events from the Cold war to the present day, the more Americans will become ignorant to the very real threat that nuclear weapons still pose. Hopefully with better educational mandates, citizens may be more informed at polls to vote against representatives who want to increase America's nuclear arms or presidential candidates who have little interest in maintaining/forming treaties with other countries that have nuclear weaponry.

Sources: Pruitt Sarah. How 'Duck-and-Cover' Drills Channeled America's Cold War Anxiety. History, 26 March 2019. https://www.history.com/news/duck-cover-drills-cold-war-arms-race#:~:text=By%20the%20early%201950s%2C%20schools,over%20an%20escalating%20arms%20race.

[nobro011235]

policy #solutions

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” – Oppenheimer. One thing that these articles have convinced me of is that if a nuclear war is started, it will be the thing that destroys our world. Whether it be a genuine global nuclear war, or the subsequent nuclear winter that wipes out humanity, it seems likely that one of the two will finish off humanity if a nuclear war occurs. This prognosis becomes more and more true as more powers obtain nuclear capabilities and would have their own conflicting alliances and contingencies if a war did break out. The three things I see as preventing this bleak future are a) continued rational handling of nukes, b) a new technology that renders the destructive power of nukes more harmless, or c) radical denuclearization where NO power has or can ever have nuclear power. To begin analysis of these three options, c) is a nonstarter. With the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, nations will continue to hold onto their nuclear weapons because there isn’t a reason not to, simply put. Nations need nuclear warheads to become serious players in international politics and until everyone else gets rid of nukes, there isn’t a good enough reason for any one country in isolation to lose theirs. This point is illustrated by the image I pasted of the game theory of the situation in the case of 2 nuclear nations. Only when there is no distinguishable difference between Nation A controlling international politics and Nation B controlling international politics (i.e. complete world peace) would either nation choose to get rid of their nukes. Option a) is the current state of affairs, and up until now it has worked. So why would it stop working? A power simply needs to care more about the destruction of another power than the protection of its own. While mutually assured destruction seems to be a viable strategy for large powers, for which the destruction of other powers could never be as important as the protection of its own citizens, that same paradigm would not hold for very small powers (i.e. small terrorist organizations). So, small powers that do not particularly care for its own members represent the end of option a). And with nuclear weaponry becoming more widespread, it is likely the end of option a) is getting closer and closer. So, option b) seems to be the best option to prevent nuclear annihilation. I do not feel well-equipped in astrophysics to reasonably pose ideas for how to shoot down nuclear missiles (or render them ineffective somehow), but it seems plausible that there is a solution therein. As long as subsequent defensive technology outpaces attacking technology, a reasonable end to nuclear proliferation could be possible simply through advances in astrophysical/computing technology.

[brettriegler]

[ghost]

policy #risk

What continued to come to mind for me the most when reading the assigned materials for this week was the volatility of how the United States’ nuclear weapons are handled. To have one person with unilateral power to launch a nuclear weapon capable of mass destruction and death seems much too insecure. This point is supported by the Doomsday Clock article that we read, as well as the article by Bronson and Squassoni. While the vice president and the president’s cabinet could technically invoke the 25th amendment to remove from power a president who presented a clear danger to the country, this process would likely take too much time and be ineffective at preventing the president from launching a nuclear missile. However, I also find insufficient the solution proposed by Senator Fulbright, which was explained in the Bronson and Squassoni article. In this policy, congressional authorization would be required to fire any nuclear weapons. The exception to this rule was that in the case of a nuclear attack on the United States by another country, the president could authorize nuclear retaliation without consulting Congress. Getting Congress to agree on anything these days is a struggle, and that problem would likely only be exacerbated if the issue of nuclear force was brought up. This may be an advantage, but if it became necessary to use that force and it was delayed by Congressional gridlock, the consequences could be dire. Perhaps some sort of Congressional committee would be better, but that brings along another host of issues regarding who would sit on it. In addition, the January 6 attack on the Capitol demonstrated that even this kind of approach only protects from the internal impulses of certain politicians, not external factors. Footage showed Capitol police officer Eugene Goodman rushing Senator Mitt Romney away from the rapidly approaching rioters, as well as those members of the House of Representatives trapped in the gallery. Imagine what might have happened had Congress had their own "nuclear football" as part of this multilateral authority approach, and it had fallen into the hands of those not authorized to use it. We would need to be completely confident in our abilities to shut down compromised "nuclear footballs." I struggle to reckon with the question of which would be better: a simple unilateral authority or a system in which multiple individuals must be consulted or agree with the decision before a strike can be carried out. I suppose it is entirely dependent on the situation – while the thought of a president being able to launch these weapons whenever they please is frightening, the thought of bureaucracy getting in the way of responding to another country’s nuclear attack is also difficult to dismiss.

[mesber1]

framing #risk #policy #salience

I found the manner in which Vinton Cerf qualitatively framed the risk for nuclear war to be quite effective and compelling. It brought to my mind the habit some have of sometimes skimming or entirely skipping over the heavy statistics provided in scientific articles, looking instead to be persuaded through words or direct, relatable examples. This seems counterintuitive, because numbers are less likely to lie than words, but people want something to relate to, something beyond logic that allows them to feel and to understand. This also brought to mind another idea relating to a potential reason why an impending nuclear holocaust so infrequently crosses the average person’s mind in a manner that causes true panic or willingness to take action: the US government simply does not frame the use of nuclear weapons as something meant to incite fear of impending doom. Rather, it attempts to manipulate the public’s opinion into thinking that the development of nuclear weapons is a safety measure put in place to protect the people and to intimidate other countries into essentially “backing off”; the US already has enough weapons to spark the apocalypse, so the question is, why on earth is it attempting to get its hands on more? We are often told it is because the threat of another country deciding to strike first is becoming greater, and the only means of deterring an attack and of protecting public safety is becoming a more intimidating force. But what is actually being protected? One’s confidence that an attack is unlikely due to the great risk posed to both parties? Isn't Nuclear Deterrence merely a theory that offers one a form of psychological guard against the fear brought forth by the idea of nuclear war rather than genuine protection? Wouldn’t that sense of safety offered lead countries to take greater risks that could further damage international peace? Couldn’t the growing presence and demand for nuclear weapons as well as the placement of the power to launch them in the hands of so few actually increase the risk of their eventual use? Would that sense of safety initially provided make a difference if the weapons were launched? These are questions to be thought through.

[aj-wu]

nuclear #origins

I found the Eaves article particularly striking. According to this running tally of worldwide nuclear arsenals, Barack Obama entered the White House with only 11,410 nuclear warheads in the world, down from a "spectacularly redundant" 64,099 around the end of the Cold War.

Eaves describes a kind of positive feedback loop in the impulse to stockpile. It reminds me of how cars have gotten bigger and heavier over time, because as other people's cars get bigger and heavier, your car needs to be bigger and heavier to give you and your family better odds of surviving a crash—even though you're a safe driver, even though you've never been in an accident, etc. Similarly, hoarding of nuclear weapons spirals because, even though no country every wants to deploy them, every country needs the credible threat to deter other countries. As more countries develop nuclear weapons, the already armed countries need more, lest they become vulnerable to "not only rogue nations but even a terrorist group." The more weapons there are around the world, the greater the chances are that they fall into the wrong hands—hence, more weapons. And then you've got to build up a "nuclear sponge" in case deterrence fails.

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately, which this puts into a different context, is whether competition is innate to human nature, or maybe even to nature itself. Evolution is this endless process of predators and prey developing faster legs or sneakier disguises or more creative sleep schedules to outfox each other. The result is a dynamic equilibrium: as populations grow, resources diminish, causing populations to fall and allowing resources to be replenished. It's not actually in any species' interest to become the only prevailing life form.

I see humans doing the same thing. On balance, these bigger and heavier cars—or, more and more powerful weapons—aren't making us safer. It seems like a lot of work to achieve the same result as if we could all just agree to take each other's safety into account, and not just our own. But that takes coordination and trust. Is it possible? Maybe human sentience can distinguish us from plants and animals, but so far, I don't see it.

credit: João Fazenda, New Yorker

[jrgill-coder]

solutions

Regardless of its causal effect, the period of Mutually Assured Destruction as a force in international relations has correlated with the most peaceful, prosperous period in World History. While the threat of nuclear war between states would likely be the most catastrophic manifestation of nuclear annihilation, my biggest worry is that a more covert terrorist organization would get their hands on a bomb with evil intent. A group with less to lose and a goal of doing harm to a specific populace would be difficult to negotiate with and their demands could be astronomical. There are many systems that can be put in place (many of which likely are already in place) that can help prevent this spread. These systems need to prevent the spread of dangerous information and of dangerous materials. Information is tricky, but governments around the world would be smart to track the actions of those with the most knowledge of how to produce nuclear warheads. Even more pressing is preventing information from spreading easily on the internet. Governments need to ensure that information about how to obtain warheads or information about how to construct them is not easily accessible online. This creates a necessity of surveillance of online activity that puts safety into direct contrast with privacy rights and individual liberty. My prediction is that ultimately the desire for safety is going to trump individuals’ desire for privacy, and states will continue to regulate the internet more tightly so as to prevent the passing of dangerous information. This paradigm has already operated within the United States, with the passage and continued renewal of the Patriot Act. States will become more sophisticated in their systems by which they monitor threats, foreign and domestic, and the surveillance tools of today are sufficient to make the likelihood of a nuclear strike by a rogue terrorist organization quite small, as surveillance makes obtaining a warhead incredibly difficult. I think this trade of privacy for safety is going to be a defining aspect of 21st century internet policy, and the threat of further nuclear proliferation, aided by the internet, will give states the rationale and consent of the governed necessary to impose further intrusions on individual privacy in the interest of collective safety. Regulating the internet in a way that maxes societal safety, while minimally quashing individual freedom is a necessity for humanity to prevent further nuclear proliferation in the age of information. Big Brother already is and will continue to be a major method by the which the world deals with the threat of nuclear proliferation.

[stellaslorer]

[brycefarabaugh]

risk #policy #solutions

When grappling with any issue related to existential risks, I often reflect on the origins of the risk, how likely it is to result in calamity, and tradeoffs associated with attempting to mitigate/ eliminate the risk, which should dictate policy solutions for said risk. For example, when considering technological risks like nuclear weapons, I think it’s useful to consider the costs and benefits associated with either maintaining the status quo or reforming the system in an attempt to mitigate the risk. To that end, nuclear weapons weren’t created accidentally: many of the scientists who developed the first atomic weapons during the Manhattan Project knew they were working on a project that would bring terrible death and destruction, with some even thinking the Trinity Test could (though highly unlikely) ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world instantly, but they continued the work believing the benefits of having the United States possess such a weapon outweighed the costs. Similar to some of the questions posed in “An existential discussion: What is the probability of nuclear war?”, policymakers should consider the potential unintended consequences should they try to eliminate the very small chance of nuclear war by eliminating nuclear weapons altogether. Indeed, the existence of nuclear weapons overlaps exactly with the end of modern great power wars in 1945, an occurrence many scholars attribute to nuclear deterrence and the so-called “nuclear revolution”. If global nuclear disarmament was achieved (thereby eliminating the existential risk posed by nuclear threats) but conventional great power wars became a common occurrence in the international system again with potentially millions of casualties every several decades, would such a trade-off be worth it? Additionally, even if one doesn’t accept that nuclear weapons have had a stabilizing effect on the international system, some scholars like Kier Lieber and Daryl Press argue a future world without nuclear weapons would be even more dangerous than the current situation, as any threat of war would lead states to quickly race to rebuild nuclear weapons and use them before adversary states had a chance to rearm themselves. Ultimately, one could argue that the current utility provided by nuclear weapons in deterring great power wars outweighs the very small chance of global nuclear war until a time when the international system itself is reformed in such a way that the chance of war (either conventional or nuclear) is practically eliminated. Under this assumption, the existential risk posed by nuclear weapons can’t necessarily be eliminated at present, but can be mitigated (for example, by pursuing more responsible nuclear postures, strengthening global nonproliferation measures, retiring the most destabilizing weapons, etc.)

[smichel11]

risk #policy #cyber #nuclear

Aside from the fears of nuclear destruction, I think something that really struck me about the readings was the discussion of the internet and social media’s role in doomsday. The 2016 election began to showcase the dangers these new technologies held, as there was evidence of the Russian government interfering with our elections by spreading misinformation online. To think that a foreign government would be able to influence America’s elections in such a way was a scary thought (although I should note that the United States did influence OTHER countries’ elections to favor American interests, so the concept was not necessarily new, but it was new to our democracy). Misinformation, hate-speech, and other dangerous content continued to be spread through the internet and social media—and it still continues to be a problem today. We can see the security concerns of misinformation with the false claims of a “stolen election” in 2020, resulting in the violent storming of Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. If people were not paying attention to these problems before, they certainly were now. The national conversation was forced to focus on the dangers of misinformation and the internet’s threats to security. But it was still too late for the five lives lost as a result of the riot and storming Capitol Hill.

Turning to the larger picture, the 100 Seconds to Midnight reading notes that “the widespread dysfunction in today’s information ecosystem is a threat multiplier that vastly complicates society’s ability to address major challenges…unchecked internet disinformation could have even more drastic consequences in a nuclear crisis, perhaps leading to a nuclear war that ends world civilization.” So, nothing major.

The thought that the internet could lead to apocalyptic nuclear destruction is certainly not one of the first things that crosses my mind when I think about the technology. But storming the Capitol was not on my 2021 Bingo card either, and especially considering the rising tensions and increased nuclear proliferation activity, doomsday is not out of the question. While it was too late to reform the spread of information on the internet and social media to prevent the storming of Capitol Hill, it is not too late to consider reforms for the good of humanity and prevent nuclear warfare. Social Media companies have started to take steps, flagging disputed claims with tags saying that information stated might be false or misleading. But this reform should just be the beginning. As the article suggests, perhaps there should be some sort of council of representatives from all the major points of communication that considers ethical solutions. Reforms should not sacrifice free speech, but it should also make sure that we do not head towards a nuclear disaster.

[LucLampietti]

origin #nuclear #policy

Following up on my discussion question, I’d like to expound on my thoughts regarding the nuclear issue in the larger context of the military-industrial complex. For one, however well-intentioned, it is telling that the term “military-industrial complex” was conceived in Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell presidential speech, in which he “warned Americans to guard against its ‘acquisition of unwarranted influence’” (Eaves 2021). Eisenhower delivered this speech at the precise moment that he was on his way out and no longer politically vested enough to cater to defense lobbyists; he could afford the political backlash. But in a meta-sense, Eisenhower’s choice to warn the public then is a demonstration of just how entrenched defense lobbying power is in the U.S. government, when even the commander-in-chief must bide his time according to the interest of lobbyists. In regards to the relationship between nuclear arms and climate change, it strikes me that the risk-assessment versus job allocation is entirely skewed. Instead of structuring rural economies to be dependent on defense spending when political change could bring it all to a halt with a vote, why not employ those same people in projects related to modernizing the power grid, installing renewable energy, or practicing more sustainable agriculture. In other words, investing in projects with immediate returns and regional spillover benefits. Already in 2021 we’ve witnessed calamities perhaps not on the scale of nuclear winter, but devastating nonetheless to large swaths of the U.S. Most recently, this included the failure of Texas’s power grid which exposed the need for modernizing a system that’s used more frequently and as critical to our defense systems as any other. Finally, I enjoyed the debate on the merits of a quantitative versus qualitative assessment of nuclear risk by Martin Hellman and Vinton Cerf. It brought to mind a story I heard about Roger Fisher, a former member of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists who published the following proposal in a 1981 article:

“My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home. When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."

— Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981

Not only do I believe this is an exemplary instance of the power of qualitative assessment (it’s quite similar to the potential suicide bomber analogy), but I’d be curious how the class legitimately feels about implementing such a preventative measure.

Image:

[smshiffrin]

origin #risk

The value of the Doomsday Clock has been debated for decades, however I think it is a fascinating way of looking at the state of civilization and our impending doom. In looking through its past we can see the long history of nuclear weaponry in relation to global politics. The closest the time has been to midnight (not including recent years) was two minutes to midnight in 1953, after the US and the USSR had both tested their first hydrogen bombs, near the start of the arms race (1). On the other hand, the farthest the time has been to midnight was seventeen minutes in 1991, marking the end of the Cold War and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which decreased the number of weapons each country could have (2). The positioning of the minute hand primarily revolves around (pun intended) the current state of the nuclear threat (as well as climate change and a number of other factors) so it is evident that the nuclear threat is incredibly large and puts us all at risk.

If we as a society are trying to avoid getting closer to midnight, and avoid the nuclear annihilation of human civilization, one would think we needn't add to the threat by producing more nuclear weapons. If we go by the logic of the Clock's positioning in 1991, a decrease in the number of arms would be the best way to get us farther from midnight. However, drawing from Elisabeth Eaves' discussion of the new GBSD weapon, there are various motivations behind the project. These motivations are primarily economic and political, and to many, warrant the large amount of funding going toward it (2).

While the reasoning behind these new developments are complex and many, I will point out another aspect of the history of nuclear weaponry that we can learn from today: the vast number of close calls we've had. One that stood out to me was in 1983 when the USSR received a warning that the US had launched missiles towards them. One person, Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov, accurately predicted it was a false alarm, preventing the USSR from firing back and saving millions of lives (4). This is a problem that persists today, as seen in an accidental missile warning message that was delivered to residents of Hawaii in 2018 (2). Examples such as these show how present the threat is, and how the actions of one person alone can influence the lives of millions of people. As Bronson and Squassoni propose in their discussion of the president's power to start a nuclear war in minutes, "perhaps the power is too enormous" (5).

References 1 https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ 2 https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/ 3 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/535527-more-hands-on-the-nuclear-football?rl=1 4 https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/timelines/accidents-errors-and-explosions 5 https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/535527-more-hands-on-the-nuclear-football?rl=1 Image: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

[omarh4]

nuclear #policy #solutions

With the doomsday clock ever inching towards detonation, governments and citizens alike are scrambling to plan for what a global nuclear crisis might bring. One of the prevailing opinions regarding the future of nuclear proliferation is that the continued development of nuclear weapons is pushing us closer to the brink of global destruction and that risk reduction strategies need to be implemented. But yet, the US has scheduled over $100 billion in new nuclear weapons to be developed, as we learn in the paper from Elisabeth Eaves. Even more concerning is the ability of the commander in chief to direct the launch of any number of these weapons at any moment with little to stop them if they felt inclined to do so. Despite the existing threat from other countries, the largest being Russia and North Korea, the US should still take efforts to reform its nuclear launch protocols. An amendment such as the one proposed by Senator Fulbright that proposes that the ability to launch nuclear weapons should be shared amongst a group of congress members and the President, which would remove the concern that a nuclear weapon could be launched at the discretion of one disgruntled civil servant. Aside from just policies to limit the launch powers of the president, the US government should also reverse current action to increase our nuclear stockpile, as well as collaborate with other governments to do the same. Scientists such as Martin Hellamn and Vinton Cerf have argued that even a 1% threat of nuclear annihilation is too much of a threat, so every action we take in regard to nuclear weapons should be in the direction of diminishing this number. Especially since mutually assured destruction can be reached with just a couple nuclear capable warheads, and every new nuclear capable weapon only adds to the probability of nuclear annihilation, Furthermore, as long as there are more nuclear weapons being produced, the government should implement more safeguards against the increasing threat of a nuclear attack. As of now, the only information offered in case of a nuclear attack is to find a large commercial building with thick walls and remain inside for at least three days. As long as the nuclear powered governments of the world hold the rest hostage with the threat of bombardment, they should at least provide their own citizens with bunkers near all major metropolitan cities in case they do accidentally start a global crisis.

https://k1project.columbia.edu/content/nuclear-disaster-how-prepared-are-we

[jtello711]

salience #policy

The threat of nuclear armamnets and mutually assured destruction is one that takes many more angles than we'd be comfortable discussing as a society. To imagine that our current economy is so dilapidated so as to encourage certain workers to rely on the implementation of new missile silos and bases as an economic haven for jobs and prosperity really displays how desensitized so many people have become to the threat at hand. In many cases, citizens are much more concerned with the short-term individual cirmcumstances that define the tempo of their lives. Defense and military spending are seen as a boon to some of the communities that are willing to offer deals for their land and while some may openly show their disapproval with protests and newly inspired activism, the economy simply isn't robust enough to eliminate the sore need for an essential paycheck regardless of the means by which this is achieved. If we could afford to allocate even a small portion of the $100 billion going towards GBSDs in the name of defense, we could begin to make progress in emphasizing long-term economic prosperity as a priority. At what cost are such shows of deterrence and mutual arming really worth it? Eaves' article points out how countries like China understand the self-sabotage involved in ludicrous amounts of defense spending, and current policy doesn't seem to emphasize the needlessness of such government spending. Rather, defense spending acts as a safety net for polticians to deliver new jobs and claim progress under a nuclear umbrella. The facade that develops seeks to further desensitize public opinion and reaction to further military developments and spending under the mantra of collective work and the American Dream. How such a perversion of American determinism has come to be is a question for the ages, but there's no denying that as it stands, current policy simply isn't fundamentally prepared for a shift away from current spending projections. Under such competition from the Russians, America's hands are supposedly tied and the public is made to accept or relinquish their supposed freedom under the guise of patriotism, of loyalty and respect for the safety of the nation. If we're ever to expect a shift in political determinism on this front, we need to unite under a shift in policy-oriented thinking. A shift towards long-term goals, committees and groups dedicated to further reducing risk and better analyzing the benefits of redistribution of current military spending. Risk factor has to account, certainly, but from what we've gathered from Cerf and Hellman, there are certainly other ways to go about minimizing risk while still pursuing other important issues at hand. If we can expect the American public to show outstanding support for a safer future for future generations, we should hope they're just as willing to hope for a cleaner and more equal future as well.

[kottenbreit]

nuclear #salience

There are several reasons that is hard to mobilize around nuclear annihilation. After the readings this week, I believe three of the most #salient are: very few people living in nuclear powers have personal experience involving nuclear weapons; it is difficult to conceptualize the devastation of a nuclear winter; as long as nuclear Armageddon does not happen, people are likely to think the resources could have been better spent elsewhere, and it does happen, we won’t have hindsight anyway.

On the first point, most of the work for nuclear disarmament must happen with the political support of the people residing in nuclear power. However, given that Japan is not a nuclear power, the citizens of nuclear powers are incredibly unlikely to have any personal contact with people who have experienced a nuclear attack. Without personal contact, people are vulnerable to misinformation as well as likely to prioritize more day-to-day survival questions. In the case that they think about nuclear weapons regularly, those thoughts are likely to be positive if they live in one of the towns whose economy is propped up by the defense industry or believe politicians who say that nuclear weapons make us safer.

It is also difficult for people to conceptualize nuclear weapons. Most people are aware that militaries are dangerous with or without nuclear weapons, and without a good frame of reference, it can be difficult to understand why the scale of the nuclear threat is so much higher than traditional war. Additionally, the public only gets visual illustrations of nuclear Armageddon from conceptual illustrations and movies, since no large-scale examples currently exist. We receive other information that we know to be fictional through these same mediums, so people are not primed to receive the information as an existential threat.

Possibly most important issue is the issue of resource allocation. Nuclear attacks are presented as a binary threat, they either happen or they don’t, therefore, many people have difficulty conceptualizing that marginal progress is made. Consider the case in which a large amount of money (say $100 billion) is spent on various nuclear safety programs, disarmament, etc. Best case scenario, 50 years from now, we have avoided nuclear Armageddon. Aside from not being killed by a nuclear bomb, which is already that status quo on Earth for 70 years, even without spending this money, people do not see other benefits for all that money spent. Therefore, many future people might think that our $100 billion could have been better spent elsewhere, such as on poverty reduction, infrastructure, or climate change – any place where we can see a sliding scale of benefits, as opposed to a binary one. If we apply this logic to today, we see reasoning for why many people might not want to spend energy or time advocating for increased nuclear safety.

I have attached a top google results for “nuclear winter” as an example of how our conceptions of nuclear Armageddon can appear fictional.

[nataliamedina1202]

solutions/#risk

The debate surrounding the efficiency of nuclear qualitative versus quantitative risk evaluation in Cerf and Hellman’s “An Existential Discussion: What is the probability of nuclear war?” was particularly interesting to me. When presented with both risk analysis assessments, I see the importance of qualitative and quantitative accounts but I agree more with Cerf when considering the importance of the general public's understanding in nuclear war discussions; that is, the notion that ordinary people should be able to comprehend the urgency and reality of this issue. As someone who has never before considered the legitimacy or severity of such a possibility, I think the example of the man wearing a TNT vest with DC and Moscow buttons was definitely easier to comprehend than numbers for a few reasons. Numbers are required logistically to confront the timeframe in which nuclear armageddon may be expected if things continue on the track they are now, but quantitative analysis doesn’t always put into perspective the actors in these phenomena, which simply leaves numbers and causality abstract. For example, in the TNT example, we have an immediate understanding of who the two main ‘opponents’ would be if nuclear missiles were launched and a nuclear war were to start. Even though it has been made clear by both Russia and the US that a nuclear war is undesirable as it could not ever be won, there is also a reason why both countries are working so hard and investing so much money into nuclear warhead. Further, there is a reason why no-first-use agreements have been pushed back. Thus, I find quantitative assessments to be more all-encompassing for framing the complexity in the issue at hand.

This then brings into question the ideas of deterrence and the necessity for nuclear weaponry, as well as the necessity for risk reduction efforts. For instance, reading about the no-first-use agreement in the Bronson and Squassoni article seemed to me like a very promising solution, as it is a principle of nonuse which would mean that nuclear war would never begin (a relief considering there is no ‘winner’ in a nuclear war). What I appreciate most about the possibility of enactment of such agreements for all nuclear-weapon nations is that it holds leaders accountable. Currently, the narrative most people hold is fear of other governments and their weapons. However, it is difficult looking inwards at ones' own government to see how the increasing investment and collection of nuclear weapons (like the US $100 billion) is in no way just for “deterrence”, especially when governments reject no-first-use agreements. To conclude, these readings all made me understand risk assessment and the importance of nuclear-nations looking inward at their own contributions to the inevitability of nuclear war.

Image: https://people.howstuffworks.com/why-is-it-bad-luck-to-break-mirror.htm

[cjcampo]

origin #framing

As we all know, the first man-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction took place at UChicago, under the old location of Stagg Field. The University makes this information well-known: the factoid is regurgitated in almost all admissions material, and the resting place of the experiment is adorned by a sculpture that designates a National Historic Landmark. The attached photograph was taken by me as a first-year. I joined a group of people congregating outside of Max Palevsky to see the University's visual display of a rainbow-colored nuclear mushroom cloud exploding over the Reg in celebration of 75 years of Man's control over nuclear energy, or, in other words, 75 years of Man's exponentially-increasing lack of control over his own creations and capabilities.

I recall this experience in an attempt to dig into the unproductive framing of the problem of potential nuclear catastrophe within the scientific community. UChicago's constant celebration of its nuclear history may play as an effective marketing tactic, a stance in support of scientific advancement, and a nod to the generations of physical sciences department donors who have without a doubt been spurred (at least partially) by the school's nuclear prowess. However, this on-campus phenomena does not stand without implications. As noted in article by Mecklin, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was founded by UChicagoans, and is necessarily subject to the constraints imposed upon it by the academic community and the political outlook in the U.S. + abroad. I'll dig into politics in a second, but first a quick note on excessive celebration of nuclear advancement by the scientific community: the most famous scientist in the world is very clearly Albert Einstein, and Albert Oppenheimer (the lead developer of the nuclear bomb) has his own share of fame as well. I fear that, because of this, superfluous excitement surrounding non-defense use-cases for nuclear energy may dig society into a deeper nuclear hole going forward.

I was motivated to write this post by the discussion of the politicization of COVID-19 and climate change as mentioned in Mecklin's presentation of the 2021 Doomsday Clock. After the article condemns politically-charged misinformation campaigns, its resounding praise for the reception of Biden's campaign by the international community reeks of left-centrism, especially when considered in contrast to some of Biden's opponents in the 2019-2020 democratic primaries. While the Biden administration's handling of climate change and other issues represents a clear marginal improvement over that of Trump, it also seems clear that politicization in response to politicization is a rhetorical strategy that might serve to downplay the importance of these issues. The lack of care taken here, especially in an article meant to tell the world to wake up, is extremely disappointing and spells poorly for the survival of humanity going forward. As a microcosm for the laziness surrounding this end-of-article optimism, I did some research and found that while Biden is significantly more popular abroad overall, Trump's support doubles Biden's in Russia. Is Russia not the most likely counterparty to America in the case of nuclear war, with the U.S./Russia duo creating the most likely pairing of nuclear war enemies outside of maybe a China-backed North Korea and a U.S.-backed South Korea? (source)

[ABacotti]

I think that perhaps the most intriguing part of this weeks readings to me was the economic embeddedness that nuclear weapons have in politics. In the piece, "Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?" by Elisabeth Eaves, Eaves writes:

The reasons for the GBSD are historical, political, and to a significant extent economic. In a country where safety net programs are limited and health insurance is a patchwork, and where unemployment remains at nearly double the pre-pandemic rate, many people in the states where the new missile will be built and based see it as a lifeline. Their elected officials take campaign donations from defense companies, to be sure, but are also trying to deliver jobs in a political environment that has been hostile to government spending on anything but defense. Defense is the safety net where other options are few.

This is a #framing of the issue that I had not previously seen. I understood that there were issues regarding safe guards and spending and proliferation, but never had I really considered that it was people's actual, day-to-day well-being that influenced the decision to build more nuclear weapons. The rational makes perfect sense: defense spending is the only type of spending that is universally politically viable. This is dangerous, because it causes us to build weapons we do not need, but it also might offer a glimmer of hope for the future of spending during a divided government. Each party does well to provide spending that creates jobs in their communities, but not every party does well when they are seen as spending on anything but defence, so if policy-makers could mask other progressive policies as defence spending, maybe they could get more done and spend less on unnecessary weapons of mass destruction.

The author talks about what the money used on these missiles could buy, but consider for a moment if we passed a "defense" bill that considered universal access to high-speed internet a matter of national defense, which I believe we have done similar things in the past. This could bring jobs and spending to the rural areas that currently profit off of spending on munitions, whilst not putting the money to waste.

framing #origin #nuclear

[kaiyamerz]

#policy #solutions #framing #nuclear #climate

Several of the pieces we read seemed to very strongly condemn the defense industry, namely Northrop Grumman in the "Why is America Getting a New $100 Billion Nuclear Weapon", in particular pointing out the outrageous campaign contributions they made to politicians in states where nuclear weapons are currently housed in underground missile silos. Additionally, while none of the articles mentioned it in specific, I know that the fossil-fuel industry also funds many politicians' campaigns. In 2020, the coal industry alone gave just over $600,000 to political campaigns (from opensecrets.org). Not only that, but we know that corporations are responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions globally. So not only do these corporations not care about solving these global existential problems, but instead bribe our politicians to not pass laws to work to fix them either. They do all this with only a single goal in mind: profits. For if politicians are able to effectively fight climate change, or work to deescalate our nuclear arsenal, then these companies lose profits, power, and influence.

Keeping all of that in mind, how do organizations like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recommend the public to respond to these global threats? In their 2021 Doomsday Clock Statement, they say that citizens should demand action concerning these existential threats "through public protest, at ballot boxes, and in other creative ways". In my assessment, this essentially amounts to saying that citizens should work hard to push their representatives and legislators for new, proactive policies in these areas, but should work from inside the system. However, I am doubtful, especially in the United States where, as discussed above, many (if not nearly all) politicians are in the pocket of mega-corporations (who have little to no interest in staving off global disaster if it means they can make more money, as discussed briefly above), that these existential challenges can be effectively countered, or even mitigated, without overhaul of our entire way of governance.

In light of all of this, I feel that these changes are unlikely, if not downright impossible, to be achieved under a capitalist system. And while I am specifically speaking of the United States here, I think the same applies more or less globally as well, as corporate interests, and the interests of the rich and powerful more generally, have no need to be concerned with these existential threats, so long as they get to hold on to as much power and money as they can while the world burns beneath them. Additionally, I think that by framing these issues not as separate (particularly in the case of the US), but as yet more symptoms of capitalism, such that they can be combated, or at least understood more easily, by the public.

(from the Boston Globe)

[MTUC08]

salience #policy #solutions #nuclear

The "2021 Doomsday Clock Statement" places us at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest we've ever been to total apocalypse, and a large component of the existential threat is the risk of nuclear attacks. Although the risk of nuclear war is low, given the deterrent that large stores of the weapons pose to other countries, the risk of nuclear attack has never been higher.

Although technology has advanced, producing more and more advanced nuclear weapons, the policies pertaining to them have not, and the threat of nuclear attack has almost become commonplace, more of an ever-present theoretical threat to the average citizen as opposed to an actual existential threat. This is underlined by the support that the GBSD garnered among citizens within nuclear states. Although it would introduce new jobs in their communities, and boost their economies, it would also paint a target on their backs as the "nuclear sponge" in the case of an actual nuclear war, yet the proposal for a nuclear disarmament was boycotted in these states.

So how do we reduce the threat of nuclear attack when our own citizens don't want it, and the threat of nuclear war is still very real in a world where more and more countries have access to more and more advanced nuclear weapons, even as the total amount of weapons has decreased in the last few decades?

One solution proposed by the articles we read is the No First Use (NFU) policy, a pledge never to use nuclear weapons first in a fight. "Biden and No First Use: an Opportunity for the Taking" delves into the details of what the pledge would provide. First off, it would affirm and strengthen the taboo against nuclear weapons and reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons for security. More than that however, it reduces the risk of dangerous miscommunications and misperceptions that would result in unintended conflict escalations as well as the threat of unilateral authorization on the "nuclear football". Under NFU, there is only one situation in which the U.S. might fire nuclear weapons, so unilateral authorization no longer poses as large of a threat. Additionally, there is still protection for our allies, which are under the extended policy. If they are bombed, there is still the threat of U.S. retaliation, providing the deterrent we currently have. Most importantly however, under NFU there is increased predictability. A missile is just viewed as a missile rather than a potential nuclear strike, and international conflicts can be resolved without the threat of nuclear weapons. If all countries implement an NFU policy, there is virtually no nuclear threat.

To further reduce the nuclear threat would require more institutional changes. Although NFU is a step toward neutralizing the threat, the missiles are still there. To further eliminate the threat, we would need disarmament, which needs political cooperation. Although the large majority of citizens are in favor of disarmament, the matter remains that there are citizens that rely on nuclear weaponry for their livelihood, and will always be opposed unless they have an alternative option. Perhaps replacing nuclear jobs with ones in clean energy for the affected states is a step in the right direction, with the hope that disarmament and redirection of those changes would incite more positive changes.

[chakrabortya]

[atzavala]

salience #Nuclear

After reading the Hellman and Cerf articles, I began to realize I was not actually that aware of the risk of nuclear annihilation. I began to ponder Cerf's question of why we just 'sit here' assuming nothing will happen just because something hasn't yet. I feel like the conversation about nuclear war and its threat to humanity has not been given the same urgency or platform as climate change has. Nuclear war is sometimes referred to as "World War III", making me think the term ‘war’ could be misleading. War implies there will be a fight, and if it’s anything like the past world wars then it could last over a span of years. However, a nuclear exchange between multiple countries would change the world rapidly and kill millions of people far more quickly than the past world wars have. Before I began taking classes at UChicago, the only conversations I heard about a nuclear threat was framed as if we are in a race to have more protection against other countries, and I never understood just how dangerous it was for these weapons to even exist at all. My fears for a nuclear war was limited to worrying about the implications of existing within a state of war, and not as a global threat to humanity. In contrast, the threat of climate change was always presented by the media as a global issue, not a scenario involving winners and losers. So where do we go from here? How can the conversation about nuclear war as a threat to humanity become as urgent and popular as the threat of climate change, and how can we ensure these conversations happen outside of higher education classrooms, which many people do not have access to? I feel like we are all aware that climate change affects the global community, but it’s not often contemplated that we could wipe out the whole planet with a nuclear war. Would efforts to unify the global community against nuclear annihilation be helpful in nuclear disarmament?

(Source - www.ths.tolland.k12.ct.us)