The real nuclear danger isn't Iran or North Korea

Analysis: The most dangerous nuclear nations are the U.S. and Russia, the ones with nearly all of the weapons

August 4, 2015 5:00AM ET

by Joe Cirincione

“Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at anymoment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.” — President John F. Kennedy

Seventy years after the first atomic explosion lit up the New Mexican desert and nearly 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union,both Russia and the United States retain nuclear postures from the darkest days of their rivalry. There are almost 16,000 nuclearweapons still in the world today, and the U.S. and Russia possess 94 percent of them. Worse, 1,800 of these Russian and Americanweapons sit atop missiles on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch on a few minutes notice.

Few people are even aware of these dangers. Most have forgotten about the weapons. They think the only nuclear threat is the chancethat Iran might get a bomb. Or that plans are in place that effectively prevent or contain nuclear threats. They are wrong. On any givenday, we could wake up to a crisis that threatens our country, our region, our very planet.

There is good news. The size of these arsenals has decreased dramatically in the last 30 years. When Ronald Reagan and LeonidBrezhnev squared off in the 1980s, pouring new nuclear missiles into Europe, there were more than 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.Mass protests and the wisdom of Reagan and his negotiating partner Mikhail Gorbachev, who succeeded Brezhnev as the head of the

Visit Al Jazeera English

INTERNATIONAL

JOE RAEDLE / GETTY IMAGESJOE RAEDLE / GETTY IMAGES

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Mass protests and the wisdom of Reagan and his negotiating partner Mikhail Gorbachev, who succeeded Brezhnev as the head of theSoviet Union, led to arms control treaties that slashed arsenals by 50 percent.

The restraint of the two nuclear superpowers rippled to other nuclear aspirants. More countries gave up nuclear weapons or nuclearweapons programs in the past 30 years than tried to get them. And these were tough cases, including Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, thenuclear successor states to the Soviet Union: Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and Iraq and Libya.

In turn, the American and Russian arsenals were cut 50 percent further under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.President Barack Obama, early in his term, trimmed them a bit more. And the entire interlocking network of global treaties and securityarrangements has gone a long way to providing tougher inspections, more rigorous export controls on nuclear technologies, bettersecurity over “loose nukes” and nuclear materials, and more formidable barriers to new states getting weapons.

Indeed, while people talk of “states like Iran and North Korea,” there actually are no states like Iran and North Korea. Apart from theeight countries with established programs there are no other governments racing to get the capability to build nuclear weapons.

And here, there is more good news. The nuclear agreement with Iran is a major step in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. If we cancontain North Korea’s program, or strike a similar deal, it then becomes possible to talk about the end of the wave of proliferation thatbegan 70 years ago. Global intelligence officials are clear: There is no other nation looming on the new-nuclear-state horizon.

Even as proliferation risks decrease, however, the risks of accident, miscalculation or intentional use of one of the existing nuclearweapons is unacceptably high. Indeed, since the end of the Cold War, we have come closer to Armageddon than many realize.

In January 1995, a global nuclear war almost started by mistake. Russian military officials mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for aU.S. submarine-launched ballistic missile. Boris Yeltsin’s senior military officials told him that Russia was under attack and that he hadto launch hundreds of nuclear-tipped missiles at America. He became the first Russian president to ever have the “nuclear suitcase”opened in front of him. But Yeltsin trusted U.S. officials, and he was confident that there was no hidden crisis that might prompt asurprise attack by the U.S. With just a few minutes to decide, Yelstin concluded that his radars were in error. The suitcase was closed.

American nuclear weapons, too, have often come within a hair’s breadth of detonation.

In 1958, a B-47 crew accidentally dropped an H-bomb that exploded near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Luckily, only the weapon’sconventional explosives detonated, but the crater can still be seen.

In 1961, a B-52 carrying two armed weapons broke apart over Goldsboro, North Carolina. Two bombs dropped from the bomb bay. Onebomb’s parachute deployed and carried it safely to the ground. The other fell all the way down. All of the weapon's safety mechanismsfailed, save one. A single low-voltage switch, the technical equivalent of a light switch, prevented a hydrogen bomb from destroying agood portion of North Carolina.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Country

Russia

Warheads 7500

U.S.

Warheads 7100

France

Warheads 300

China

Warheads 260

Great Britain

Warheads 225

Pakistan

Warheads 120

India

Warheads 110

Israel

Warheads 80

North Korea

As the numbers and deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons declined, accidents also decreased, but they did not end. In 2007, a B-52 flewfrom Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, carrying 12 cruise missiles on its wings.Unbeknownst to the crew, six of the cruise missiles were armed with nuclear warheads.

The missiles traveled across the nation and spent the night sitting on the tarmac guarded by just a few security officers and a barbedwire fence before their true nature was discovered. The really bad news? No one at Minot ever noticed that they had gone missing.

One has to be a true optimist to believe that we can leave 16,000 nuclear bombs in fallible human hands indefinitely and nothing will gowrong.

It could get worse. The world’s nuclear weapons are aging. Bombs, like cars, wear out and eventually have to be replaced. We are now ina generational transition, when the weapons built during the terrifying Cold War rivalry of the 1980’s are ready for retirement. This couldbe a good time for Russia, the United States and other nations to close down these obsolete arsenals and save billions of dollars.

Instead, the nuclear nations are raiding their treasuries to build an entire new generation of the deadliest weapons ever invented. AsHans Kristensen and Robert Norris point out, “nuclear nations have undertaken ambitious nuclear weapon modernization programsthat threaten to prolong the nuclear era indefinitely. … New or improved nuclear weapon programs underway worldwide include atleast 27 ballistic missiles, nine cruise missiles, eight naval vessels, five bombers, eight warheads, and eight weapons factories.”

The world doesn’t need more nuclear weapons. Russia currently has the largest nuclear arsenal, with a total of approximately 7,500warheads. The United States is second, with roughly 7,100 warheads. Other nuclear weapons states have far fewer. France possesses300, China 260, and Great Britain, 225. Pakistan has about 120 weapons and India 110. Although Israel has never acknowledged itsnuclear weapons stockpile, it is estimated to have nearly 80 weapons. North Korea has enough material for less than 10 bombs but hasnot deployed any.

Current global nuclear arsenal

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

North Korea

Warheads <10

Enter Email Address SUBMIT

Sources: US Nuclear forces, 2015, Russian nuclear forces, 2015, Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsNote: Not counted above: The U.S. has 2,340 warheads awaiting dismantlement; Russia has 3,200. Some numbers above are estimates, for example, it is estimated NorthKorea has the material for up to 10 bombs, but has not deployed any.

Nuclear weapons are not cheap. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, U.S. nuclear weapons spending alone isestimated to reach $348 billion over the next decade, while arms control experts estimate that it could reach up to $1 trillion over thenext 30 years. Russia is also increasing the role of nuclear weapons in its strategy. But why?

It is difficult to think of a military combat mission that requires the use of even one nuclear bomb. There has not been one in 70 years.Perhaps there is a mission that might someday require one bomb. Or ten. Or an arsenal of 500. But the United States has 7,000. This isbeyond all logic and military need. Clinging to these obsolete weapons is a vestige of Cold War thinking propped up by contracts and thedesire of those with nuclear bases to keep the few thousand jobs they provide. Pandering to these parochial motives and flawedstrategies risks catastrophes whose financial and human costs dwarf any conceivable benefits.

Pope Francis told a conference on nuclear threats in Vienna this year that “spending on nuclear weapons squanders the wealth ofnations.” He questioned the morality of maintaining these huge arsenals for any purpose. These horrific weapons, he said, must be“banned once and for all.”

Seventy years after it was born on the sands of Alamogordo, there is a growing global sense that it is time to retire the Bomb.

SHARE THIS: http://alj.am/m9hv

GET EMAIL UPDATES FROMAL JAZEERA AMERICASign up for our weekly newsletter

On TV NowAli Velshi On Target10:30pm ET / 7:30pm PT

VIEW FULL SCHEDULE

Enter zip code GO

Find Al Jazeera America on your TV

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Hiroshima: The great tabooAnalysis: The US has struggled to accept the legacy of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into its collective memory

The first victims of the A-bomb were American

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The first victims of the A-bomb were AmericanThe deadly legacy of nuclear tests in New Mexico continues to impact communities around the White Sands site

Bikinians evacuated ‘for good of mankind’ endure lengthy nuclear falloutSeven decades after being forced off atoll for US nuclear tests, Bikini Islanders demand fair compensation, cleanup

RELATED

PLACESHiroshima

TOPICSNuclear Weapons

EDITOR'S PICKS

Hiroshima marks 70…

Mullah Omar, a…

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

MOSTDISCUSSED

MOSTSHARED

MOSTVIEWED

OPINION: Beware the…

Are nursing homes…

OPINION: Why children…

The real nuclear…

One year after…

‘This is not…

1

2

3

4converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

71 Comments

Brad Worst8 hours ago

1 reply 0

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Post a new comment

RSS | Subscribe | Community Guidelines

The number of the weapons/warheads/ICMBs per se isn't necessarily the decisive factor. It is the political stability of the country and the mental stabilityof that country's leader(s) that define the danger level. From that point of view large (super) powers such as the USA or Russia are less dangerous than banana republics such as Iran or Israel whose leadershipwould be sitting in a closed ward in most western civilisations. The French are in a league of their own: still called la grande nation they once played a major role on the geopolitical stage and as a western democracythey are usually a stable country led by stable personalities. However, now reduced to almost insignificance in the global game they are known forstubbornness, delusions of grandeur and 'practical' solutions (viz. the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior).

There is no…

Reaching the endgame…

Login

POST

REPLY

4

5

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Tom Sullivan7 hours ago

-4

Walter Ziobro8 hours ago

0

Stafford Martin8 hours ago

-1

Justin Sawchuk11 hours ago

0

Roma Maro17 hours ago

+3

Teri Albert1 day ago

+1

Teri Albert

Brad, the Jew (Israel) basher. So the Iranians and the Israeli leadership evidently are both crazy. Let's see, Israel has probably had nuclear weapons for a couple decades,and has not threatened any of its neighbors. More importantly, none of its neighbors seem too concerned with being attacked by a Israelinuclear bomb. On the other hand, Iran has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, arms terrorist groups like Hezbollah, is proppingup the Syrian government, and most recently, about a million of its citizens were chanting death to America, death to Israel. And yet, by you, they are similar. Really and truly??

Would a world without any nuclear weapons be safer? I'm not so sure. In a macabre way, Mutually Assured Destruction has kept peace among the majorpowers. Could the Berlin Crisis, or the Korean War, or the Cuban Crisis have provoked a wider war in the absence of nuclear weapons? I think it ispossible. At least among rational leaders that have such weapons, they think twice now before practicing brinkmanship.

The phrase "hair trigger alert" with respect to nuclear, is a nonsensical phrase.

But I agree that the US is a dangerous nuclear power. That is, dangerous to the countries you care about. We who care about the United States ofAmerica, are not worried. == Despite its unrelenting anti-US bias, I still watch Aljazeera. It is the only real news source left on American TV. But I watch with my double strength BSfilter on hair trigger alert.

Nukes are the only thing stopping WW3

7000 or 14000, what difference does it make if you can annihilate the world three or four or more times over, with the first all will be gone. Now they aremaking tactical small nuclear bomb, which makes it easy to use from the barrel of a field artillery or even a tank. Any one that thinks in defeat a countrywill not use its arsenal is a fool. There simply can not be an exclusive nuclear club when the technology capacity is now within the reach of manycountries, that are in total disagreement with the power monopoly that the five permanent UN members have over the world. You simply can not put theGini back in the bottle, and so far no one has invented a defense against nuclear weapons.

still too much in stock, whatever happened man to man combat. OH I forgot to mention what about the drones that have come within 100 yards of ourairplanes?

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Teri Albert1 day ago

+1

David Fairley1 day ago

+2

Stan Marciniak1 day ago

1 reply -4

Bob Lucas11 hours ago

0

Casey Halstead1 day ago

+4

Josephine Related1 day ago

+3

Johnny Davis1 day ago

still too much

Denial of the threat of a nuclear catastrophe may stem from the same source as climate change denial: the mistaken belief that Somebody --Tinkerbell orGod or Whoever-- will miraculously save us from our own insanity.

What absolute nonsense. The real risk is that North Korea or Iran provide Isis, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, or any one of a number of underground extremistgroups with a warhead. THAT is the real risk.

Neither the U.S. nor Russia will ever use a warhead as an offensive weapon. (And please spare us all of the diatribe about the use of the ABOMB onHiroshima snd Nagasaki 70 years ago.)

The risk TODAY is in those that hide in the shadows.

This article is yet more fodder for the hate-America movement.

diatribe-A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; aphilippic...

This is just one more reason to support the Iranian deal. Any time Russia and the US agree about how to deal with extremism, we would be wise tofollow. If Iran breaks the deal they are pissing on the backs of 15,000 nuclear weapons.... to get 1. If the GOP blocks the Iran deal, they are pissing on theback of 7500 nukes in order to prevent 1. Iran might be stupid but they know they can not confront a P5+1 alliance.

Seventy years after Alamo Gordo test the nuclear stockpile is made of bombs that would use the Trinity test as a fuse. The 'super' bomb or hydrogenbomb and all its varieties and sub-varieties are far more destructive than Hiroshima's bomb and can annihilate an entire small country or a US state in afew minutes. There will always be Edward Tellers in the world of weaponry. He was the main instigator of the 'super' and we all in the world paid for hismadness. Dr Strangelove parody pales before what today's weapons hawks are, think and do. The danger is there indeed, and not in Iran or N. Korea.This is the clear case in which weapons don;t kill people, people kill people. But also in this case there is no 'good guy with a gun', we're all potential badguys and a mad hawk or an incompetent moron or a lack of diplomatic tact can send us all to oblivion...no matter if there is a million good guys withguns around.

Yes, nukes are a problem. However, the nuclear era is one of unparalleled peace and prosperity. We had conventional wars between the great powers

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

1 reply -1

Bob Lucas11 hours ago

0

Alyx Jolivet2 days ago

0

Charles Chandler2 days ago

2 replies -8

Bob Lucas11 hours ago

+3

Mike Gorman8 hours ago

+1

Yes, nukes are a problem. However, the nuclear era is one of unparalleled peace and prosperity. We had conventional wars between the great powersand their allies every generation for what? At the very minimum 200 years? Any one of these wars were far more destructive and crushing than the nuclearpeace of proxy wars and sabre rattling of the last 70 years.

Nuclear peace?

The story of Iran and North Korea does make for wonderful misdirection though, doesn't it?

If danger is defined by who is most likely to use nuclear weapons if they had them, that ain't the US buddy, and not even Russia, although Russia likes towave that big stick around. Both countries have too much to live for (MAD does not make economic sense). The most dangerous are those nations ruledby Lunatics (yes, capital L). Iran tops the list as the most irrational and untrustworthy. The governmental leadership of North Korea likes to be thought ofas insanely unpredictable, but I don't believe they don't WANT to die - Muslim states just don't seem to care - that should be a VERY SCARY thought

You make some strange assumptions given that the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another country. We haveour nuclear armed forces stationed around the entire world. Deterrents only work if everybody thinks you're willing to use them. I don't trustanyone in the federal government to not resort to the 'Nuclear Option' when the war drums start beating.

I was born in the early 70's. It was a time of transition where the nation went from assuming a nuclear war was inevitable to believing thatpeace with the Soviet Union was possible.

One of the big changes was accepting that the Soviet people were not demonic fiends actively seeking to die in the name of the globalcommunism.

Your post comes straight out of the the language we directed at the Soviet Union when I was a kid. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

If anything you are saying were actually true, we would already be at war with Iran. Iran has been at a 2 month nuclear breakout horizon forfar longer than 2 months. What that says is that if all Iran wanted was a war with Israel, they would have already completed a nuclearweapon and used it or Israel would have launched a pre-emptive strike to prevent it.

The absence of that war can mean only one thing, the government of Iran is made up of actual humans who care about their people. We maydisagree with them a lot, but that doesn't mean they are inhuman fiends.

You may need to consider the fact that Muslims love their children too.

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

vikramroy872 days ago

0

sportynlife .2 days ago

+3

Bill Boyd2 days ago

+3

Vijay Mehra2 days ago

1 reply -3

Bob Lucas11 hours ago

+2

Adam Smith2 days ago

0

Linda Rector2 days ago

1 reply 0

Teri Albert1 day ago

0

Can't believe U.S. and Russia are doing this!

I have long thought, and still do, that the next nation most likely to consider itself threatened enough for first use of nuclear weapons is Israel.

The most dangerous nuke party sits at the east end of the Med! They've spent many years spreading lies about the risk from several other nations that donot even have the weapons and continue to evade any inspection or truthful discussions about their own threat. An excellent way to impose restrictionson Iran would be to just copy Israel's and change the name. Fits one - fits all - Right?

Iran CALLS for the destruction of an entire country...they said this publicly, no sane country would ever say something like that. Iran = N Korea.

you mean like how we called for the destruction of Iraq? Japan? Germany?

What we should do is modernize our strategic nuclear weapons. Many of the ICBMs we have now are out dated and are plagued by expensive repairs. Wecan reduce our overall stockpile of weapons, make sure the missiles we do have work and lower long term repair costs. We also need to invest more inearly warning systems to decrease the odds of miscalculation between NATO and Russia.

This report did not mention the missile launch early warning satellite used by the Russians is now offline and won't be replaced for months. This greatlyincreases the odds of miscalculation.

all nations should seek a non radioactive device.I would like to see a agreement,where non military targets are not struck.

@Linda Rector I like that comment ,That would make for a good dream.

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLYconverted by Web2PDFConvert.com

0

Dallas Weaver2 days ago

1 reply +2

Charles Chandler2 days ago

0

Kass D2 days ago

+3

RedHeart64 .2 days ago

+5

John Anderson2 days ago

-1

The statement that the accidental drop of a bomb put us one safety switch away from a nuclear explosion struck me as a very probable politicalexaggeration. He implies a different safety risk of a bomb coming down on a parachute, the way it is designed to do for maximum impact, and onecrashing into the ground. In both cases, the safety interlocks need to work to prevent the bomb from going off in the air. Hitting the ground can make abig mess with lots of Pu spread around as the bomb can be smashed on impact. However, smashing doesn't set off the thermonuclear weapon. Evensetting off the explosive driver on impact for the device would be non-symetric and not create a nuclear explosion.

Makes a good story, but it may not be a true story.

Actually I believe an air burst is still the desired approach. I'll look it up.

Iran has never been the major concern of our world's nuclear threat, make note I mentioned "the major threat". The media giants have always concealed the real truth about the real threat to our world's peace and security. Just follow the money and Media masshysteria.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State canshield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of itspowers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Paul Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany

Sometimes evil people say the most mind boggling truth.

One small correction: The bomb accidentally dropped in the US didn't land near Myrtle Beach SC (unless you're somehow talking in relative terms). Itactually hit about 2 miles west of Mars Bluff, South Carolina (a little over 50 miles NW of Myrtle Beach). I was curious and looked it up on Google Earth...and yes, you can still make out the crater (and it's obvious from the pictures placed on Panoramio).

Otherwise, I'd tend to agree. I do think that the agreement with Iran is a big step forward, but until countries start letting go of "National Pride" andrealizing we're all in this together and that we need to work together, I think nuclear weapons (not necessarily nuclear power) are a threat.

The elites won't like it if that happens because the status quo is pouring money into their pockets.

There is no way we're going to get rid of nukes. The genie is out of the bottle. The Russians and the Chinese aren't going to trust us if we said we're goingto get rid of them and visa versa. Best we can do is lower the numbers available, agree on safest practices and try to stop profileration to decrease thechance of a mistake. On the positive side, within 25 years at the beginning of the last century we had two world wars. In the last 70 years we had a cold war, and nuclearweapons at least partly contributed to it not turning into a "hot" one.

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

REPLY

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

-1

Dave Mitchell2 days ago

-1

All of this points to the fact that humans are not smart enough to survive much longer. Each day is a miracle that we are here at all albeit with adegrading quality of life. Even the greedy 1% is subject to pollution of the air, water and over-population that is common to a capitalist system thatrelies on unrestrained growth. The governing power which is bound in a hereditary system which began with tribal leaders suppresses the masses andensures that change is incremental and not necessarily progressive. ALL will remain helpless in a universe ruled by the Beloved creator except those whochoose to serve that one true power.

Show more comments

REPLY

REPLY

NEWS

OPINION

VIDEO

SHOWS

SCHEDULE

AboutOur Mission, Vision and ValuesLeadershipCode of EthicsSocial Media PolicyCareers

Contact UsPress ReleasesAwards and AccomplishmentsAdvertise With Us

Visit Al Jazeera EnglishMobileNewsletterRSSSubscribe to YouTube Channel

Site MapPrivacy PolicyTerms of Use

Request Al Jazeera AmericaFAQCommunity GuidelinesSite Index

© 2015 Al Jazeera America, LLC. All rights reserved.

Share Share

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com