Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, international
politics & civilization.
Saturday's
Lagniappe
Five
Minutes to Midnight, Nuclear Time
By
Victoria Samson
Somehow, complete and utter nuclear annihilation seems so Cold
War-esque. It harkens back to Reagan’s 1980s, “The
Day After,” and the Red Menace. Today it is easier to
get caught up in the more immediate conflicts: terrorism, our
deteriorating environment, and immigration, not to mention an
unpopular war in Iraq that is dragging into its fourth year.
So it is rather jarring to be reminded that
the United States and Russia still have 26,000 nuclear weapons
between them. That North Korea’s recent arrival in the
nuclear weapons club and Iran’s impending arrival have
rendered international security even shakier than it was during
the height of the Cold War. Finally, rubbing salt into the wound,
we are reminded that tons of material that could be used to
make even more nuclear weapons are dangerously under-secured.
Because of these factors, the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists has moved up the minute hand of its doomsday
clock so that it is now positioned at five minutes to midnight.
Or, to be utterly clear, we are that much closer to nuclear
annihilation.
This marks only the 18th time that the hands
of the clock have been changed since 1947 and the closest we
have been to nuclear doomsday since the demise of the Cold War.
Fiften years after that war ended, we still
follow policies that weaken our nuclear security. It makes one
question the priorities of our government when it persists in
maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture, even when its primary
nemesis – the Soviet Union – has melted away.
Besides keeping our nuclear arsenal at Cold
War-levels, the United States is considering some programs that
would keep our nuclear weapons laboratories well-employed for
the next 25 years. The National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), the semi-autonomous entity at the Department of Energy
in charge of our nuclear weapons, is examining possibilities
for its future through a mindset known as “Complex 2030.”
The principal part of the government’s
vision for future is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).
There are arguments about what exactly is meant by this –
do we want to replace all our nuclear weapons or just some?
Would we ensure that we can continue to unleash the same level
of catastrophic damage, or would we build nuclear weapons with
smaller yields? Is the whole project a good idea?
Thanks to a program known as Stockpile Stewardship,
we are certain that our nuclear weapons are effective even without
having held a test since 1992. And independent studies by scientists
have proven that the pits – where the bang for the nuclear
weapons comes from – will likely be good for another 100
years.
So why do we need to replace what doesn’t
require replacing? Why promote the RRW which could very well
be a new nuclear weapon in disguise? Our insistence upon holding
onto such a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and augmenting it
further with new designs does little to give credibility to
our protestations about the proliferation of other countries.
Besides, this determination to hold onto the
past is preventing our government from focusing on threats that
we actually face now. It detracts funds, brainpower, and political
capital away from dangers that should not be ignored, while
simultaneously sustaining a build-up of nuclear weapons that
does not protect the United States.
Blessedly
there is no valid reason for the doomsday clock to still exist,
and we certainly should be ashamed that we continue to tick
it closer to midnight by our own actions.
Victoria
Samson
is a research analyst for the Center for Defense Information,
a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C., that focuses
on military and security issues. www.cdi.org. Petroleumworld
not necessarily share these views.
