Stepping back from the nuclear brink

In a recent episode of Talking Policy, a podcast from the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC), Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist John Scott discussed all things nuclear weapons with former California Governor Jerry Brown and Alexandra Bell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Affairs in the Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability at the U.S. State Department. The conversation was moderated over Zoom by IGCC Associate Director Lindsay Shingler.

In addressing his decision to participate in “Stepping Back from the Nuclear Brink: a Talking Policy Roundtable,” Scott, who leads the Laboratory’s X Theoretical Design division, says now is the time to have this conversation. “During the Carter and Reagan administrations, there was so much conversation about nuclear weapons,” he remembers. “And now there isn’t—but it’s not like they’ve gone away. I want to engage on these topics because I think there needs to be a real conversation as a country about what we are going to do and what we are going to advocate for.”

Below is a condensed version of the episode. Scott’s comments have been edited for clarity and length.

Shingler: You don’t have to be an expert in nuclear weapons to know that concerns about them seem to be growing. Some influential voices are saying that we’re entering a new, extremely dangerous nuclear era that will lead to an arms race. And others say that the dangers are greatly exaggerated. John, what about you?

Scott: Nuclear weapons were a big concern in the ’80s and ’90s, then 9/11 happened. We had two decades of what I’ll call a focus on terrorism, and now that we’ve focused away from that, we’ve come back to it. We have China on the rise with their weapons. We have North Korea. And those situations are different today than the ’80s and ’90s in the sense that now we have this kind of three-near-peer situation, which is unfamiliar to everybody who’s kept track of nuclear weapons throughout their history. And so, I think that is the challenge that we face today.

Shingler: John, as the nuclear scientist in the room, could you help us establish some basic facts about nuclear weapons, like how many nuclear weapons are there in the world? How many countries have them? And remind us, what do nuclear weapons do? What makes them different from other weapons?

Scott: So, there are eight declared nuclear states. The United States, Russia, China, France, the U.K., India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In the middle of the 1980s, there were about 70,000 weapons total across all those who have them. Today, there’s about 12,000. The vast majority of the weapons that exist today belong to the United States and Russia. China has approximately 500, and the reports are that they’re building up to 1,000 by 2030.

Nuclear weapons have been used twice—during World War II, against Japan. Those were Little Boy, used against Hiroshima, and Fat Man, used against Nagasaki. Their ability to destroy was quite evident when used. You had a couple hundred thousand deaths between those two events. 

Nuclear weapons derive their explosive power from nuclear reactions, as compared to conventional weapons that derive their power from chemical reactions. The easy way to think about the energy difference between the two is that the energy release in a nuclear reaction is about 50 million times that of a chemical reaction. So, just on a per reaction basis, that’s 50 million times more energy. That gives you a feel for the difference in power. That’s a huge difference.

Lastly, there have been many technical advances since World War II; those allow us to make nuclear weapons that are much more destructive than the ones that were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Shingler: What do you think about the idea that nuclear weapons have, in some sense, secured the peace?

Scott: I think the idea largely worked when it was just the United States and the Soviet Union. But I’m more concerned as more countries get nuclear weapons. The risk increases because the complexity of the situation is larger and the unpredictability is going up. Even in a three-way race—between the U.S., China, and Russia—the U.S. will always have less than the other two combined. That brings to light the importance of arms control, and how you’re going to need people at the highest levels of the government to be talking about this. That is going to be the way to make the situation better—everybody coming to the table. 

Shingler: I want to ask about modernization. There’s a strong effort underway to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal—everything from updating the design of nuclear weapons, strengthening the delivery systems, building new facilities and, of course, increasing the number of weapons. There are strong voices for this and strong voices against this. Do more and better weapons make us safer, or do they make us all more vulnerable?

Scott: So let me restate your question a little bit, because I want to clear up what modernization might mean. Just because the weapon’s being modernized doesn’t mean it’s becoming more destructive. Many of the weapons that are in the stockpile were built when I was a teenager or in elementary school. And if you think of the electronics and technology at that time, as those components age, they need to be replaced.

When you modernize a nuclear package, you aren’t necessarily increasing its yield or making it more powerful. This is about modernizing in the sense of ensuring that they will work as we expect them to when we need to use them. Now, along with that could come delivery vehicle improvements. You can get more accurate, and that could lead them to being able to hit a target more adeptly, which will lead them to be more effective.

Does it make the world a more dangerous place? Just because we have modernized weapons to bring them up to technology today, we’re not changing the capabilities in the stockpile. We are trying to update what we have. I argue that isn’t necessarily changing things significantly in terms of the calculus that’s involved. Nuclear weapons are still nuclear weapons. They’re still very destructive, and that has always existed since nuclear weapons have existed.

Shingler: There are so many pressing challenges in the world. Can people be faulted for not spending their time thinking about nuclear weapons?

Scott: Figuring out what piece you want to grab onto first is tricky because they are interconnected.

It is unfortunate that nuclear has kind of dropped out of the spotlight. I think the longer you get from events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the harder it is for people to relate because you’re not able to talk to many people who experienced that. It’s going to be a challenge to communicate to people the power of the weapons that you’re dealing with here. It is important that you discuss the potential for their use, trying to deter their use, or just having fewer weapons, and the importance of doing that.

Shingler: A world free of nuclear weapons: a pipe dream or an achievable reality? 

Scott: I would love to not have a job like the job I have if that means we get to a world free of nuclear weapons. But in the meantime, we are going to have them, right? So long as they exist, the United States is going to have a safe, secure, effective stockpile. What does that mean? That means that we need people who can do that job well, right? In my job, as the lead of the weapons-physics designers at Los Alamos, I’m always on the hunt for finding good technical people who are willing to spend their careers working on these things. This is a very challenging scientific topic. Having the awareness of the issue will, in my opinion, help me recruit people to allow the United States to maintain the stockpile that we have, and keep it safe, secure, and effective until we get to that point in time where it is no longer needed.

I work on these things every day, but boy, I do not want to see one be used because that is going to be a bad day. A day that none of us are going to forget who are alive at the time, and it’s going to change the world when it occurs. But until we get to the point where we don’t have these anymore, I’m just trying to make sure that we do the job that we are asked to do for the nation and in terms of maintaining our stockpile.

Shingler: For many of us, this subject provokes a lot of anxiety and dread and fear about not having control. Can you tell us, where do you find reassurance?

Scott: No one should feel alone if they have anxiety towards nuclear weapons. The use of a weapon can have such grave consequences, and that generates a lot of visceral feelings in people.

I take comfort knowing that nuclear weapons haven’t been used since World War II. To me, that indicates that there are responsible parties out there who are thinking about the dire consequences. Many people are trying to make sure that they are not going to be used again. And I believe that as the perceived risk of their use increases, you’re going to see folks rising up and saying, “We can’t use these in a war.” We are going to find a way. The question will be how soon we can get there, and what will be that tipping point? ★