Four years of war in Ukraine – and nuclear weapons are back on the table in Europe

From The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

Four years ago, on 24 February 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For Ukrainians, this week marks the start of a fifth year of war – of loss, displacement and destruction that words can barely describe. Take this opportunity to support nuclear disarmament as part of any peace plan for Ukraine.

The answer to the war in Ukraine cannot be to double down on nuclear weapons, but to take action to rule them out.

Nuclear danger in the Ukraine war

From the start, the war has been fought under explicit nuclear threats from Moscow. With very limited success, Russia tried to blackmail other countries from supporting Ukraine. Nuclear power plants like Zaporizhzhia have become front-line hostages and from the very beginning of the full-scale invasion, and ever since Vladimir Putin has wrapped the war in nuclear threats.

Earlier this month, the New START treaty – the last arms control agreement limiting US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons – expired and for the first time in over 50 years, the world’s two largest arsenals are unconstrained. And at the same time, Russia has deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. From the point of view of people in Warsaw, Vilnius or Berlin, this turns their region into part of a nuclear chessboard again.

China conducted ‘secret nuclear test’ days after Galwan clash, says US

Synopsis: The US has accused China of conducting a secret nuclear explosive test in June 2020, shortly after the deadly Galwan Valley clashes. This allegation, revealed at a global disarmament forum, heightens India’s strategic concerns over China’s military posture amidst ongoing border tensions. China denies the claims, accusing the US of exaggerating threats and fueling an arms race.

ECONOMIC TIMES | February 8, 2026 economictimes.indiatimes.com

The United States has accused China of carrying out a secret nuclear explosive test in June 2020–an allegation that places Beijing’s suspected activity just a week after the deadly Galwan Valley clashes in eastern Ladakh, where 20 Indian soldiers were killed in action while defending the nation and more than 30 Chinese troops were reported dead in intelligence assessments.

The timing of the alleged test, revealed by Washington at a global disarmament forum, is likely to sharpen strategic concerns in New Delhi over China’s military posture during one of the most volatile phases of the India-China border crisis in decades.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ECONOMIC TIMES)

At Nuclear Deterrence Summit, Lab Directors Frame Regulatory Reform As Key To Modernization

“The Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing one of its most ambitious deregulation efforts in decades. Known as Project Velocity, the initiative—outlined alongside other reform measures in an Oct. 17 memo—rewrites dozens of safety, construction and oversight rules to accelerate warhead modernization…”

“The NNSA is no longer defined solely as a scientific stewardship organization. We are focused on weapons production, delivering real capabilities and innovations at speed to meet today’s threats,” Williams said.

By MARLENE WILDEN marlene@ladailypost.com, Submitted by Carol A. Clark, Los Alamos Daily Post | February 5, 2026 ladailypost.com

ARLINGTON, VA.—Appearing together at the annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, held Jan. 26-28, the directors of Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories said they are seizing an unusual window of regulatory reform to cut red tape slowing the nuclear security enterprise.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing one of its most ambitious deregulation efforts in decades. Known as Project Velocity, the initiative—outlined alongside other reform measures in an Oct. 17 memo—rewrites dozens of safety, construction and oversight rules to accelerate warhead modernization.

Lawrence Livermore Director Kimberly Budil and Los Alamos Director Thom Mason described this round of changes as fundamentally different from past efforts, turning long-standing lab concerns into concrete revisions. Previous regulations, often written in response to specific incidents, became politically and operationally difficult to unwind.

Earlier reforms targeted “low-hanging fruit” manageable with a secretarial memo, Mason said. Project Velocity involves systematically reviewing roughly 80 DOE orders to determine which requirements remain necessary and which add unnecessary costs and delays.

The lab directors said duplicative reviews and bespoke rules are being replaced by risk-based, data-driven oversight that leans on commercial construction standards and, where hazards permit, AI-enabled analysis. The key test will be whether reforms enable more efficient delivery of new systems—such as the W93 submarine-launched ballistic missile and the B61-13 gravity bomb—without compromising accountability.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (LOS ALAMOS DAILY POST)

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Concerning the Expiration of the Russia-US New START Treaty

On February 5, 2026, the life cycle of the Russian-US Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) finally comes to an end; it was signed by the parties on April 8, 2010, entered into force on February 5, 2011, and was extended for a five-year period in February 2021 on the basis of a relevant one-time option provided for in this agreement.

mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2076815/ February 5, 2026

In February 2023, the Russian Federation suspended the New START Treaty against the backdrop of the unsatisfactory state of affairs with the implementation of certain aspects of the Treaty, as well as due to the absolutely unacceptable steps by the United States running counter to the fundamental principles and understandings of the agreement enshrined in its preamble. It was a compelled measure and an inevitable response of the Russian side to the extremely hostile policy of the Biden administration which resulted in the fundamental change in the security situation, as well as to a number of illegitimate steps taken by Washington in the context of specific provisions of the New START Treaty, which together constituted a material breach incompatible with the Treaty being further implemented in a full-fledged manner.

Among the key negative factors, it is worth to highlight the destabilizing actions of the United States in the field of missile defense, contrary to the inseparable interrelationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms enshrined in the New START Treaty. This contradicted the Treaty’s objectives in terms of maintaining the balance of powers, put significant pressure on its viability, and created grounds for Russia to take compensatory measures outside the scope of the New START Treaty in order to maintain strategic equilibrium.

Despite some obvious problematic moments, basically the New START Treaty used to fulfill its key functions. The conclusion of the Treaty and the years of its initially successful implementation helped to discourage the strategic arms race, allowing for significant reductions in the parties’ arsenals. At the same time, due to the restrictions applied in this area a sufficient level of predictability was ensured on a long-term basis.

4 things to know about the end of the U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty

“For the first time in decades, there are no limits on the world’s largest nuclear arsenals. Congress must act now.”

By Austin Headrick, American Friends Service Committee | February 4, 2026 afsc.org

The world changed forever in August 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people. Scientists, activists, policymakers, and peacebuilders—including organizers at AFSC—have spent the decades since calling for disarmament and an end to all nuclear threats. One crucial result of that work was arms control treaties that limited nuclear arsenals.

But now, that work is being unraveled. On Feb. 5, 2026, the last remaining U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty, expired. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) had placed limits on deployed nuclear weapons and created channels for inspections and monitoring.

With the end of the treaty, the guardrails that create transparency and prevent a nuclear arms race end.

Here is what you need to know:

1. The U.S. and Russia hold nearly all the world’s nuclear weapons.

The United States and Russia together possess almost 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. That is why New START matters even to people far from Washington and Moscow. A world with no limits on the two largest nuclear stockpiles is a more dangerous world.

Without New START, there would be no legally binding guardrails on the two countries’ long-range nuclear weapons for the first time since the first U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements in the early 1970s.

And the risk is not only long-term nuclear development. Without limits, either side could increase the number of nuclear weapons ready to launch relatively quickly by “uploading” additional warheads onto existing missiles, which can fuel pressure for the other side to respond.

2. Arms control makes everyone safer.

New START capped the U.S. and Russia at 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons and limited deployed delivery systems, with an overall limit on launchers and bombers. Those numbers are more than technical details. They limit how many weapons can be used quickly in a crisis.
Continue reading

Los Alamos confirms UMich data center to be used for nuclear weapons research

“A representative of Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed nuclear weapons research will be a priority for its portion of the data center it intends to construct in collaboration with the University of Michigan in Ypsilanti Township.”

By Glenn Hedin, The Michigan Daily | January 30, 2026 michigandaily.com

Patrick Fitch, deputy laboratory director for science, technology, and engineering at Los Alamos, was present at the University’s open house on the project in Ypsilanti Thursday. When The Michigan Daily asked if Los Alamos intended to use its portion of the data center to support nuclear weapons research, Fitch said yes.

“The short answer is yes, because aspects of a nuclear weapon is key to our simulation expertise,” Fitch said. “We want this loop to include large investments in national security, so that spins back into the basic science, and what we learn here — that list of non-nuclear weapons stuff — spins into nuclear weapons.”

The proposed data center has garnered significant opposition from Ypsilanti residents and U-M community members who worry about its potential to negatively impact the surrounding environment and electrical grid, as well the possibility that the facility could be used in the development of nuclear weapons. The University has maintained the facility will not “manufacture” nuclear weapons.

Some activists consider this statement misleading, as data centers are generally used for computing activities and not manufacturing. However, their computing capabilities could be used to support nuclear research in other ways, including in the production of plutonium pits, which serve as the cores of nuclear weapons. While plutonium pits need not be located at a data center, their development requires intensive computing power. Los Alamos has operated under federal directive to modernize the United State’s nuclear arsenal through the development of these pits since 2018.

*The featured image differs from the article photo due to usage rights. Photo: Google Data Center, Council Bluffs Iowa (49062863796).jpg
chaddavis.photography from United States, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (MICHIGAN DAILY)

It is now 85 seconds to midnight.

2026 Doomsday Clock Announcement: Complete Livestream

Watch this video on YouTube.

On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board (SASB), which sets the Clock, called for urgent action to limit nuclear arsenals, create international guidelines on the use of AI, and form multilateral agreements to address global biological threats.

How Congress Can Stop Worrying and Learn to Govern the Bomb: A New Era of Congressional Responsibilities in Nuclear Weapons Policy

“It is long past time for Congress to reinvigorate our oversight of nuclear weapons policies. In this Essay, I will argue that Congress has been overly deferential to claims from the nuclear enterprise and has fallen short in its oversight of nuclear weapons policies by inadequately weighing and evaluating costs and risks.

Although Congress has tools to influence nuclear strategy and oversee the development and employment of America’s nuclear arsenal, in recent years, Congress has failed to use them effectively. For example, a recent Strategic Posture Review was conducted by a bipartisan congressional commission but failed to evaluate the key constraint at the core of congressional responsibilities: cost. As others have observed, the report “does not account for the major fiscal, logistical, and political constraints that would inhibit implementation of its recommendations.” In other examples, Congress has failed to hold hearings on the status of the severely delayed, over-budget Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (“ICBM”) program.”

Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation Volume 63.1 (Winter 2026) • Articles Rep. John Garamendi[*] | January 24, 2026 ucs.org

Abstract

Since the development of the first nuclear weapons, policymakers have been forced to grapple with the implications of their extraordinary destructive potential. Congress, with its constitutional remit on matters of war and peace, has responsibility to shape the development of policies which govern nuclear weapons, including in their acquisition and use. In the decades following the invention of nuclear weapons, Congress has at times taken active roles in oversight of nuclear weapons policy and programs in accordance with its constitutional prerogatives. However, in part due to Congress’s structure, this oversight has recently tended towards dictating programmatic minutiae rather than addressing the strategic questions about the role that nuclear weapons should play in the national security of the United States. On such an important political issue, Congress must engage in fulsome debate and take an active role in shaping policy regarding the role of nuclear weapons in our security, society, and international relations.

I. Introduction

A. The Beginning of the Modern Era

Eighty years ago, nuclear weapons were used in war for the first and only time.¹ The horrific death toll made clear that nuclear weapons enabled destruction at a scale that was previously unthinkable.² Once such destructive capabilities were available, governments faced new questions about the future of these weapons.

Nuclear weapons have unique attributes, particularly in the scale of their destructiveness, which left policymakers and military planners struggling to understand what strategic role these weapons would play in global defense.³ In democracies, where civil-military norms have often emphasized a split between political leaders who set war objectives and military leaders who manage the conduct of war, nuclear weapons posed a particular challenge by erasing the line between political and military decisions.⁴

Today, policymakers still grapple with these questions. I will argue that one conclusion has become increasingly clear through these debates: nuclear weapons are not merely military weapons. Their capacity to destroy makes them, by some assessments, “useless” as military implements since their use would far exceed most rational military objectives.⁵ They are instead “strategic” weapons whose use rests at the heart of existential political decisions for countries and their governments. As I will discuss below, these unique characteristics remain at the core of debates about their management.⁶

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (HARVARD LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION)

New Air Force Chief Boosts Nuclear Buildup, Moving Away From Deterrence, Experts Warn

“Gen. Ken Wilsbach promotes nuclear “recapitalization” in his first memo to the Air Force — fueling fear of a radical shift away from nukes acting solely as deterrence.”

By: Austin Campbell, The Intercept | Dec 8, 2025 theintercept.com

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach receives a B-52H Stratofortress static display tour during a visit at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, Nov. 19, 2025. Wilsbach’s flightline immersion reinforced his top focus area: at the core of Air Force service, Airmen fly and fix airplanes. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Laiken King) — U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach, center, during a visit at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on Nov. 19, 2025. Photo: Senior Airman Laiken King/U.S. Air Force

In his first major guidance to the Air Force, the newly appointed Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach emphasized a need for the “recapitalization” of nuclear weapons — an apparent departure from decades of Air Force teaching that the United States maintains nuclear weapons solely for deterrence.

“We will advocate relentlessly for programs like the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft as well as nuclear force recapitalization through the Sentinel program and the B-21,” Wilsbach wrote in a memo dated November 3, referring to planned upgrades to nuclear missiles and stealth bombers.

Experts who spoke to The Intercept said the language signals a doctrinal pivot, prioritizing displays of strength and the buildup of nuclear weaponry over internal repair — an approach that may appeal politically to the Trump administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but does little to ease the fatigue and distrust spreading among airmen.

…

The Sentinel program Wilsbach referenced is intended to modernize the land-based leg of the nuclear triad, with new missiles, hardened silos, and updated command-and-control infrastructure across missile fields in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. It’s the Air Force’s planned replacement for aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile systems. The B-21 Raider is the next-generation stealth bomber designed to replace older strategic bombers like the B-2 and B-1, delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads.

Critics say framing these nuclear modernization efforts as “recapitalization” obscures the ethical and strategic implications of expanding U.S. nuclear capabilities amid declining morale and retention.

“You don’t ‘recapitalize’ genocidal weaponry.”

“The chief of staff’s emphasis on weaponry is disheartening. His description of nuclear weapon ‘recapitalization’ is an abomination of the English language. You don’t ‘recapitalize’ genocidal weaponry. Both the Sentinel missile program and the B-21 bomber are unnecessary systems that could cost as much as $500 billion over the next 20 years,” said William Astore, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and military historian.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE (THE INTERCEPT)

What might Project 2025 mean for N.M.? Non-nuclear cuts at national labs (Updated Dec 1, 2025)

“[The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025] contemplates pulling funding from any work unrelated to nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and sister facility Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California…in New Mexico, some say cutting the labs’ other scientific work would have a devastating economic effect on the state and could ultimately weaken the institutions as a whole.”

“It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to realize that there could be massive layoffs if this proposal or these ideas were to reach fruition,” said Chandler, who worked in the employment arena for much of her time at the facility. “Now, that might expand the nuclear weapons program to some degree, but it’s not going to absorb the entire workforce.”

“Under the Biden administration, LANL has seen a massive growth in employment as the laboratory ramps up for its production of plutonium pits, the cores of nuclear bombs.”

By Gabrielle Porter and Alaina Mencinger gporter@sfnewmexican.com amencinger@sfnewmexican.com | Oct 26, 2024, Updated Dec 1, 2025 santafenewmexican.com

Project 2025 — the now-infamous blueprint for a conservative presidency that’s still publicly being held at arm’s length by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump — proposes all sorts of sweeping policy recommendations, from promoting capital punishment to embracing mass deportations.

But tucked in the 922 pages of its report, “Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise,” is one recommendation that centers squarely on New Mexico.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE (SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN)

Arms Control Association – NNSA Loses Environmental Regulation Lawsuit

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION)

New Interactive Series from The New York Times: “The Price” of New U.S. Nuclear Weapons

The output at Rocky Flats, which at one point during the Cold War hit 1,000 pits per year, dwarfs the modern ambitions of Los Alamos. Still, the new production is expected to generate levels of radiological and hazardous waste that the lab has not experienced. This comes on top of the contamination already present, which the government estimates will cost some $7 billion to clean up.

“We’re endangering our community for an unnecessary arms race that puts us all at risk,” says Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, a Santa Fe-based watchdog.

By W.J. Hennigan | Photographs by An-My Lê – THE NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 2024 nytimes.com

Opinion: America Is Updating Its Nuclear Weapons. The Price: $1.7 Trillion Over 30 Years.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (THE NEW YORK TIMES)

Letter To the Editor in Response to the Article Above by Dr. Ira Helfand:

Re “The Staggering Cost of America’s Nuclear Gamble,” by W.J. Hennigan (Opinion, “At the Brink” series, Oct. 13):

Mr. Hennigan says, almost in passing, that “nuclear weapons do deter our adversaries.”

There is a lot to unpack in these six words. There certainly are situations in which one country’s nuclear weapons do deter its adversaries. Russia’s threats to use its nuclear weapons have clearly deterred the United States and NATO from doing more to support Ukraine.

But does deterrence guarantee that these weapons will not be used? Because a failure of deterrence will cause a catastrophe beyond reckoning.

A nuclear war between the United States and Russia could kill hundreds of millions of people in the first afternoon, and the ensuing climate disruption and famine could kill three-quarters of humanity over the next two years. Is there any conceivable benefit that can be derived from possessing these weapons that is worth running this terrible risk?

There have been many near misses already during the nuclear weapons era, crises where certain countries actually began preparations to launch nuclear weapons.

As former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara pointed out, we have not survived this far into the nuclear era because we knew what we were doing. Rather, as McNamara put it, “It was luck that prevented nuclear war.”

The idea that deterrence makes us safe is a dangerous myth. As our highest national security priority, we should be actively seeking a world without nuclear weapons. We don’t know if such an effort can succeed; we have never tried. We do know what will happen if deterrence fails.

Ira Helfand
Northampton, Mass.
The writer is a former president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

VIEW ORIGINAL LETTER (THE NEW YORK TIMES)

Does the United States Need More Nuclear Weapons?

The United States is estimated to have roughly 3,700 warheads in its active arsenal. This includes 1,670 thermonuclear warheads deployed on 660 powerful long-range missiles on land and at sea or available for delivery on strategic bombers. There are also another 100 tactical nuclear bombs that can be delivered on shorter-range aircraft, according to independent estimates.⁵ The use of a fraction of these weapons, many primed for launch within minutes, would lead to mass destruction on an unprecedented global scale.

Contrary to the hype, more nuclear weapons would not improve, on balance, the U.S. capability to deter nuclear attack. In fact, significant increases in the U.S. deployed nuclear arsenal would undermine mutual and global security by making the existing balance of nuclear terror more unpredictable and would set into motion a counterproductive, costly action-reaction cycle of nuclear competition.

By Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Today | July/August 2024 armscontrol.org

The experience of the Cold War proves that nuclear arms racing produces only losers and increased risks for everyone.

U.S. Air Force technicians perform maintenance on a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Plans to replace the Minuteman missile with the Sentinel ICBM could be in trouble because of the Sentinel’s rising costs and production delays. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Airman 1st Class Kristoffer Kaubisch)

Nevertheless, following more than a decade of deteriorating relations between the United States and its main nuclear rivals, dimming prospects for disarmament diplomacy, and major nuclear weapons modernization efforts, China, Russia, and the United States are now on the precipice of a dangerous era of unconstrained nuclear competition. Concern in U.S. national security circles about Chinese and Russian nuclear capabilities has grown since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine effectively shut down the U.S.-Russian nuclear risk reduction and arms control dialogue. The Kremlin has rejected the White House proposal to negotiate a new nuclear arms control framework to replace the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which expires on February 5, 2026.¹ China has declined U.S. offers to continue bilateral discussions on reducing nuclear risk and on nuclear postures.²

Moreover, as the U.S. intelligence community forecasts that China could amass as many as 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030, with several hundred of them deployed on a larger force of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), some members of the nuclear weapons establishment, leading members of Congress, and Biden administration officials have suggested that the massive U.S. arsenal may not be sufficient to deter two “near peer” nuclear rivals.³ China is currently estimated to have some 500 nuclear weapons and 310 long-range, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.⁴

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ARMS CONTROL TODAY)

ICAN: Global nuclear weapons spending surges to $91.4 billion

In 2023, the nine nuclear-armed states spent a combined total of $91,393,404,739 on their arsenals – equivalent to $2,898 a second. ICAN’s latest report “Surge: 2023 Global nuclear weapons spending” shows $10.7 billion more was spent on nuclear weapons in 2023 than in 2022.

Read the report

Download the Executive Summary

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) | June 17, 2024 icanw.org

Who spent what on their nuclear arsenal in 2023?

In 2023 China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK and US spent a combined $91.4 billion on their nuclear arms, which breaks down to $173,884 per minute, or $2,898 a second. The United States’ share of total spending, $51.5 billion, is more than all the other nuclear-armed countries put together and accounts for 80% of the increase in nuclear weapons spending in 2023. The next biggest spender was China which expended $11.8 billion with Russia spending the third largest amount at $8.3 billion. The United Kingdom’s spending was up significantly for the second year in a row with a 17% increase to $8.1 billion.

$387 billion in 5 years

“Surge” is the 5th edition of ICAN’s global nuclear weapons spending report. In the last 5 years, $387 billion has been spent on nuclear weapons, with the yearly spending increasing by 34% from $68.2 billion to $91.4 billion per year, as all nine nuclear-armed states continue to modernise, and in some cases expand, their arsenals. Alicia Sanders-Zakre, co-author of the report [and NukeWatch’s summer 2019 intern] noted:

“The acceleration of spending on these inhumane and destructive weapons over the past five years is not improving global security but posing a global threat.”

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ICAN)

Guterres warns humanity on ‘knife’s edge’ as AI raises nuclear war threat

UN secretary general makes plea for nuclear states to agree on mutual pledge not to be first to use nuclear weapons

“The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has warned that the spread of artificial intelligence technology multiplies the threat of nuclear war, and that humanity is now ‘on a knife’s edge’ as dangers to its existence coalesce.”

By Julian Borger, The Guardian | June 7, 2024 theguardian.com

Guterres’s warning is due to be shown on a recorded video to be played on Friday morning at the annual meeting of the US Arms Control Association (ACA) in Washington.

In the video, the secretary general makes his most impassioned plea to date for the nuclear weapons states to take their non-proliferation obligations seriously, and in particular, agree on a mutual pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

“The regime designed to prevent the use, testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons is weakening,”

Guterres says in the recorded message, in a warning that comes with some 600 days to go before the expiry of the 2010 New Start accord between the US and Russia, the last remaining agreement limiting the strategic arsenals of the two nuclear superpowers.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (THE GUARDIAN)

U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts

“China’s expansion and Russia’s threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine and in space have changed a U.S. drive to reduce nuclear weapons.”

By Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger, New York Times | June 7, 2024 nytimes.com

A senior Biden administration official warned on Friday that “absent a change” in nuclear strategy by China and Russia, the United States may be forced to expand its nuclear arsenal, after decades of cutting back through now largely abandoned arms control agreements.

The comments on Friday from Pranay Vaddi, a senior director of the National Security Council, were the most explicit public warning yet that the United States was prepared to shift from simply modernizing its arsenal to expanding it…

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (NEW YORK TIMES)

How Annie Jacobsen mapped out ‘Nuclear War: A Scenario’

“There are new players, new nuclear armed nations that are far more unpredictable than those who have had nuclear weapons in the past.”

BY NICHOLAS SLAYTON, TASK & PURPOSE | April 8, 2024 taskandpurpose.com

It starts with a sudden attack. North Korea, out of paranoia and fear, launches a nuclear strike on the United States, hitting its targets. The United States retaliates with a salvo of its own nuclear missiles. However, in order to hit North Korea, the missiles must pass over Russia. Attempts to communicate with the Russian president fail and Russia’s nuclear warning system makes him think it’s an attack on his country. So he launches his nuclear bombs, this time at the United States.

It’s a global nuclear war. And it happens in minutes.

That’s the setup at the heart of “Nuclear War: A Scenario,” a new book by investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen. The book, released at the end of March, outlines how one attack from an isolated state can set off a chain reaction of nuclear policy, with poor communication and split-second decisions triggering widespread nuclear war. It’s a fictional scena

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (TASK & PURPOSE)

America’s Nuclear War Plan in the 1960s Was Utter Madness. It Still Is.

We rarely consider the dangers these days, but our existence depends on it.

“‘Humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,’ cautions UN Secretary-General António Guterres. ‘We must reverse course.'”

BY ANNIE JACOBSEN, MOTHER JONES | March 27, 2024 motherjones.com

Nuclear war is madness. Were a nuclear weapon to be launched at the United States, including from a rogue nuclear-armed nation like North Korea, American policy dictates a nuclear counterattack. This response would almost certainly set off a series of events that would quickly spiral out of control. “The world could end in the next couple of hours,” Gen. Robert Kehler, the former commander of US Strategic Command, told me in an interview.

We sit on the razor’s edge. Vladimir Putin has said he is “not bluffing” about the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction should NATO overstep on Ukraine, and North Korea accuses the US of having “a sinister intention to provoke a nuclear war.” For generations, the American public has viewed a nuclear World War III as a remote prospect, but the threat is ever-present. “Humanity is one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,” cautions UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “We must reverse course.”

So far, we haven’t. The Pentagon’s plans for nuclear war remain firmly in place.

The US government has spent trillions of dollars over the decades preparing to fight a nuclear war, while refining protocols meant to keep the government functioning after hundreds of millions of Americans become casualties of a nuclear holocaust, and the annual budgets continue to grow. The nation’s integrated nuclear war plan in the 1960s was utter madness. It almost certainly remains so today.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (MOTHER JONES)

NEW YORK TIMES OPINION SERIES ON THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN AN UNSTABLE WORLD

An Introduction: It’s Time to Protest Nuclear War Again

By Kathleen Kingsbury, Opinion Editor, New York Times | March 2024 nytimes.com

The threat of nuclear war has dangled over humankind for much too long. We have survived so far through luck and brinkmanship. But the old, limited safeguards that kept the Cold War cold are long gone. Nuclear powers are getting more numerous and less cautious. We’ve condemned another generation to live on a planet that is one grave act of hubris or human error away from destruction without demanding any action from our leaders. That must change.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (NEW YORK TIMES)

Keeping Outer Space Nuclear Weapons Free

In the coming weeks, Washington, Beijing, and other capitals need to pressure Putin to abandon any ideas about putting nuclear weapons in orbit. As President Joe Biden noted on Feb. 16, that deployment “hasn’t happened yet, and my hope is it will not.”

By Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Association | March 2024 armscontrol.org

Fifty-seven years ago, through the Outer Space Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to codify a fundamental nuclear taboo: nuclear weapons shall not be stationed in orbit or elsewhere in outer space. But there is growing concern that Russia is working on an orbiting anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons system involving a nuclear explosive device that would, if deployed, violate the treaty, undermine space security, and worsen the technological and nuclear arms race.

The flash created by the Starfish Prime high-altitude nuclear test on July 9,1962 as seen from Honolulu, 900 miles away. (Wikimedia Commons)

The White House confirmed on Feb. 15 that U.S. intelligence uncovered evidence that Russia is developing an ASAT weapon that “would be a violation of the Outer Space Treaty, to which more than 130 countries have signed up to, including Russia.” Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a nondenial denial, claiming on Feb. 20 that Russia remains “categorically against…the placement of nuclear weapons in space.”

An ASAT system involving a nuclear explosive device could produce a massive surge of radiation and a powerful electromagnetic pulse that, depending on the altitude of the explosion and the size of the warhead, could indiscriminately destroy, blind, or disable many of the 9,500 commercial and military space satellites now in orbit.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION)

North Korea’s Kim says military should ‘thoroughly annihilate’ US and South Korea if provoked

“In his New Year’s Day address Monday, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said he will strengthen his military’s preemptive strike, missile defense and retaliatory capabilities in response to the North Korean nuclear threat.”

BY HYUNG-JIN KIM, AP NEWS | January 1, 2024 apnews.com

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his military should “thoroughly annihilate” the United States and South Korea if provoked, state media reported Monday, after he vowed to boost national defense to cope with what he called an unprecedented U.S.-led confrontation.

North Korea has increased its warlike rhetoric in recent months in response to an expansion of U.S.-South Korean military drills. Experts expect Kim will continue to escalate his rhetoric and weapons tests because he likely believes he can use heightened tensions to wrest U.S. concessions if former President Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election in November.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (AP NEWS)

Nuclear weapons should be relics of the past – ALJAZEERA

“As the world marks the International Day against Nuclear Tests, we should all join the fight for global disarmament.”

By Karipbek Kuyukov, the Honorary Ambassador of The ATOM Project, ALJAZEERA | September 26, 2023 aljazeera.com

The Semipalatinsk Test Site in northern Kazakhstan, where hundreds of nuclear bombs were detonated by the Soviet Union until 1989, is now dotted with craters and boreholes [CTBTO Preparatory Commission/Wikimedia Commons]

In the quiet and peaceful steppe of Kazakhstan, a dark and ominous legacy lingers beneath the surface. Over four decades between 1949 and 1989, 456 nuclear bombs were detonated by the Soviet Union at the Semipalatinsk Test Site in northern Kazakhstan.

While the echoes of nuclear explosions have long faded, the scars of nuclear testing run deep. More than 1.5 million people in Kazakhstan were exposed to the toxic fallout from those tests. Countless lives were irreversibly altered, and the environment was forever scarred. I am a living testament to the horrors of nuclear testing, as I was born without arms due to the effects of nuclear radiation.

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ALJAZEERA)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Yes, nuclear weapons are immoral. They’re also, practically speaking, useless.

“…Human beings make the threats, evaluate the threats, and decide how to respond. If human beings are prone to folly—and we are—and if human beings run the deterrence process, then nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed. It will fail. Over the long run it cannot be safe. Eventually, human failure will lead to a catastrophic nuclear war.”

By Ward Hayes Wilson, THE BULLETIN | September 19, 2023 thebulletin.org

Almost everyone who works actively against nuclear weapons is, at some level, appalled by the immorality of nuclear weapons. This makes sense because the indiscriminate killing of children, grandparents, people with disabilities, and a host of other ordinary folks is appalling.

As a result, the first argument that almost all activists reach for is moral. They bring forward hibakusha to put a human face on the immorality. They talk about the indigenous people who suffered during the mining and production of nuclear weapons. They show graphic pictures of the destruction, the burns, the radiation sickness, and other catastrophic damage done by the bombings. They say, in effect, “Look at the immorality!” They sometimes point to it with a hint of outrage in their voices. How can people not be moved by these horrible, immoral acts?

And yet here we are, 78 years later, in the midst of a second nuclear weapons arms race. Every nation that possesses nuclear weapons is either expanding or upgrading its nuclear arsenal. How can this be?

FULL ORIGINAL ARTICLE (THE BULLETIN)

Return of US nuclear weapons to UK would be an escalation, says Russia

Moscow says it would respond with ‘countermeasures’, after US air force budget item hinted at possible move

Julian Borger and Andrew Roth THE GUARDIAN | September 5, 2023 theguardian.com

The Russian foreign ministry has said Moscow will view any move to return US nuclear weapons to the UK as an escalation and will respond with “countermeasures” for its own security.

The foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was responding to a report last week about an item in the 2024 US air force budget for building a dormitory at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk for personnel on a “potential surety mission” – military jargon for nuclear safety and security. It raised the prospect of the return of US nuclear weapons to British soil for the first time in more than 15 years.

“If this step is ever made, we will view it as escalation, as a step toward escalation that would take things to a direction that is quite opposite to addressing the pressing issue of pulling all nuclear weapons out of European countries,” Zakharova said.