nuclear weapons Archives - Fran Moreland Johns

December 22, 2024December 22, 2024

The Perfect Holiday Conversation Opener

NUCLEAR WAR. NOBODY’S NOT INTERESTED! NOBODY’S GOING TO ARGUE IN FAVOR . . .

(This article appeared recently on my new Substack page, “The Optimistic Eye,” where I plan to highlight, every Friday, individuals &/or organizations working to preserve truth, justice and our democracy – and the planet – in the coming years. Author Annie Jacobsen is such an individual, Ploughshares is such an organization; Jacobsen’s bestseller is a riveting book everybody on the planet should read. I’ll probably include other Optimistic Eye pieces here, or feel free to visit my Substack page via franmorelandjohns.)

OK, you may not think a pleasant conversation about nuclear warfare sounds like the best path to happy holidays with family and friends.

But think about it. Is anyone going to start arguing? Awareness v global annihilation? Does the prospect of blowing up the planet (or maybe not!) have a certain conversational cachet that everyone might buy into? Goodwill in the air. Plus — since we really don’t expect anyone to launch a nuclear war tomorrow, what better time to talk about catastrophe than when we’ve still a small chance of keeping it at bay.

Ploughshares, an extraordinary global peace and security nonprofit committed to eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons, wants us to talk about this.

To that end, Ploughshares Executive Director Elizabeth Warner recently arranged a conversation with historian of science and nuclear technology Alex Wellerstein and invited supporters to listen in (and ask questions!) Wellerstein’s writings on the subject have appeared in the New Yorker, the Washington Post and elsewhere and he’s currently at work on a second book. In addition to his day job as a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology he is also working on a video game which millions of people far younger than this writer will eventually play.

You, and guests, may want to join this conversation.

Why? Well, for openers, we have just elected a man not known for calm, thoughtful deliberation to be in charge of pulling the nuclear trigger — or, hopefully, not. Doesn’t that seem a big enough deal for holiday dinner conversations?

If someone can’t be pried away from a screen there is also Wellerstein’s NukeMap. You can pick your target, choose your weapon, detonate, and see what havoc you have wrought. Pretty good way to convince anyone not to wreak nuclear havoc.

We may have little control over our new commander in chief, but we can talk about what’s at stake — that would be each one of us along with planet earth — and we can keep an eye on the man now in charge.

There are enough nuclear weapons around the globe — fairly evenly divided among good guys and bad guys — to blow it up several times over. Treaties signed by the U.S. and its adversaries over the decades have helped keep this from happening. But we have elected a president fond of pulling us out of treaties at the drop of a tweet.

Happily, we don’t have to have an in-depth understanding of nuclear treaties — that’s where people like Ploughshares president Dr. Emma Belcher come in. But how about a conversation about NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (actually, New START now.)

Or. Additional great conversation-opener: For book lovers on your gift list there’s Annie Jacobsen’s new Nuclear War: A Scenario, also definitely a conversation starter. Jacobsen outlines a timeline of a hypothetical attack against the U.S. and how its response would play out.

Admittedly, this isn’t bedtime reading, but it is riveting. Jacobsen’s scenario, created from interviews with key figures, an exhaustive knowledge of once-classified documents and more, gives a minute-by-minute account of what will happen once that first strike unleashes nuclear global disaster.

Nuclear War: A Scenario (it’s been a best seller since publication) includes a sobering observation on p 83: “The U.S. president — as odd as this may seem — has sole authority to launch America’s nuclear weapons. The president asks permission of no one.” It ends with another food-for-thought truism: “It was the nuclear weapons that were the enemy of us all. All along.”

Here’s the good news: nobody, including Donald Trump, wants a nuclear war.

But we are living in the nuclear age. Designated “Nuclear weapon states” are Russia, France, China, the U.K. and U.S.; but other countries also have a few. Until some miraculous global coming-to-our-senses happens, the risk of some unhinged leader unleashing nuclear catastrophe is very real.

Ploughshares has been instrumental in reducing the global number of nuclear weapons in past decades. Just as we might all have a good talk about books and treaties and catastrophic scenarios, how about this for a conversation starter:

“Should the U.S. (&/or other countries) be increasing the supply of nuclear weapons on hand, or should we work to reduce that supply? What do you think? Why?”

Another ray of light: One of the best books on my 2024 reading list was British science journal Nature senior editor Henry Gee’s small book, A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth — 4.6 Billion Years in 12 Pithy Chapters. Dr. Gee, in his pithy chapters, makes you feel as if you’re just having a little fireside chat. And while he’s at it, puts our bumbling civilization in perspective.

It’s worth hoping that our civilization doesn’t bumble itself into oblivion with some stupid, totally avoidable nuclear war.

Isn’t that also worth a good conversation among friends? Happy holidays.

America Collection/General interest

June 21, 2024June 21, 2024

Nuclear Weapons & the Iran Deal

by Fran Johns

A CLOSE LOOK BY AVERAGE CITIZEN MAY CAUSE PESSIMISM

Photo by Ilja Nedilko on Unsplash

Nuclear optimism is a tough sell.

On a recent Zoom event President Emma Belcher of Ploughshares Fund, one of my all-time favorite nonprofits, talked with Iranian affairs expert Ali Vaez about that beautiful, once-friendly country and its nuclear weapons situation. I brought every ounce of my congenital optimism to the conversation.

It is worth emphasizing here that my understanding of nuclear weaponry is about on par with my understanding of Iranian affairs. I.e., nonexistent. What I do know is that we have a lovely planet to live on and it would take only a few nuclear weapons to do it in. The U.S. now has 5,000 or so; Russia pretty much keeps up, and then there are China, N. Korea, a few somewhat friendlier countries . . . but so far not Iran.

How to maintain optimism in light of the above? Currently no one able to pull the first trigger wants to risk blowing himself and the rest of us to bits. And most of these guys — they’re all guys — are relatively sane. (This is debatable, and could change.)

Throw in the complicated animosities of Israel, Saudi Arabia (“If Iran gets one, we’ll get one ourselves . . .”) and others, and pessimism quickly prevails.

It is a bizarre game, this You-fire-at-me-and-I’ll-fire-at-you, but once we Americans launched it others wanted in. Proliferation rapidly became strategy. Then, some years back, a few level heads acknowledged that things (and weapons) were getting out of hand and we began cautiously moving in the other direction. (“I’ll reduce my supply if you’ll reduce yours.”) Ploughshares was founded in 1981 to support the reduction — and in a best case scenario the elimination — of nuclear weapons;

Bringing Iran into the nuclear-armed fold has not seemed a very good idea. This led to the “Iran Nuclear Deal” — the Joint Cooperative Plan of Action (JCPOA to its friends) signed by Iran, Russia, China, the U.S., Britain, France and Germany in 2015 — which limited Iran’s nuclear activities (the things one does on the pathway to getting a nuclear weapon) in return for removal of a bunch of anti-Iran sanctions.

People who understand these things speak in terms of how long it would take Iran to have its own nuclear weapon. It was a matter of months when the treaty was in force. It is now a matter of days.

This is largely because former president Trump, in his infinite wisdom, pulled us out of the JCPOA treaty in 2018. It’s complicated, but the Council on Foreign Relations summarizes it here. The chaos since then is also complicated, as anyone who reads the headlines (in legitimate newspapers, not on social media) can attest. JCPOA participants periodically try to resurrect it. Such efforts have been thwarted, though, by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and other struggles of humankind.

Much of the above was discussed — far more completely and eloquently — by Dr. Belcher and Presidential Adviser Vaez. Toward the end of the conversation there was this exchange:

“All we can hope for,” said Vaez, “is preserving the status quo.”

Added the Ploughshares president, “It’s a very bad status quo.”

Here is the question I was poised to enter into the Chat: “Is there a ray of hope anywhere?” It felt unanswerable.

Still, Ploughshares is strong, and there are yet a few months until election day.

America Collection/General interest/World Affairs

June 20, 2022June 20, 2022

Life Without Nukes? Lovely Idea

by Fran Johns

A safe and secure future? Imagine.

At “Chain Reaction,” the recent annual fundraiser/celebration of Ploughshares Fund, supporters were doing just that. Ploughshares President Dr. Emma Belcher and Board Chair Terry Gamble Boyer were on hand, along with a variety of global experts ranging from Massachusetts Sen Ed Markey to former Ambassador Fiona Hill, all talking about lowering the threat level.

With hostility among nuclear-armed states currently close to the boiling point, assurance of a safe and secure future for everyone may seem a far-off goal. The five major “Nuclear Weapon” countries – U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China – have enough such weapons among them to blow the planet to smithereens at least a dozen times, with plenty remaining. Plenty of bombs, that is, not planets.

But Ploughshares is working diligently to keep that from happening. If Ploughshares reaches its goal – assurance of a safe and secure future for us all – the nuclear threat will disappear. That might be an impossibility, but you’ve got to love Ploughshares for trying. HARD.

Yours truly with Emma Belcher (l) & Terry Gamble Boyer

More than 40 years ago, sculptor, human rights activist, mother & wife Sally Lilienthal gathered a few friends in her San Francisco living room to talk about what could be done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons here and abroad. This was the year (1981) when Ronald Reagan unveiled a “strategic modernization program” which called for – among other things nuclear – thousands of new warheads, an increase in bomber forces including development of stealth bombers, a new land-based strategic missile (the MX), and new intermediate-range missile deployments in Europe. In addition, he proposed deploying more than 3,000 air-launched cruise missiles on bombers.

Thanks in large part to Ploughshares partners, along with other calmer heads, stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been declining fairly steadily since those hyper-fearful days. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. stockpile, for instance, has gone from 23,368 in 1980 to a projected 3,620 this year, and Russia – the most highly armed – from 30,062 in 1980 to a projected 5,350 this year. When you consider we started all this with two bombs in 1945, and by 1950 it was U.S,= 299; Russia=5, it’s easy – and more than a little scary – to see that statistic zoom up to the 60,000+ peak of weapons held by multiple countries in 1985.

Any of us could still blow all of us to bits in short order. Maybe diplomacy makes more sense. Ploughshares supporters hope so.

Environment/General interest/Optimism Collection/Politics & Causes/World Affairs

May 26, 2020October 20, 2021

Talking Peace in Turbulent Times

by Fran Johns

FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY vs NUCLEAR WEAPONS

We began with a little deep breathing and the day’s mantra: I am a powerful being; I am a peaceful being. Not a bad way to begin a day. Or a discussion, for that matter. This particular discussion was initiated by one of my all-time favorite nonprofits, Ploughshares Fund. Check it out. When I get invited to anything Ploughshares I tend to accept.

The event was a Women’s Initiative Sunday Brunch with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Beatrice Fihn. Fihn is director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN,) which won the Nobel in 2017 for its work. That year 122 countries adopted the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. If you haven’t been following all this, to date 37 countries have ratified the treaty; once that number reaches 50 it becomes international law.

Notably absent from any such ratification list, of course, is the USA. And don’t hold your breath for Russia to sign. The U.S. and Russia together have about 90% of the current supply of nuclear weapons – say, 6,000+ or so each. It will only take a handful to blow up the planet.

It was against the background of the above that we started Sunday brunch with the powerful/ peaceful mantra.

Fihn was in conversation – via Zoom from her living room in Geneva – with Elizabeth Warner, Ploughshares’ Managing Director & Chief Development Officer. Asked how she got into the business of fighting for nuclear disarmament, Fihn said it was “kind of accidental. I was interested in justice, equality, human rights, women’s rights . . . And then I did an internship on nuclear weapons – and realized nuclear weapons are connected to all of these.”

The conversation quickly brought in Feminist Foreign Policy, an alternative to ‘male’ policies reliant on strength and threat – the “humiliate and dominate” approach to relationships personal and international alike that is currently popular. “I’m not one of those people who think women are more peaceful than men,” Fihn remarked. But the ‘softer’ approach – creating security for everyone through healthcare, education, gender equality etc – can be equally effective, she and Warner agreed.

About this treaty to ban nuclear weapons – which supporters, including this writer, believe will eventually gain the magic 50 ratifications and become law: Warner explained there is a three-step process required. First the government signs on, then necessary adjustments are made, then the treaty is ratified. To the obvious next question, “How much does it matter, really?” Fihn explained that “the idea behind (international law) is to create a new normal. We’ve done it with biological weapons and chemical weapons, and inspired the land mines treaty.” This writer well remembers an uncle who was gassed in World War I and never fully recovered; a world without chemical weapons brings solace. Imagining a world without nuclear weapons definitely brings peace.

After a crisis – climate disaster, pandemic, nuclear warfare – “Who cleans up the mess?” Fihn asked; and answered her own question: “Those people who make the least wages.” As this pandemic is making clear, she added, “those who really save us, in addition to the doctors and nurses, are the people who bring food and water,” and all the other service workers.

Warner pointed out that with other global threats – climate change, pandemics – the effect is felt, and then action is taken. But with nuclear weapons, once the effect is felt “it’s too late.”

Asked what gives her hope, Fihn said, “We’re at a point where women have more power, including women of color. More and more people are questioning the powerful. There are also growing calls for justice and anti-racism.” Plus, we’re only 14 countries away from having nuclear weapons be declared in violation of international law.

A final, hopeful note about the Sunday Brunch hosts: As of May 2020, the Ploughshares Fund Women’s Initiative had invested more than half a million dollars in 23 projects focused specifically on the impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the nuclear field. Highlighting the interconnectedness of nuclear weapons, women’s rights and other social justice issues is a powerful way to speed us toward a nuclear-free planet.

Which is a peaceful thought.

This essay appeared first on Medium.com, a fine site for ideas and information that I’ve been writing for in recent months. You might want to check it out too.

Environment/General interest/Politics & Causes/World Affairs

June 11, 2018June 14, 2018

On Preventing the Worst from Happening

by Fran Johns

The following is offered as a very small and personal side commentary, on the occasion of the leaders of the U.S. and North Korea meeting in Singapore.

Have you met the Ploughshares Fund? If you’re not anxious to see the planet blown away in a thermonuclear flash, the Ploughshares folks are good people to know.

Ploughshares was founded in 1981 by the indomitable sculptor/activist Sally Lilienthal, who was also a friend of my good husband. When I met her, soon after arriving in San Francisco in 1992, I became an instant fan.

1981 was the height of the Cold War, and Russia and the U.S. were on the brink of thermonuclear confrontation – each having enough nuclear weapons to obliterate this beautiful planet. Ploughshares set about the work of reducing those dangerous threats and has been remarkably successful. Stockpiles have been dramatically reduced – we’re down from the nearly 55,000 worldwide total in 1980 to the current figure of approximately 15,000. Over 90% are in the US and Russia; the rest are in China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. There may be fewer nuclear weapons, but there are plenty around to destroy life as we know it.

Which is why the world watched with some apprehension as two of perhaps the most erratic and unpredictable leaders of all time met to – we hope – find a way to avoid nuclear war.

Fran w Joe Cirincione 6.4.18 — With Joe Cirincione

I was privileged to hear Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione and Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer Philip Yun talk about the situation in general and North Korea in particular recently with a group of longtime supporters.

“We have a very simple philosophy,” Cirincione says: “prevent the worst from happening.” Re North Korea and the recent summit, “There might be some surprises. Trump could stumble into a good deal.” Pointing out that “we support policies, not presidents,” he said Donald Trump “could give North Korea something that Democratic presidents could not.”

This group, progressives to the core, swallowed hard. If you want not to see the planet wiped out in a thermonuclear frenzy, keeping North Korea from starting such an event trumps all distaste for our president.

Yun offered some history lessons and insight; he is a scholar of Korean affairs who has long been involved in U.S./N.Korea negotiations. “The North Koreans like symmetry,” he said. Any movement toward denuclearization “is going to have to be phased. (But) there are a lot of moving parts that could make us safer right now.”

Those were just several snippets of a conversation that was wide-ranging and in many ways encouraging. The fact that the Ploughshares people, and the people with organizations it funds, are working every day to keep the worst from happening is encouragement enough for now. dove of peace

So this writer, who watches in horror the environmental destruction and loss of human rights going on every day thanks to the policies of our current administration, swallowed hard and wished Mr. Trump & Mr. Kim every success in avoiding a thermonuclear planetary disaster.

General interest/Literature/Politicians/Politics & Causes/Travel/USA/World Affairs

December 28, 2016January 1, 2017

Russia — and Nuclear Arms Racing

by Fran Johns

moscow-cathedral

Russia occupies a soft spot in my heart.

It grew out of the boundless enthusiasm for everything Slavic exuded by my Russian-major college roommate – or may have been seeded earlier by the cloth-covered storybooks full of babushkas, snow-covered cottages and deep forests that I so loved as a child. It expanded through and beyond the one time I was lucky enough to visit the country. I love the vastness of its countryside, the majesty of its ancient cathedrals, the intriguing complexity of its history, the wonder of its literature, the no-nonsense hospitality of its people.

I especially love every single one of those non-English-speaking Russians who helped me find the Dostoesvsky Museum in St. Petersberg one day, as I wandered a very long boulevard, counting canals, clutching my map and repeatedly smiling at perfect strangers, pointing to the spot and saying “Dostoevsky Musee?” More than a dozen of them patiently took turns guiding me along. The last took me by the arm and walked me several blocks and down the steps to the obscure doorway through which I entered the last apartment inhabited by one of my literary heroes. (I would never have found it!)

Dostoevsky Museum.jpg

Many friends and strangers across the U.S. share this affection. Much travelled scientist/author Jo Anne Valentine Simson writes in her small, lovely new book Russia Revisited: Come Take a Tour with Me that it “is one of my favorite countries in the world – huge and beautiful, with a complex and tortured history and a culture to match.”

But we do not love Mr. Putin. From this vantage point, he is among a handful of dangerous tyrants determined to centralize power and increasingly restrict the freedom of ordinary citizens. Simson puts it this way: “Unfortunately, in 2016 the political power seems to be devolving once again into a form of aristocracy, with Vladimir Putin behaving like an autocrat.”

We also don’t like the prospect of nuclear annihilation. Or another dangerous arms race destined to increase the supply of nuclear weapons in the U.S., Russia and who knows where else. Which is why we find the “bring it on” tweets of our president-elect more than a little scary.

According to the good people of Ploughshares Fund, there are currently 15,375 nuclear weapons held by nine countries. The U.S. and Russia have 93 percent of them. That means each of us already has enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over. A small dispute between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, whom our president-elect admires but seems eager to challenge, could unleash a few and end life as we know it on this fragile planet.

A little less trash-tweeting and a little less talk about building nuclear stockpiles would be a nice Happy New Year gift for Russians and Americans alike.

General interest/journalism/Media/Politics & Causes/San Francisco/USA/World Affairs

October 13, 2016October 13, 2016

Nuclear-free World? Possibly. Some Day

by Fran Johns

Aaron Lobel (r) and Philip Yun at Ploughshares event

Ploughshares Fund supporters – Americans committed to reducing nuclear stockpiles, preventing new nuclear states, and increasing global security – recently got some encouraging words from a few of those on the front lines. Not that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world is near, but that it’s a lot closer than 35 years ago.

It was 35 years ago that Ploughshares founder Sally Lilienthal, a 62-year-old sculptor, human rights activist, mother and wife, gathered a few friends in her San Francisco living room to discuss what could be done to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons here and abroad. This was the year (1981) when Ronal Reagan unveiled a “strategic modernization program” which called for – among other things nuclear – thousands of additional warheads, a significant increase in bomber forces, including 100 B-lBs and the development of stealth bombers, a new land-based 10-warhead strategic missile (the MX), and new intermediate-range missile deployments in Europe. In addition, he proposed deploying more than 3,000 air-launched cruise missiles on bombers.

There may not be a lot of peace on earth today, but there are far fewer nuclear threats to that eventual possibility and Ploughshares Fund is one key reason why.

A group of longtime Ploughshares supporters gathered recently in San Francisco to hear about ongoing work in South Asia, where India and Pakistan have a combined total of 250 nuclear weapons at the ready – enough to create a catastrophe in the area and long-term distress across the planet if that conflict were to escalate. America Abroad Media, a Ploughshares grantee, is working to prevent such a catastrophe.

AAM founder and president Aaron Lobel was interviewed by Ploughshares Executive Director and COO Philip Yun on how media fits into the complex efforts to reduce global conflict, specifically in South Asia. “You can go back to the origins of Pakistan as a Muslim state,” Lobel says, “and the question of whether India even recognizes Pakistan’s legitimacy” to get a picture of the enormity of the problem. But media in the area gets large audiences and builds human bonds. AAM works through public radio, international town halls, documentary and news programming and other avenues to build a civil society.

“We continue to believe that a civil society ultimately makes a difference,” Lobel says; “media is just one part of it.” And can such a society exist, and make a difference, in areas like South Asia today? “Absolutely yes,” says Lobel. “The lawyers’ movement in Pakistan did make a difference; and there are people in the civil society (there) involved in moving the ball forward.”

Lobel spoke at length of AAM’s work in Afghanistan, where its media following included the president of the country for at least one program. “If the president watched,” one questioner asked, “how many others actually saw the program?” “A lot,” says Lobel. “People gather around a satellite TV in the villages – this is not like having dozens of channels and TV sets in every home.” world-peace

Ploughshares president Joseph Cirincione addressed the gathering on the broader issues, and the global outlook today. “In order for these guys (countries with smaller nuclear stockpiles) to give up nuclear weapons” Cirincione says, “they’re going to have to see the big guys doing it – and that’s not happening. We have to address the underlying issues (such as) water issues and religious issues. We also have to address the fundamental distrust. It’s important to recognize the power of media in addressing these issues to create a more peaceful world.” (“We fund the smartest people,” Yun adds, “with the best ideas.”)

Despite the discouraging prospects for global peace just now, Cirincione had a few nuggets of good news for the Ploughshares supporters:

“There were 70,000 nuclear weapons when we started,” he said; “there are 15,000 now. I believe the Iran nuclear deal has prevented war there for a generation. We can continue to work to make things better.”

General interest/World Affairs

January 16, 2014March 4, 2015

Skipping towards Armageddon

by Fran Johns

Those people wandering around with giant signs proclaiming “THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND!”? Sometimes you have to wonder if they’re onto something.

A recent Commonwealth Club program brought together two men proclaiming a similar message: the potential end of the world is at hand in the stockpiles of nuclear weapons — most of them in Russia or the U.S. — around the globe. They aren’t roaming the streets with hand-lettered signs, but they have written two informative, slightly scary new books. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione opened his talk by saying, “If you buy one book about nuclear weapons, buy this book.” He held up co-presenter Eric Schlosser’s Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident and the Illusion of Safety. Command and Control (full disclosure, I haven’t finished all 632 pages yet) is investigative journalist (Fast Food Nation) Schlosser‘s “ground-breaking account of accidents, near-misses, extraordinary heroism, and technological breakthroughs.” It covers the history of nuclear weapons accumulated by the U.S. since the days of the cold war, and it will make most other problems shrink to insignificance.

Cirincione’s own new book, Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late, covers the good news — only nine states now have nuclear weapons, down from 23, and “only” 17,000 such weapons still exist — and the bad: that’s enough to destroy the planet without much trouble. (Cirincione did later hold up his own fine, smaller work with the comment, “If you buy TWO books…”)

This not-so-comforting realization of what an edge of obliteration we live on was only one effect of the discussion. The other was sheer gratitude for the planet’s survival. Standing between you and me and the edge of oblivion are fallible human beings who have, so far, been able to avoid all the happenstances, large and small, that could trigger nuclear disaster. We can all hope they continue to guard the edge, but triggers for disaster are still everywhere: aging weaponry, international angst and mistrust, and the always possible lone crazy person.

Moderator David Holloway, Professor of International History at Stanford University, asked the elephant-in-the-room question: Would the author/experts agree with General Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Air Command, who said the avoidance of nuclear disaster was thanks to a combination of skill, luck and divine intervention?

“I would not cite divine intervention,” Schlosser replied. “But we’ve been very lucky.” Like climate change, the threat of nuclear disaster is brought about by human actions, he said, and can be corrected by the same. Both of the experts talked of the dangers existing around the globe from having 17,000 weapons stockpiled, from the tensions between many countries, and the possibility that terrorists could get their hands on a few weapons.

But the point was driven home to this audience member when Cirincione put it this way. It all started, he explained, because we wanted to deter the Soviet Union — now, presumably Russia — from annihilating us. So how many Russian cities would we need to obliterate, he asked, for an adequate deterrance? One? Two? Say, Moscow and St. Petersburg? Maybe three? He explained further that nuclear weapons make no attempt to pinpoint military targets and avoid collateral damage. They simply demolish everything and kill everybody. To accomplish this “deterrance”, wipe Russia’s three most significant cities off the map, would require eight nuclear weapons.

We have five thousand.

I’m still not counting out divine intervention.

1 2 Next