Author: Ariel Conn

Nuclear Accident

HAVE THERE EVER BEEN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  

Examples include accidental launch, non-nuclear detonation, and loss of weapons. Thirty two of these incidents have been confirmed by the Department of Defense. Many more are likely unconfirmed; a study in the 1970’s found that a minimum of 1,200 U.S. nuclear weapons were involved in incidents between 1950 and 1968. Many more accidents have occurred in other countries that have nuclear weapons.

WHAT IS A “BROKEN ARROW”? 

A “broken arrow” is an accidental event that involves nuclear weapons which doesn’t risk a nuclear conflict between states. In the history of the United States nuclear program, there have been 33 broken arrow incidents officially confirmed by the Pentagon.

Video: A brief, terrifying history of America’s nuclear mishaps

See a list of all known “Broken Arrow” incidents→

WHAT ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLES OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES?

1961, Goldsboro, North Carolina: Two 4-megaton (400 million pounds of TNT) hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro. Of four safety mechanisms in one bomb, three failed to work properly. A single low voltage switch kept the weapon from detonating. 

EOD personnel work to recover the buried Mk. 39 thermonuclear bomb that fell into a North Carolina field in 1961 - Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

1968, Atlantic Ocean: The U.S.S. Scorpion, a submarine believed to be carrying two nuclear torpedoes, sank in the Atlantic, taking the missiles down with it.  

Bow section of the sunken Scorpion containing two nuclear torpedoes on the sea floor. Photo courtesy U.S. Navy

1980, Grand Forks, North Dakota: A B-52 bomber carrying 12 hydrogen bombs and nuclear missiles was engulfed in a jet-fuel fed fire for over three hours, risking exploding the conventional missiles on board the bomber that could have caused a chain reaction detonating the nuclear bombs that were also aboard.  

September 1980, a B-52 bomber loaded with 12 hydrogen bombs and nuclear warheads caught fire. The Guardian

1980, Damascus, Arkansas: A dropped tool pierced the metal casing of a Titan II ICBM, causing a fuel leak and fire. The conventional charge exploded; the nuclear warhead did not.

Staff Sgt. Virginia Sullivan, a public information officer at Little Rock Air Force Base when this photo was taken Aug. 27, 1981, sits in the debris field created by a fatal explosion Sept. 19, 1980, at Titan II missile silo 374-7 north of Damascus.  Democrat-Gazette File Photo

See a timeline of all declassified nuclear accidents →

NuclearTimeline.jpg

WHAT IS HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT?

Read more about taking nuclear missiles off hair-trigger alert →

Nuclear missiles that are kept in a state of readiness that allows them to be launched within minutes after a decision to launch are commonly said to be on “hair-trigger alert.” The military sometimes refers to this status as “high alert,” or “launch-on-warning status.”

The United States and Russia keep their missiles on hair-trigger alert so they can be launched within minutes of a decision to do so, in response to warning of an incoming attack based on data from radars and satellites.  Maintaining the option of launching weapons on warning of an attack leads to rushed decision making. It would take a land-based missile about 30 minutes to fly between Russia and the United States; a submarine-based missile could strike in as little as 10 to 15 minutes after launch. 

After receiving warning of an attack, political and military leaders would have very little time to assess the credibility of the warning and decide how to respond. This time pressure increases the chance that the U.S. or Russian president would order a launch based on faulty sensor data, a computer glitch, or other erroneous information. Such problems have occurred repeatedly over the past decades and nearly led to a Soviet launch against the United States in 1983. Maintaining the ability to launch within minutes also reduces the barriers to or safeguards against accidental and unauthorized launches – and a missile once launched cannot be recalled. 

AREN’T THERE SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT AGAINST ACCIDENTS?

Years of near misses highlight the problems with US nuclear policy. 

Spin the wheel of near misfortune >

Nuclear weapons do have safeguards and redundancies to prevent against accidental nuclear detonation. But, the above accidents illustrate that safeguards can easily fail. As the nuclear arsenal continues to age, it is increasingly likely that existing safeguards will not be sufficient to prevent a detonation. No nuclear weapons, even those with modern safeguards, are immune to accidents.  The consequences of a “broken arrow” incident involving a nuclear detonation are enormous. Lives in the immediate area would be lost; fallout could spread across the United States. Each additional nuclear weapon that is maintained increases the risk of an accident.

READ MORE ABOUT NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS:

Atomic Gaffes

Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents

Declassified: Nuclear Weapons at Sea

U.S. Nearly Detonated Nuclear Bomb over North Carolina

The Week the World Almost Ended

Courtesy of the William J Perry Project.

The Nuclear Triad

WHAT IS THE NUCLEAR TRIAD?

The nuclear triad refers to the ways in which nuclear weapons can be delivered.

The triad is composed of three delivery methods: air, sea, and land:

1.     Strategic Bombers

The United States maintains 76 B-52 jets and 20 B-2 jets to equipped to drop nuclear weapons. The strategic bomber fleet has approximately 300 warheads. Many of these aircraft were constructed soon after World War II and are over 50 years old.

B-2 Spirit bomber at Andersen Air Force Base  - Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

B-2 Spirit bomber at Andersen Air Force Base – Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

2.     Submarines

The U.S. currently maintains 14 Trident submarines, each carrying 24 nuclear-tipped missiles, for a total of around 1,000 warheads. Depending on the type of warhead, each one is 7 to 30 times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. These missiles are capable of striking both land and sea targets.

Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Rhode Island - Photo courtesy U.S. Navy

Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Rhode Island – Photo courtesy U.S. Navy

3.     Missiles

The U.S. maintains 440 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in underground silos around the United States. Each missile has the 20 to 31 times the explosive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Vandenberg Airmen conduct Minuteman III flight test - Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

Vandenberg Airmen conduct Minuteman III flight test – Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

The United States and Russia have maintained triad capabilities since the Cold War, while China has recently developed its triad capabilities.   

WHY DOES THE TRIAD EXIST?

One word: redundancy. The intention of the triad was to maintain a constant threat of nuclear attack, one that was nearly impervious to attack. If bombers and land-based missiles were rendered inoperable, submarines could launch nuclear missiles. If submarines and land-based missiles didn’t succeed, bombers could do the job.   

The triad was created in a time in which intentional nuclear war between countries was a serious possibility.  That’s no longer the world we live in.

IS THE TRIAD STILL NECESSARY?

While some have argued that the current triad is necessary to maintain deterrence, Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has argued that deterrence can be maintained with two of the three components. Phasing out land-based missiles from the triad would reduce the risk of accidents and eliminate static ground targets within the United States. Eliminating these weapons has significant support from nuclear weapons experts and organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Ploughshares Fund, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The other two legs of the triad–decentralized submarines and a highly mobile air fleet–are more than sufficient to deter threats.

Components of the triad should be phased out as their useful lives expire.  The alternative is spending billions to modernize planes, submarines, and missiles to prepare for an intentional nuclear war between countries that will never arrive.

READ MORE ABOUT THE NUCLEAR TRIAD:

NTI Tutorial: Missiles and Other WMD Delivery Systems

Former SecDef: Remove ICBMs from Nuclear Triad

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues

Courtesy of the William J Perry Project.

Nuclear Deterrence

WHAT IS NUCLEAR DETERRENCE?

The principle of nuclear deterrence states that a country’s possession of nuclear weapons discourages other countries from using nuclear weapons.

From the perspective of a country, nuclear deterrence operates on a simple promise: if you use nuclear weapons against us, we’ll use them against you.

WHAT IS MAD?

MAD stands for “Mutually Assured Destruction,” a belief that a full-scale nuclear war would result in the annihilation of all participants. MAD is a concept that originated during the Cold War and represents nuclear deterrence taken to the extreme.

Again from a country’s perspective, the theory of mutually assured destruction states: if nuclear weapons are used against us, we’ll retaliate with a massive nuclear strike and both of us will be destroyed.  

DOES NUCLEAR DETERRENCE RESPOND TO THE CURRENT THREATS?

Put simply, no. Terrorists and non-state actors are not deterred by the number of nuclear weapons in a country’s arsenal. To the contrary, those weapons may become targets for theft or attack.

Nuclear deterrence has also failed to prevent countries from engaging in low-level conventional conflicts with other states. Russia’s territorial aggression in Crimea illustrates the inability of the vast arsenals of NATO members to prevent non-nuclear conflicts.

The current U.S. nuclear arsenal wasn’t built to counter these threats. Rather than reducing the risk of conflict, large arsenals of nuclear weapons create new threats by increasing the likelihood of accidents and miscalculation.

Globalization, active diplomacy, and traditional nuclear deterrence ensure that a full scale intentional nuclear attack from a country is exceedingly unlikely.

HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE REQUIRED FOR DETERRENCE?

Far fewer than the 4500 in the current U.S. arsenal.

Since 1991, the United States has dismantled nearly twice the number of nuclear warheads (9,866) than currently exist in the arsenal (4,500) with no loss to deterrence. President Obama has said that roughly 1,000 weapons would be necessary to sustain a deterrent. While there isn’t an exact “magic number” of nuclear weapons needed to retain a credible deterrent, thousands more could be dismantled without any negative consequences for deterrence.

READ MORE ABOUT NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: 

“American Nuclear Strategy: The Case for a Minimal Deterrence Strategy”

Courtesy of the William J Perry Project.

Take Action via Win Without War

Take Action via Win Without War

Take Action via Win Without War

Read More
Continue Reading

Nuclear Policy Resources

Nuclear Policy Resources

Grounded by bedrock progressive foreign policy principles, Win Without War develops foreign and national security policy and legislative recommendations for the ecosystem of Members of Congress and their staff, non-governmental organizations, think tanks and individuals.

Visit their page for up to date policy suggestions.

Nuclear Policy Resources

Read More
Continue Reading

Issue brief and recommendations: Nuclear weapons

Download the brief here.

Win Without War: Issue Brief and Recommendations

Read More
Continue Reading

Nuclear Weapons in the News

Improve the News

An automated news aggregator to help you learn how organizations on different sides of the political spectrum cover nuclear weapons issues.

Nuclear Weapons in the News

Read More
Continue Reading

Nuclear Weapons Solutions

Nuclear Weapons Solutions

Progress on US nuclear weapons policy may be slow and incremental—but it’s possible.

Roughly 9,000 nuclear weapons are hidden away in bunkers and missile siloes, stored in warehouses, at airfields and naval bases, and carried by dozens of submarines across the world.

A single warhead can demolish a city center. A full-fledged nuclear war would threaten life as we know it.

But the risk of nuclear war isn’t fixed; with the right policies and safeguards, we can help protect against mistakes, accidents, and poor decision-making—and we can work toward a world free from the nuclear threat.

No-first-use

Nuclear weapons are meant to deter nuclear attacks from other countries. However, current policy allows the United States to begin a nuclear war by being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict—in response to a non-nuclear attack by North Korea, Russia, or China. A “no-first-use” policy would take this option off the table. The United States could pledge that it will never be the first to use a nuclear weapon, regardless of the circumstances. Doing so would reduce the risk of miscalculation during a crisis, and limit the possibility of a smaller, non-nuclear conflict escalating into a nuclear one. Without no-first-use, the US public is at risk of a devastating retaliatory attack, should the United States ever cross the threshold and start a nuclear war.

Sole authority

In the United States, the president is singlehandedly responsible for the decision to launch a nuclear weapon. They are not required to consult with anyone, and no one carries the authority to stop a legal launch order once given.

This system of control (known as “sole authority”) isn’t the only way to handle launch decisions. Other officials could securely be included in the decision, providing checks and balances and a basic defense against mistakes, accidents, miscalculations, and recklessness.

De-alerting

Currently, 400 nuclear-tipped missiles in the US heartland are kept on “hair-trigger alert.” If sensors show an incoming nuclear attack that threatens these missiles, it’s US policy to alert the president, who would need to order their almost immediate launch to prevent them from being destroyed—before the attack is confirmed as real.

But sensors can be wrong. A long list of nuclear close calls—which include technical malfunctions, miscommunications, and plain bad luck—shows how close we’ve come to mistakenly starting nuclear war.

Taking these missiles off hair-trigger alert (or “de-alerting”) would immediately remove the risk of a mistaken or accidental launch, while preserving our ability to retaliate with missiles on submarines hidden at sea.

Smarter spending

The United States is currently planning to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion dollars over the next three decades to maintain and replace its entire nuclear arsenal with new weapons, including nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines.

Such a tremendous investment of money and effort is unnecessary. It also encourages Russia to build more capable weapons of its own, accelerating an emerging and destabilizing international arms race.

Instead, the United States should eliminate some types of nuclear weapons, refurbish the remaining weapons where possible, and make any necessary replacements without enhancing capabilities.

International agreements

A total of nine countries possess nuclear weapons. Reducing the risk of nuclear war will require domestic policy changes within all those countries, as well as cooperation and verified agreements between them.

Diplomacy has a strong track record. Multiple treaties and agreements—and decades of dialogue and cooperation—helped reduce US and Soviet arsenals from a high of 64,000 warheads in the 1980s to a total of around 8,000 today.

The United States should build on those successes by extending the New START Treaty with Russia; committing to a “diplomacy first” approach with North Korea; and rejoining the Iran Deal, which limits Iran’s capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Nuclear Weapons Worldwide

Nuclear Weapons Worldwide

Thousands of nuclear weapons exist in the world. The use of even one could change life as we know it.

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea.

Some countries first developed nuclear weapons in the context of the Cold War, as the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for influence. Others developed them more recently, in response to regional conflicts or other concerns.

US-Soviet and US-Russian treaties and agreements have reduced the total global stockpile of weapons, which peaked in the 1980s at some 60,000 weapons—but 9,000 still remain. The nuclear policies of these nine nations increase the risk that these weapons will be used.

Click through for an overview of the nine nuclear countries and the international agreements and treaties they’ve signed onto.

US Nuclear Weapons

US nuclear weapons policies are alarmingly dangerous.

The United States tested the first atomic device in July of 1945. Seven years later, it exploded the first thermonuclear weapon—designed in part by Richard Garwin, who now serves on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In the following years, the United States amassed many thousands of nuclear weapons, each capable of immense destruction. At the height of the Cold War, the United States maintained roughly 30,000 nuclear bombs and warheads, though the total number of weapons has fallen, thanks in part to US-Soviet and US-Russian treaties and agreements.

The policies governing when, where, and why the United States would use nuclear weapons remain unconscionably risky.

The US arsenal

As of 2019, the US arsenal contained some 3,800 nuclear weapons, 1,750 of which are deployed and ready to be delivered. Their destructive capabilities range widely: the most powerful weapon—the “B83”—is more than 80 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The smallest weapon has an explosive yield of only 2 percent that of the Hiroshima bomb. Such “low-yield” weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield, increasing the likelihood they may actually be used.

The country’s weapons are deployed in submarines and in 80-foot-deep missile silos across the western United States. Others are stored at air force bases, where they can be loaded on long-range bombers. Some 150 US bombs are deployed at airbases in five European countries.

The arsenal’s primary purpose is “deterrence”—i.e., it’s intended to dissuade others from launching a nuclear attack. However, current policies allow the United States to use nuclear weapons first against Russia, China, or North Korea, effectively beginning a nuclear war.

New weapons

Over the coming years the Pentagon plans to spend more than a trillion dollars maintaining and rebuilding the entire US nuclear arsenal, which is both unnecessary and unwise. US weapons are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis and many don’t require replacement. Certain types should be eliminated altogether because they are redundant and provocative.

The main outcome of the Pentagon’s spending spree may be to spark an arms race with Russia and China, which would be expensive and dangerous—especially in the absence of strong arms control agreements.

Policies

The risk of nuclear war has as much to do with policy as it does to do with the weapons themselves.

In the United States, the President is granted sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. He or she doesn’t need to consult with anyone beforehand and can issue a launch order with very few checks and balances.

It’s also US policy that nuclear weapons can be used first in a non-nuclear conflict with a nuclear-armed state, i.e. not only in retaliation. If the United States crossed the nuclear threshold and started a nuclear war, it would open up our country to a retaliatory attack.

Additionally, 400 land-based missiles are kept on hair-trigger alert, meaning they’re maintained in a ready-for-launch status. Current policy allows the United States to launch these missiles on warning of an incoming attack, despite a long history of false alarms and close calls.

Collectively, these and other policies increase the risk of nuclear war. Better policies would reduce that risk.