Nuclear Weapons in the Cyber Era

For the last 50 years, an outside force has never threatened the United States’ nuclear weapons safety.  The United States has always employed large security forces, secure/remote facilities, and strict protocols.  However, in recent years, and especially recent months, the U.S. and its allies have come under increased cyber attack.  For example, in the summer of 2012, alleged Iranian hackers destroyed 30,000 computers of the Saudi Aramco Company.  Chinese hackers have stolen information on important defense projects from defense contractors.  The designs include the PAC-3, THAAD, and the Navy’s Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.  Also schematics on the F/A-18 fighter jet, the V-22 Osprey, the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship were stolen.  If these systems were compromised, how long until the U.S. nuclear weapons complex is compromised?  Perhaps it already has been. 

Many analysts are worried about the American banking system or the power grids.  However, I can’t think of a worse situation than if our nuclear weapons were hacked.  A nuclear power plant’s controls could be compromised and next thing we know the US has its own Chernobyl.  The US infected the Iranian nuclear industry with a virus called Stuxnet that severely hindered their progress in 2010.  Is the US immune to this type of attack?  In this age of Internet attacks, any country or group can theoretically attack the United States from a laptop.  These recent escalations in Internet attacks should signal world governments that the need for nuclear disarmament is even more imperative.  If a terrorist organization can’t build their own device, then they can just use one that already exists by hacking the controls or falsifying reports of an attack.  Studies done have shown that the US nuclear arsenal is indeed vulnerable to a cyber attack.

Technology advances at an incredible rate in this age.  Defense systems cannot keep up with the evolving capabilities of offensive tools.  Simply making the US arsenal no longer fire ready would prevent hackers from firing one of our nuclear warheads.  The Cold War is over.  Shifting the US’s nuclear arsenal to be able to address the threats of this age is imperative.  We do not need to be ready for an impending attack from the USSR.  Those days are gone.  We must now be wary that our security systems are all vulnerable.  We must protect ourselves from our own systems as much as from foreign attackers.  Now it seems nuclear weapons and power plants are liabilities.  Deterrence will not work in the Internet age.

Brooks Troiani is an intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/world/middleeast/us-helps-allies-trying-to-battle-iranian-hackers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/hackers-lay-claim-to-saudi-aramco-cyberattack/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ficnnd.org%2FDocuments%2FJason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc&ei=Ok3cUfnEI8GyiQLcioDQCA&usg=AFQjCNFAs4EbcxYDGaPj0AszFzb0w2ev3g

"Secrecy"

For those of you who don’t know, Sunday is 'Netflix documentary day.' Since coming to Santa Barbara I have made a habit of waking up early on Sundays and getting all the day’s work done in the morning so by the time 3:00 rolls around, I can lose myself in countless hours of instant cinematic gratification. Yesterday’s pick was a 2008 film directed by two Harvard University professors called, “Secrecy.” In addition to detailing the history of government confidentiality from its origins in the 1940s, the film features countless gripping interviews with former CIA and national security experts on the topic. Popcorn anyone?

The most compelling concept I took from "Secrecy" was that despite what we are told, classification does not always promote national security. In fact, in many cases over-classification can actually make us less secure and even violate the rule of law. There is no greater example of this than the Manhattan Project. In addition to being the pinnacle of modern government confidentiality, the Manhattan Project demonstrated how secrecy can be used as a tool to keep a large amount of power in a small amount of hands.

National Nuclear Security Administration Releases New Strategic Plan

Breaking News: So I had to interrupt the series about the Department of Energy’s, “Nine Most Budget Busting Projects,” because this was just too hot not to print. Just recently I walked into Rick’s office and found him reading the 2011 Strategic Plan published by the National Nuclear Security Administration. When I saw the front cover on his computer screen I was almost positive that he had just ordered “Armageddon” on Netflix, but with Bruce Willis nowhere to be found I soon realized that this was the title page of the updated Strategic Plan that outlines our country’s new national security priorities.

Have you ever played that picture game, “What doesn’t belong?” You know, the one where you look at a photo and have to identify the object that doesn’t fit with the rest of the picture? I’m pretty sure that game was the inspiration for the cover of the 2011 Strategic Plan. On first glance your eyes are drawn to the massive earth sitting in front of a waving American flag. Ok so far, right? But then you notice the strategically placed atomic blast right smack dab in the center of the photo. In an additional irony, the vision on the opening page emphatically states “to make the world a safer place.”

As the first NNSA Strategic Plan released since 2004, the report offers several key goals for the coming decade. The objectives set out to reduce nuclear dangers, manage the nuclear weapons stockpile and advance nuclear propulsion, modernize the NNSA infrastructure, and strengthen the science, technology and engineering base. Throughout the report the five goals are often accompanied by the phrase, “safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.” The only problem here is that weapons of mass destruction are not safe or secure, and what does effective mean? Effective at causing severe devastation to civilization? Effective at emitting thermal radiation that causes flash blindness and skin burns? Effective at igniting entire cities and towns?

One segment of the plan that is particularly unsettling is in regards to the Life Extension Programs. While these plans claim to ensure that the nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable, what they actually do is increase the power and destructiveness of existing warheads. For example, the 2008 Life Extension proposal for the W76 warhead was so extensive that it resulted in an entirely new type of bomb. When Congress realized that “Life Extension Program,” was essentially another name for upgrade, it denied funding for two of the Department of Energy’s new nuclear weapons.

The 2011 Strategic Plan does have some redeeming initiatives. In addition to improved nuclear safeguards, the plan seeks to secure the most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide by 2013. However, such a monumental task would require international cooperation and a greater commitment from the United States to reduce (not improve) our nuclear stockpile. The release of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Strategic Plan illustrates the need for an increased dedication to a nuclear free world. Please take a moment to check out our Action Alert Network and help us cut the 2012 Nuclear Weapons Budget!

Answering Bolton and Yoo: New START Will Strengthen U.S. National Security

Two staunch ideologues who served in the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton and John Yoo, ask rhetorically in a New York Times opinion piece, “Why Rush to Cut Nukes?”  Bolton, a recess appointment as United Nations Ambassador under Bush II, never met an arms limitation agreement that he supported.  Yoo, the lawyer who wrote memos supporting the legality of water boarding under international law (not a very favorable prospect for captured U.S. soldiers), worked in Bush II’s Justice Department.  Bolton and Yoo can find no good reason to support the New START agreement with the Russians, arguing that without amendments it will weaken “our national defense.”

Let me answer the question posed in the title of their article.

The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence

I'm thrilled to announce the release of our newest video, "The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence." This five-minute animated video shows that relying on nuclear deterrence is extremely dangerous and that, in fact, the only way for us to be safe from a nuclear attack is to abolish all nuclear weapons around the world.



The video was directed by Erik Choquette, an 18 year-old from Santa Barbara, CA. Erik won our Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest in 2008 and 2009, and we are happy that he is continuing his involvement with the Foundation in this way. I owe Erik and his team at Chipotle Pictures a huge thank you for their hard work and dedication in getting this video done over the summer.

New START Op-Ed Roundup!

This week saw a slew of op-eds about New START. It began when The Washington Post published former MA governor Mitt Romney’s op-ed on Tuesday, June 6th. Not only did Romney toe the conservative line regarding the ratification of New START, but he also concocted some new gems most Republicans don’t even use, such as the issue of placing ICBMs on bombers. On Wednesday, John Kerry wrote his own op-ed slamming Romney; Kerry even got in a personal dig, claiming Romney blatantly ignored the facts because he was in a “footrace to the right against Sarah Palin.” The same day, Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott, analysts from the Brookings Institution, also wrote op-eds for The Washington Post debunking Romney’s claims. Yesterday, Jon Kyl’s piece appeared in The Wall Street Journal. To nobody’s surprise, Kyl did not support New START, but his piece was considerably tamer than Romney’s.

Many bloggers have already written extensively about these op-eds, but here's a conciser version of what you need to know...links and highlights after the jump:

Does Deterrence Really Deter?

Today's post is from Martin Hellman, friend of the NAPF and author of the blog Defusing the Nuclear Risk.  Martin is a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University.

---

Calling nuclear deterrence by that name was a stroke of marketing genius for selling it to the public. Unfortunately, that stroke of genius was also a potential death sentence for us all by hiding another, more ominous aspect of this strategy.

To deter someone is “to discourage him from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.” Hence deterrence implies that it will work, that it will deter adversaries from calling our nuclear bluff.

To date, it has worked somewhat as advertised, though far from perfectly. If nuclear deterrence really worked, would the US have risked Soviet ire by deploying nuclear armed missiles in Turkey in 1961? And would Khrushchev have risked American ire by placing similar missiles in Cuba the next year? More recently, would the US have planned an Eastern European missile defense system that raised Russian ire, including a threat to respond by basing nuclear-armed bombers in Cuba?

The New START Debate: Fact vs. Fiction

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held another hearing on the New START Treaty Thursday afternoon; it focused on the risks and benefits of the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia. Presenting witnesses included former U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Eric S. Edelman, and Director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society Institute, Dr. Morton H. Halperin.

There were no real surprises at the hearing; Joseph and Edelman reiterated the same anti-START talking points, namely verification, missile defense, and counting measures. Halperin provided the only pro-START testimony during this particular hearing. Here’s what you need to know about the arguments surrounding ratification:

Partnership for a Secure America Publishes Statement on New START

The Partnership for a Secure America, an organization committed to restoring bipartisan dialogue and action on American national security and foreign policy, published a new statement on the ratification of the New START Treaty.  Thirty political figures from across the ideological spectrum, such as William Perry, George Shultz, and Madeline Albright, signed the statement, which urges the Senate to quickly ratify the new arms control agreement signed in April.  They acknowledge that the transparency measures provided by the treaty are key to national security, and that it:

• Enhances stability, transparency and predictability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, which together possess about 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons
• Contains verification and inspection measures essential to U.S. national security and nuclear threat reduction as it relates to Russia's strategic nuclear weapons
• Addresses our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and therefore assists in gaining cooperation from other countries on key nonproliferation priorities
• Helps strengthen broader U.S.–Russia cooperation, which is important in responding to proliferation challenges from Iran and North Korea
• Does not inhibit our ability to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal
• Does not constrain our ability to develop and deploy missile defense systems.

New START vs. FY2011 Budget

In his Prague speech, President Obama proclaimed in order for the world to be free of nuclear weapons, the U.S. must spearhead a reduction of its nuclear arsenal. He won the hearts of many in the non-proliferation field when he stated that the U.S. would begin reducing its stockpile under his administration. How disheartening to us all, then, when we learned that his FY2011 budget reflected exactly the opposite. Far from committing funds for disarmament, he actually slashed the dismantlement program by 40%. By caving to conservative demands of modernization, Obama not only breaks his Prague promise, but acts against the spirit of New START.

New START is a follow-on to an agreement originally made between the U.S. and USSR to dismantle the relics of the Cold War, in order to build relations between the two adversaries, as well as reduce the risk of a nuclear accident. How strange then, that as the U.S. agrees to dismantle several hundred weapons with one hand, it funds the construction of weapons fuel facilities and Life Extension Programs (LEP) for aging arsenals with the other.