On 8 September 2020, the United States Air Force announced that it would award a contract worth $13.3 billion to the Northrop Grumman Corporation to construct new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) able to travel at least 9600km at a speed of Mach 23 (7889 m/sec). They plan on ultimately buying 600 missiles for a total cost of approximately $100 billion. It is no secret that the US’s nuclear arsenal is aging quickly, and the argument could easily be made that if nuclear weapons are to be kept, they should be up-to-date and not at risk of malfunction. The move to buy more missiles will likely be popular with rural Americans who will get a boost to their local economy from the construction and maintenance of new missile sites. It says something about American society that nuclear warfare is something of a welfare program.
Nonetheless, this is just one of the latest news stories from the new nuclear arms race. The last five years have turned the nuclear status-quo on its head entirely and the need for new disarmament initiatives has never been greater. For example, the Russian Avangard “hypersonic glide vehicle” came into service in 2019 and is said to be able to travel at Mach 27 and change direction mid-flight. As scary as the weapon certainly is, it simply does not change the grim math of nuclear war. “Intercepting” any significant number of missiles in an all-out conflict between Russia and the US is a pipedream— more evasive missiles will not change that. It is worth noting that in November of 2020, the US successfully intercepted a dummy ICBM outside the atmosphere using a missile launched from a ship. Long term, ICBM interception will play an enormous role in how nuclear policy is designed. However, the technology is nowhere near good enough to defend the continent and with the thousands of warheads held by rival nations, the number of interceptors is completely insufficient. If such a war were to come, the interception of a dozen missiles would be a drop in the bucket. Until some new interception technology is deployed in sufficient numbers, faster and more evasive weapons will not change the fact that a large nuclear exchange could end all human life. Nonetheless, the rapid advancement of interception technologies makes mutually assured destruction increasingly obsolete. The window of time we have to disarm the world is shrinking. If one side can guarantee its defence from retaliation, they are more incentivised to strike first (and before the other side can match their defensive capabilities).
But is war likely? In 2019, the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty citing Russia’s non-compliance as forcing their hand. Finger-pointing aside, it leaves the world with only one nuclear weapons treaty between the two biggest players. Luckily, that treaty (New START) was extended for five years from its planned expiry on 5 February 2020. However, the situation is still uncertain. On 2 June 2020, Russia released an Executive Order called “On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence” which concerningly includes the provision:
“In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.” [Emphasis added]
This Executive Order seems to imply that Russia is prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional acts of aggression. Perhaps it would not be so alarming if Russia was not currently involved in a conventional war. In case you needed more reason to worry, Dmytro Kuleba, the Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine, recently announced that Russia was stockpiling nuclear weapons and/or fission material on the Crimean Peninsula.
In November of 2020, the Russian Navy claimed to have expelled the USS John McCain from what it claims are its territorial waters. The US denies the incident took place at all but reserves the right sail in those waters against Russia’s wishes. Last summer, Russia performed a military exercise in the Bering Sea, possibly within the US’s exclusive economic zone, to the dismay of fishermen in the region.
Tensions are obviously high. In a normal year, the US scrambles jets about seven times to intercept Russian planes. In 2020, they made at least 14 interceptions. NATO scrambled jets 400 times total in Europe in 2020, 90% of which was to intercept Russian planes. A major point of friction is competition over Arctic resources which are increasingly up for grabs as the globe warms (an existential threat for another time).
Even some limited nuclear exchange between less well-armed nuclear powers would have dramatic effects on the globe. The use of only 50 “tactical” nuclear bombs would drop the globe’s temperature and reduce the growing seasons. That “limited” war could end in the deaths of 2 billion humans. The economic effects would be incalculable. These smaller players able to launch that kind of strike are growing in number and ability.
There are currently nine known nuclear powers who have their own weapons. Russia and the US continue to have the vast majority of stockpiled nuclear bombs, but other players are growing their stockpile. India now has 150 nuclear weapons and it is thought that North Korea could have as many as 35. Equally concerning, Iran has recently threatened to acquire nuclear weapons sparking renewed efforts for a deal similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal) which stipulated that Iran would not seek nuclear weapons. In 2018, Trump pulled the US out of the deal. Why would Iran enter into a new deal that might be broken when the next American president takes office? These new threats might just be sabre-rattling, but it would be extremely unwise to doubt their ability to create these weapons. In the hours before submitting this article, Iran rejected the suggestion of renewing talks with the US and Europe in the wake of American strikes in Syria. Nuclear catastrophe inches closer every day.
In protest to the madness, 84 countries signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which seeks to ban all nuclear weapons. The treaty takes effect next year, but nobody with nuclear capabilities has signed it. Conspicuously absent is any country that benefits from the security umbrellas of the nuclear powers (with the potential exception of Kazakhstan who signed the treaty but is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization). Even former NATO figures support the Treaty, but adoption by any countries with nuclear power is unlikely.
In late January of 2021, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists revealed that their Doomsday Clock, meant to track humanity’s “time left” until cataclysm, is 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been. The deeper causes of this renewed arms-race are complicated, but countries will need to put aside other conflicts to slow it down. If they can’t, the future of human civilization is at risk.
Note: To be clear, this article is Americentric, because English sources focus on the American perspective. This article is not meant to point the finger at anyone. We can bicker over who is to blame from our fallout shelters.