Author: Ariel Conn

1100 Declassified US Nuclear Targets

1100 Declassified US Nuclear Targets

How many nukes do you think are needed for deterrence?

The National Security Archives recently published a declassified list of U.S. nuclear targets from 1956, which spanned 1,100 locations across Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea. The map below shows all 1,100 nuclear targets from that list, and we’ve partnered with NukeMap to demonstrate how catastrophic a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia could be. If you click detonate from any of the dots, you can see how large an area would be destroyed by the bomb of your choice, as well as how many people could be killed.

Even though today’s nuclear targets list is classified, it probably doesn’t look dramatically different. The United States still has about 1,900 nuclear warheads deployed on missiles and bombers (with thousands more on reserve), ready to be launched at a moment’s notice and able to hit their targets within 30 minutes. This unstable situation is extremely risky and has repeatedly come close to triggering nuclear war by accident. Moreover, many of today’s hydrogen bombs are hundreds of times more powerful than the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If a nuclear war were to break out today, nuclear winter might kill most people on Earth.

This leads to an important question: Just how many nuclear weapons do we actually need? Seven of the nine nuclear nations have determined that deterrence requires fewer than 300 nuclear weapons, and none of them have been attacked. Yet, not only do the United States and Russia each have approximately 7,000 nuclear warheads — accounting for 90% of the world’s arsenal – both countries are currently escalating the situation, making massive investments to enhance their arsenals with more accurate and lethal nuclear weapons. Many military analysts agree that the U.S. and Russia could easily meet their deterrence needs with much fewer nuclear weapons. Even the Pentagon has stated that the U.S. needs no more than 1,000 nukes to deter a nuclear attack. But don’t take their word for it: play with the map yourself and see just how destructive nuclear weapons can be!

1100 Nuclear Targets, Radioactive Fallout, and Weather

While the maps above show a general radius of nuclear destruction, weather patterns would play a role in how many people would be affected by nuclear fallout. Given that weather can change day to day, if we drop a nuclear bomb near a border in one country on the wrong day, innocent people in a neighboring country could also suffer the effects of radioactive fallout. How far and in which direction the radioactive materials travel would depend on the size of the bomb and the local weather. In the following graphics, Alex Wellerstein simulates two terrifying possibilities (We recommend viewing the following slideshows in the full-screen option to more easily see where the radioactive material will travel.):

1) What would have happened if all 1,100 nuclear targets were struck by a nuclear weapon of a given size on April 29, 2016?

In this slideshow, the bombs grow larger, and the nuclear fallout spreads farther from the target in a direction that’s dictated by the local weather patterns. Note that this slideshow doesn’t yet show the effect of nuclear winter: if enough smoke from nuclear fires rises high into the stratosphere, it can spread across our planet and trigger a decade-long mini-ice-age and farming collapse, potentially killing most of Earth’s 7 billion people.

2) How would the direction of radioactive fallout change if the bombs were dropped on three different days?

In this case, we use weather data from April 29, April 30 and May 1 of 2016 to see how the direction of nuclear fallout changes if 100 kt bombs were dropped on the 1,100 nuclear targets (typical bombs today are many times more powerful). Different weather patterns would send nuclear fallout in different directions on each day. Pay close attention to countries like Germany, Denmark and Finland, which could get hit with radioactive fallout if the nuclear targets were struck on the wrong day.

Accidental Nuclear War: A Timeline of Close Calls

Accidental Nuclear War: A Timeline of Close Calls

The most devastating military threat arguably comes from a nuclear war started not intentionally but by accident or miscalculation. Accidental nuclear war has almost happened many times already, and with 15,000 nuclear weapons worldwide — thousands on hair-trigger alert and ready to launch at a moment’s notice — an accident is bound to occur eventually.

The list of close calls here is too long for comfort, yet it’s likely very incomplete, given that these represent only America’s declassified events. Many other events may have occurred in the U.S. that we don’t know about, and we certainly don’t know about close calls the other eight nuclear countries have had. Many nuclear experts are concerned about a war between India and Pakistan, and if one of them were to accidentally start a nuclear war, the resulting nuclear winter could kill 1 billion people worldwide.

Moreover, there are signs of the Cold War restarting. The U.S. and Russia are both upgrading their arsenals, which means new weapons and new ways for something in the system to go wrong. The risk of accidental nuclear war is only growing, and barring major initiatives for risk reduction, it’s merely a matter of time until our luck runs out.

Most of the reports in the timeline above come from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Files, Eric Schlosser’s book, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety, or Mother Jones. They are either paraphrased or directly quoted, and each links to the original source.

FLI members on the close calls they think were scariest

Anthony Aguirre: Perhaps it’s breaking the rules, but I would say the constellation of incidents *around* (and including) the Cuban missile crisis — so many!  It suggests that (a) when tensions escalate, it becomes dramatically more probable that unfortunate coincidences etc. will conspire to create big problems (like “Soviet Sub Captain…Crisis”) and (b) we were *very* lucky to get through the Cuban Missile crisis, and we have no good reason to be confident that we would make it through any similar flare-up in tensions.

Meia Chita-Tegmark: I find the incident of the bear triggering a nuclear alarm from October 25, 1962 very cynical. We humans are so hubristic when comparing ourselves to the rest of the animal kingdom, yet we’ve inadvertently created a system through which a single bear could endanger our civilization.

Ariel Conn: Richard Nixon’s depression is the scariest to me because that’s something that could happen at any time to any president. It’s not dependent on external conflicts with other countries, but internal, personal conflicts that the rest of the world may or may not know about. As mental health becomes a more recognized issue, it’s increasingly apparent that no one can really be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Victoria Krakovna: For me it would be a tie between the Arkhipov and Petrov incidents, and Presidential Depression is pretty scary as well. These examples show how much can depend on the decisions of a single person. 

Janos Kramar: I think perhaps the Yeltsin incident is scariest, simply because a nuclear football was involved and the missile itself had a plausible flight path for an opening EMP attack. But this is partly relying on my guess that in many other close-calls, the event wouldn’t have escalated to full MAD; if I’m wrong about this, then the Arkhipov incident seems scariest, since the 2 officers out of 3 agreeing to use their weapon clearly show that the disaster was close to happening. (~25% chance, by my count.)

Richard Mallah: I’d say the Petrov incident since he recalls his decision to override official processes as 50/50. Many other people would not have been so thoughtful as to question what their technology is telling them.

Lucas Perry: “Soviet Sub Captain Decides to Fire Nuclear Torpedo During Cuban Missile Crisis” This to me seemed the scariest because it makes clear that a small group of people with sufficient access to nuclear weapons, whom also have bad intentions or lack some vital information, could start a nuclear war. As the technology and knowledge needed to construct nuclear weapons continues to spread, the threat of nuclear war caused by some small group of people in some politically unstable country continues to increase. 

David Stanley: “Lost Contact with 50 Missiles” To me this is the scariest because, unlike the other events, this could potentially have led to an accidental launch of ICBMs rather than just a false alarm of an incoming attack. Additionally, the fact that it happened so recently highlights that our present safeguards are not necessarily more robust than those from 50 years ago.

Max Tegmark: “Soviet Sub Captain Decides to Fire Nuclear Torpedo During Cuban Missile Crisis” To me, this is both harrowing and educational: it shows how great risk can come from the combination of many separate unfortunate coincidences and misunderstandings that couldn’t start a nuclear war on their own, but can provide the perfect storm when combined. The fact that it remained secret for decades also suggests that there may be recent scary incidents that we haven’t yet heard of. 

The Risk of Nuclear Weapons

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union

Despite the end of the Cold War over two decades ago, humanity still has an estimated 13,410 nuclear weapons. Some of these are hundreds of times more powerful than those that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they may be able to create a decade-long nuclear winter that could kill most people on Earth. Yet the superpowers plan to invest over a trillion dollars upgrading their nuclear arsenals, which many experts believe increases the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and accidental nuclear war.

What do the experts worry about?

Common concerns span the spectrum from a nuclear terrorist attack against a single city, potentially killing millions of people, to all-out global nuclear war, potentially killing billions. Most experts agree that the average person is more likely to succumb to nuclear war than nuclear terrorism. Nuclear war can potentially kill 1000 times more people than a nuclear terrorist attack (billions rather than millions), but it is certainly not 1000 times less likely than nuclear terrorism. Plus, given the many near-misses that have already occurred, a nuclear war is more likely than many people realize.

How many people would all-out nuclear war kill?

Scientists continue to discover new lethal effects of nuclear war, so it is hard to be confident that we now know them all. First, the radiation risks were underestimated. Victims in the US have received over $2 billion in compensation for radiation exposure that resulted from nuclear testing and uranium handling. Then it was discovered that the electromagnetic pulse from a high-altitude detonation could potentially damage electronics and power grids across thousands of kilometers. A 1979 report by the US Government estimated that all-out war would kill 28%-88% of Americans and 22%-50% of Soviets (150-450 million people with today’s populations), but this was before the risk of nuclear winter was discovered in the 1980’s.

Average cooling (in °C) during the second summer after a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia (from Robock et al 2007).

Researchers realized that regardless of whose cities burned, massive amounts of smoke could spread around the globe, blocking out sunlight and transforming summers into winters, much like when asteroids or supervolcanoes caused mass extinctions in the past. However, today’s climate models are far more accurate than those run on the supercomputers of the 1980’s, and we now know that the reports from the 80s significantly underestimated the impact of an extended nuclear winter. The map above published by Robock et al (2007) shows cooling by about 20°C (36°F) in much of the core farming regions of the US, Europe, Russia and China (by 35°C in parts of Russia) for the first two summers, and about half that even a full decade later. Years of near-freezing summer temperatures would eliminate most of our food production. It is hard to predict exactly what would happen if thousands of Earth’s largest cities were reduced to rubble and global infrastructure collapsed, but whatever small fraction of all humans don’t succumb to starvation, hypothermia or epidemics would need to cope with roving, armed gangs desperate for food.

Self-Assured Destruction (SAD)

There are large uncertainties in Nuclear Winter predictions. For example how much smoke is produced and how high up it rises would determine its severity and longevity. Given this uncertainty, there is no guarantee that most people would survive. It has therefore been argued that the traditional nuclear doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) be replaced by Self-Assured Destruction (SAD): even if one of the two superpowers were able to launch its full nuclear arsenal against the other without any retaliation whatsoever, nuclear winter would still assure the attacking country’s self-destruction.

Recent Developments

The nuclear freeze movement, the discovery of nuclear winter, and the end of the Cold War led countries to slash the global nuclear stockpile by about 75%. The superpowers pledged to continue nuclear disarmament in §6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the last decade has seen little progress, and deteriorating US-Russian relations have recently triggered talk of a second cold war.

The nuclear freeze is thawing. The US, Russia and other powers now plan to invest over $1 trillion to create new, more modern nuclear weapons. Many experts argue that thousands of nuclear warheads are more than enough for effective deterrence, while building new ones weakens national security, makes accidental war more likely and more devastating, encourages additional nations to go nuclear, and gives terrorists easier access to bomb-making materials.

We at FLI agree with these experts, and we therefore oppose the design and production of new nuclear weapons. We also support the removal of nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, which further increases the risk of accidental war.

“…if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

Barack Obama, 2009

Recommended References

Videos

Research Papers

Research Collections

Blog Posts & Apps

Other organizations aiming to reduce nuclear risks:

  • Don’t Bank on the Bomb: A European effort to discourage investments in companies that help build or upgrade nuclear weapons.
  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency: Official U.S. combat support agency for countering weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical, and high yield explosive threats.
  • Institute for Science and International Security: Analyzes and communicates to the public on the science and policy behind nuclear nonproliferation and related international security issues, with emphasis on tracking nuclear weapons programs worldwide.
  • Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies (C-PET): A wide network of knowledgeable professionals who identify, clarify, and prioritize the big questions raised in a future perspective to cultivate a context within which solutions can be developed.
  • The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: National non-partisan, non-profit dedicated to enhancing peace and security through expert policy analysis and thought-provoking research.
  • Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy: Develops and supports multilateral disarmament and security agreements
  • Abolition 2000: An international global network of organizations and individuals working for a global treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
  • Cambridge Center for Existential Risk: Multidisciplinary research center within the University of Cambridge to study and mitigate existential risks
  • Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: Advocacy group that seeks nuclear disarmament in Britain and the establishment of an international treaty banning all nuclear weapons
  • Federation of American Scientists: Think tank focused on providing analysis and policy recommendations on national and international security issues related to applied science and technology
  • Future of Humanity Institute: Oxford-based research organization analyzing big-picture questions for human civilization in an attempt to help shape the future of humanity
  • Global Catastrophic Risk Institute: Think tank leading research, education, and professional networking on the full breadth of major global catastrophic risks
  • Global Zero: International movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Powered by a visionary group of 300 international leaders and experts who support our bold, step-by-step plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030, the relentless creativity, energy and optimism of young people and half a million citizens worldwide, Global Zero is challenging the 20th century idea of basing national security on the threat of mass destruction.
  • Human Survival Project: Seeks to protect humanity from nuclear holocaust and its societal and environmental aftermath; a joint initiative of the University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the and People for Nuclear Disarmament
  • The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN): Coalition of non-governmental organizations in one hundred countries promoting adherence to and implementation of the United Nations nuclear weapon ban treaty. This landmark global agreement was adopted in New York on 7 July 2017, and ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2017.
  • James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies: Middlebury College-based organization focused on reducing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and training future nonproliferation experts
  • Leverage Research: A team of researchers, inventors, educators, and activists focused on improving the world. Their research includes reducing catastrophic risk from totalitarianism and artificial general intelligence
  • Lifeboat Foundation: A non-profit organization encouraging scientific advancement while reducing existential risk and other possibly harmful outcomes from emerging technologies, including nanotechnology, robotics, AI, and genetic engineering
  • Mayors for Peace: Close cooperation among the cities that strives to raise international public awareness regarding the need to abolish nuclear weapons. It contributes to the realization of genuine and lasting world peace by working to eliminate starvation and poverty, assist refugees fleeing local conflict, support human rights, protect the environment, and solve the other problems that threaten peaceful coexistence within the human family.
  • National Security Archive: Library of declassified U.S. documents related to nuclear weapons, government secrecy, and other issues based at George Washington University; also supports research and investigative journalism
  • Nautilus Institute: Assembles professionals and conducts research to help solve threats of nuclear war, urban and energy insecurity, and climate change with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region
  • Nuclear Threat Initiative: Non-profit organization focused on strengthening global security by reducing the societal risk posed by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
  • Outrider Group: With their interactive features and in-depth articles, Outrider Group seeks to educate the public about the risks of nuclear war and climate-induced catastrophe and explain how people can become part of the solution.
  • Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND): Non-partisan forum for parliamentarians nationally and internationally to share resources and information, develop cooperative strategies and engage in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues, initiatives and arenas.
  • Pax Christi USA (PCUSA): Grounded in the Gospel and Catholic social teaching, PCUSA is a membership organization that rejects war, preparation for war, every form of violence and domination, and personal and systemic racism. As PCUSA, a section of Pax Christi International, we are a Catholic peace and justice movement that seeks to model the Peace of Christ in our witness to the mandate of the nonviolence of the Cross.
  • Peace Action: The nation’s largest grassroots peace network with chapters and affiliates in states across the country.
  • People for Nuclear Disarmament: A citizens?? group based in Sydney promoting nuclear disarmament and related issues
  • Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR): Working for more than 50 years to create a healthy, just and peaceful world for both the present and future generations. PSR advocates on the issues you care about by addressing the dangers that threaten communities, such as nuclear weapons.
  • Ploughshares Fund: Supports analysis and advocacy towards improving global security and peace via reductions in nuclear arsenals
  • Program on Science and Global Security: Research group based at Princeton University studying nuclear weapons, biosecurity, and related issues
  • Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs : Bring together scientists, academics, and public policy specialists to discuss the latest scientific insight to help reduce threats facing global society arising from science and technology, such as nuclear weapons and other WMDs
  • Reaching Critical Will: A Women??s International League for Peace and Freedom program that works to increase the influence of NGOs in UN disarmament processes including for nuclear and other weapons
  • Skoll Global Threats Fund: Promotes research, education, governance, and outreach towards confronting global catastrophic risks
  • Stimson Center: Washington D.C. based think tank focused on improving global security and reducing weapons of mass destruction
  • The Union of Concerned Scientists: Works on developing and implementing innovative, practical solutions to some of our planet’s most pressing problems—from combating global warming and developing sustainable ways to feed, power, and transport ourselves, to fighting misinformation, advancing racial equity, and reducing the threat of nuclear war.
  • US Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review: A legislatively-mandated review that establishes U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture for the next five to ten years.
  • US National Nuclear Security Administration : Agency within the U.S. Department of Energy charged with managing and securing U.S. nuclear weapons, nuclear nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactors
  • William J. Perry Project: Created by Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry, this project seeks to stimulate an informed and broadly inclusive public conversation about the role of nuclear weapons in today’s world and to work toward a world in which nuclear weapons are never used again.
  • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington D.C. based research center focused on bridging scholars with policy experts in a host of fields, including global environmental change, nuclear proliferation, international security, and global sustainability and resilience
  • World Beyond War: Global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
  • World Institute for Nuclear Security: Helps secure nuclear and radioactive materials from theft, unauthorized access, and sabotage.

Many of the organizations listed on this page and their descriptions are from a list compiled by the Global Catastrophic Risk institute; we are most grateful for the efforts that they have put into compiling it. These organizations above all work on nuclear technology issues, though many cover other topics as well. This list is undoubtedly incomplete; please contact us to suggest additions or corrections.

An Open Letter from Scientists in Support of the UN Nuclear Weapons Negotiations

An Open Letter from Scientists in Support of the UN Nuclear Weapons Negotiations

Nuclear arms are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet prohibited by an international convention, even though they are the most destructive and indiscriminate weapons ever created. We scientists bear a special responsibility for nuclear weapons, since it was scientists who invented them and discovered that their effects are even more horrific than first thought. Individual explosions can obliterate cities, radioactive fallout can contaminate regions, and a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse may cause mayhem by frying electrical grids and electronics across a continent. The most horrible hazard is a nuclear-induced winter, in which the fires and smoke from as few as a thousand detonations might darken the atmosphere enough to trigger a global mini ice age with year-round winter-like conditions. This could cause a complete collapse of the global food system and apocalyptic unrest, potentially killing most people on Earth – even if the nuclear war involved only a small fraction of the roughly 14,000 nuclear weapons that today’s nine nuclear powers control. As Ronald Reagan said: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Unfortunately, such a war is more likely than one may hope, because it can start by mistake, miscalculation or terrorist provocation. There is a steady stream of accidents and false alarms that could trigger all-out war, and relying on never-ending luck is not a sustainable strategy. Many nuclear powers have larger nuclear arsenals than needed for deterrence, yet prioritize making them more lethal over reducing them and the risk that they get used.

But there is also cause for optimism. On March 27 2017, an unprecedented process begins at the United Nations: most of the world’s nations convene to negotiate a ban on nuclear arms, to stigmatize them like biological and chemical weapons, with the ultimate goal of a world free of these weapons of mass destruction. We support this, and urge our national governments to do the same, because nuclear weapons threaten not merely those who have them, but all people on Earth.

If you are a scientist who wishes to add your name to this letter, please click here.

The Nuclear Notebook

The Nuclear Notebook

The Nuclear Notebook is co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda and published bi-monthly in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Each issue provides a snapshot of a nuclear-armed country weapons programs or a global nuclear weapons matter. The Nuclear Notebook is one of the most widely sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons, and it is the most visited section of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists web site. Starting in 2020, the Bulletin only offers the Notebooks in web format, but full PDF formats are still available from Taylor & Francis. Because of their importance as a resource to an informed public debate about nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Notebooks are freely available on the Internet.

The most recent Nuclear Notebooks are listed here. Issues dating back to the very first issue in May 1987 can be found here.

The FAS Nuclear Weapons Page

The FAS Nuclear Weapons Page

The Nuclear Information Project provides the public with reliable information about the status and trends of the nuclear weapons arsenals of the world’s nuclear-armed countries.

The project, which according to the Washington Post is “one of the most widely sourced agencies for nuclear warhead counts,” uses open sources such as official documents, testimonies, previously undisclosed information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as independent analysis of commercial satellite imagery as the basis for developing the best available unclassified estimates of the status and trends of nuclear weapons worldwide.

The project also conducts analysis of the role of nuclear weapons and provides recommendations for responsibly reducing the numbers and role of nuclear weapons.

The research is mainly published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog, in the Nuclear Notebook in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the World Nuclear Forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook, as well as in magazines. As a primary source for reliable information on nuclear weapons, the project is a frequent advisor to governments, parliamentarians, the news media, institutes, and non-governmental organizations.

The Nuclear Information Project is directed by Hans M. Kristensen in collaboration with Matt Korda and Robert S. Norris. The project also collaborates with experts and organizations, including Matthew McKinzie at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

PROJECT RESOURCES:

This work builds on the Nuclear Weapons Databook project that Thomas Cochran and Robert Norris managed at NRDC for many years. Many of their publications are available here at FAS via the Cochran Archive and the Norris Archive.

The Nuclear Information Project is currently supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the New Land Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the Prospect Hill Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York (via an NRDC sub-contract).

Status of World Nuclear Forces

Status of World Nuclear Forces

By Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda

[Current update: September 2020] The number of nuclear weapons in the world has declined significantly since the Cold War: down from a peak of approximately 70,300 in 1986 to an estimated 13,410 in early-2020. Government officials often portray that accomplishment as a result of current or recent arms control agreements, but the overwhelming portion of the reduction happened in the 1990s. Some also compare today’s numbers with that of the 1950s, but that is like comparing apples and oranges; today’s forces are vastly more capable. The pace of reduction has slowed significantly compared with the 1990s. Instead of planning for nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future, are adding new nuclear weapons, and are increasing the role that such weapons play in their national strategies.

Click on graph to view full size.

Despite progress in reducing Cold War nuclear arsenals, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: roughly 13,410 warheads as of early-2020. Of these, nearly 9,320 are in the military stockpiles (the rest are awaiting dismantlement), of which some 3,720 warheads are deployed with operational forces, of which about 1,800 US, Russian, British and French warheads are on high alert, ready for use on short notice.

Approximately 91 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States who each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles; no other nuclear-armed state sees a need for more than a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security:

Click on graph to view full size.

Globally, the number of nuclear weapons is declining, but the pace of reduction is slowing compared with the past 30 years. The United States , Russia, and the United Kingdom are reducing their overall warhead inventories, France and Israel have relatively stable inventories, while China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are increasing their warhead inventories.

All the nuclear weapon states continue to modernize their remaining nuclear forces, adding new types, increasing the role they serve, and appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future. For an overview of global modernization programs, see our contribution to the SIPRI Yearbook. Individual country profiles are available from the FAS Nuclear Notebook.

For more information about each country’s stockpiles visit the FAS Status of World Nuclear Forces page.

Strategic Security

Strategic Security

A blog by the Federation of American Scientists about various aspects of nuclear and strategic security.

Strategic Security

Read More
Continue Reading

Campaigning Lessons & Examples

Campaigning Lessons & Examples

Lessons from other campaigners

Experiences of ICAN and Cluster Munition Coalition campaigners, offer some helpful lessons:

Collaborate with other NGOs also those who may not be in your traditional network. This is effective and efficient as each NGO brings complementary competencies to the campaign. It also strengthens your call for action when you show that you are representing a broad coalition.

Seek out dialogue and take advantage of opportunities to engage, including private discussions with the financial institutions. It can be helpful to have these conversations before launching a public campaign. The threat of the launch of a public campaign when private discussions do not lead to the expected results can be helpful in shifting policies.

Give a clear schedule with deadlines for financial institutions to deliver results. Consider using the upcoming 70th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Japan (August 2015) as a hook.

Build up a good level of technical knowledge of the internal workings and technical dimensions of banks, pension funds and insurance companies. This allows for a constructive dialogue on an equal footing. Campaigners don’t need to know every detail, but if a financial institution says that it cannot divest, remember that the burden of proof is on them to show why not (especially as others already have!) It’s okay not to know all the details, and it’s a great reason to partner with a financial watchdog organisation in your country who might have more expertise and bring them into the campaign.

Maintain a clear focus on your specific aim to stop financing nuclear weapon producers. Try not to mix your core message with broader complaints about or attacks on financial institutions. This will be appreciated by the financial institution you want to talk with and may help to achieve better results for your campaign.

Stay true to your principles. Financial institutions have to adopt an explicit policy of no investment in / no financing of nuclear weapon manufacturers. When you’re speaking with them, combine your principled demand with a reasonable degree of flexibility and a realistic approach on the actual implementation of adopted policy. Implementing a policy takes time and financial institutions will appreciate your pragmatic approach.

Be thorough by making sure that 1) the policy adopted by banks and insurance companies covers proprietary as well as third party investment and, more generally, any form of financing, 2) that it becomes a public policy, among other things by being published on the institution’s web site and 3) that it ends up being reflected in the institution’s internal rules or codes of conduct and therefore can be controlled by the internal auditors.

Display public documents by sending copies to be posted on www.dontbankonthebomb.com to increase transparency on the exchanges between NGOs and companies, as well as to raise awareness among the Corporate Social Responsibility community.

Engage the Public on Divestment

Engage the Public on Divestment

Divestment campaigns can be a great way to engage the public on the nuclear weapons issue. Previous divestment campaigns have played a significant part in bringing about positive change in society. Divestment campaigning is a way to engage the general public and a way for people to feel connected to creating change. Almost every member of the public has a bank account or is part of a pension plan: Therefore, if their bank or pension fund invest in nuclear weapon producers, so do they. Divestment campaigns are a way to bring an abstract issue such as nuclear disarmament back to personal decisions on where people put their own money.

There is increased awareness among the public about the way financial institutions behave and how they invest their money. There are a number of reasons for this, including the recent financials crisis and calls for austerity as well as the growing trend towards ethical investment. Investment with impunity is no longer the norm. Most people, especially those living in countries without nuclear weapons weapons, would be shocked to know that their money is going towards the maintenance and modernisation of these weapons.

Banks have a large customer base which means that campaigners have large numbers of potential campaign supporters. If enough people take action and express concern over their bank of pension fund investing in nuclear weapons, or if enough customers threaten to withdraw their funds and change their bank accounts, this can have a decisive impact on a bank’s decision to divest from companies involved in nuclear weapons.

Many of the ideas for campaign actions in this guide are inspired by others. Notably campaigners of the Cluster Munition Coalition who successfully changed bank policies and practices on cluster bombs. Other ideas come from ICAN partners who are already actively engaged in changing financial institution policies on nuclear weapons.

Divestment campaigns can be a cross cutting campaigning effort for a range of humanitarian disarmament initiatives, and a way to engage with new actors in your civil society. Social media and networking are also useful ways to engage the public in campaign actions.

Ideas for campaign actions

Public actions

Creating good visuals can stimulate your campaign, and organising public actions outside banks or other financial institutions can have an impact on the public, the press and the financial institution itself.  Consider the picture that you are creating through your action-  what do you want people walking by to think when they see you?  Also consider the financial institution in question- is it one that is likely to change its policy?  Is it  the headquarters, or a branch office?  It’s good to check in with other campaigners in your country or region, to make sure that any public action contributes to efforts, and doesn’t risk having a negative impact on any ongoing private discussions with the financial institutions.

Some ideas for action:

Giving a helping hand! If a financial institution has a good policy, consider setting up a pair of giant hands that give applause when personnel walk in and out of the building.  The hands can have writing on them that says something like “XXX financial institution is giving us a hand to ban nuclear weapons!”

Let the people speak!  At a branch of a financial institution that doesn’t have headquarters in your country, consider having one big sign, and gathering signatures of clients coming and out of the building, then delivering those signatures to the branch manager.  Make it more visual by bringing some signs or banners.  (Just make sure to be aware of regulations about demonstrating on private property.)

Shareholding! You can buy shares and take the floor at shareholders meetings. This is something that’s often done with the nuclear weapons producing companies.  The media are already present, and a powerful speaker can at least raise questions in the minds of those who profit from that company’s business.  Picket lines and demonstrations are also great ways to provide additional visuals outside of these meetings.

Some examples of actions:

In Australia

Campaigners dressed up as nuclear bombs and asked the Future Fund to divest from nuclear weapons. You can see a short film of their action here: http://youtu.be/FlwHIl-WBP0

In the Netherlands

Campaigners working with a national fair banking coalition (Eerlijke Bankwijzer) launched a nationally focused report and presented it to members of parliament and the public. PAX, as one of the Eerlijke Bankwijzer members also coordinated an opera, calling on banks to divest.You can watch the video of the opera here: http://youtu.be/dyJcObfkSSw

Letter and postcard actions

Engaging in dialogue with financial institutions about their investments in nuclear weapons companies can help to raise their understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons and their status under international law. Mobilize organisations and supporters in your country to send letters to financial institutions that are investing in nuclear weapons and to the government. Consider holding a letter writing party with some friends.

You can also ask people to sign onto postcards at cash machines from that financial institution. During the cluster munitions campaign, people stood next to the ATM machines and asked customers to sign a postcard requesting ABN Amro divest from cluster munitions producers.  It created public awareness, and public pressure on ABN Amro, who then divested.

Here are some tips for letter-writing:

How to Begin: Let the financial institution know who you are. Do you hold a bank account with them? Are you a member of their superannuation plan? Do you own shares in their company? Are you writing as a representative of a particular organization? Are you simply a concerned citizen?

What to Include: Inform the financial institution that you are aware of their investments in nuclear weapons companies. Specify which companies and briefly describe the activities these companies are engaged in. Outline why you believe that financing nuclear weapons is illegitimate.

Ask for Information: Inquire as to whether the financial institution has a policy on investing in the arms industry. If you are already aware that such a policy exists, ask the institution to explain how its investments in nuclear weapons companies can be justified under the terms of the policy.

Call for Action: Call on the financial institution to divest from all nuclear weapons companies. Explain that nuclear weapons are illegal to use and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

End by making it clear that you expect a response, and share that response with other campaigners through the Don’t Bank on the Bomb website.

Adjust the template below to suit your circumstances.

Dear Chief Executive Officer,

I am writing to you as a concerned customer of your bank. I recently read a report indicating that your bank has provided capital loans to three companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons.

Those companies are:

  • Orbital ATK, which produces rocket propulsion systems for Trident II and Minuteman III nuclear missiles;
  • Honeywell International, which produces 85 per cent of the non-nuclear components for US nuclear weapons;
  • BAE Systems, which is involved in the American, British and French nuclear weapons programmes.

The financing of these companies contributes to the build-up and modernization of nuclear arms and undermines efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. It also heightens the risk that one day these inhumane weapons will be used again.

Any use of nuclear weapons would violate fundamental rules of international law and have catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences. I strongly encourage you to divest from these companies without delay.

The support of your bank and other financial institutions will be crucial to the success of worldwide efforts to abolish nuclear weapons. I hope that you will assist rather than impede efforts to eliminate this ultimate threat to our future.

I want my savings to help secure my future and that of my family, not undermine it. Unless you can reassure me that you will no longer invest in nuclear weapons producers, I intend to move my funds elsewhere.

I look forward to your response to these concerns.

Yours sincerely,

C.C.
Concerned Customer