Study Says Nuclear Weapons Threat Not Decreasing

As we know all too well at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the threat of nuclear weapons is not going to decrease any time soon. For those who have been keeping up with the Department of Energy blog series, it’s clear that the United States is putting more emphasis on developing new atomic weapons or “modernizing” our nuclear arsenal, rather than phasing out or retiring existing warheads. A recent study from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) revealed that we are not alone. According to the Swedish study, “the five legally recognized nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so.” And by doing so, nuclear weapons states are only making the WMD club look that much more appealing to non-weapons states.

W78 Life Extension Program

There is a reason why only two people “like” the W78 Interest Page on Facebook. While these nuclear warheads are currently deployed on 200 Minuteman III missiles, the W78s may only be in service for another five years. So does that mean the National Nuclear Security Administration is planning their retirement? Not exactly. In a recent post I briefly discussed how the Department of Energy’s “Life Extension Programs” are just a fancy sounding way to increase the power and destructiveness of existing warheads rather than to “ensure that the nuclear stockpile remains reliable.” This is precisely the case with the W78 Life Extension Program.

According to a declassified study released by the NNSA, the W78 will have been deployed for more than 41 years by 2021. Somehow this fact justifies exploring the possibility of a new joint warhead approach (this is the part where “increase the power and destructiveness” comes in). In other words, instead of replacing the existing W78 that has already been extensively tested, the DOE wants to combine the W78 and W88 warhead to make an entirely new type of bomb.

Nuclear Deterrence Theory: still alive and kicking

One of the major impediments on the path to sustainable universal nuclear disarmament – meaning a world without nuclear weapons as well as the incentive to acquire them – is the persistent belief in the nuclear deterrence theory. This theory – which, in its most common form, claims that the threat of retaliation in kind will deter an opponent from carrying out a nuclear strike against you – was a cornerstone of the security mindset during the Cold War, yet continues to influence foreign and defence policies of nuclear weapon states, and such aspiring states, today.

Excellent efforts by academics, policy analysts and NGOs (with the support of some governments) have recently been undertaken to debunk the nuclear deterrence theory and as far as the present author is concerned, the reasoning displayed in these works is irrefutable and should convince anyone still in doubt of the uselessness of these instruments.[1] However, although there are hopeful signs that in some states the blind belief in nuclear deterrence is losing its grip on security thinking, in others the theory is still very much alive and kicking.

Letter from a Fukushima Mother

So I decided to take another hiatus from the series on the Department of Energy’s most dangerous and budget-busting projects to call attention to a monumentally important email we received here at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Some of you may have read, “Letter from a Fukushima Mother,” as it has been circulating throughout Twitter, but if you haven’t I highly suggest doing so. The letter written by Tomoko Hatsuzawa, a mother of two living in Fukushima City, expresses the devastating impact of the recent nuclear catastrophe and urges the public to speak out against the government’s use of nuclear power. Please don’t read this letter as an outsider looking in, we need to awaken to the fact that what happened in Japan could and will happen in the United States if we continue to pursue nuclear power as the solution to our energy needs. Here are the facts: