The Future of Nuclear Weapons More proliferation or further reductions? Keith Hansen February 19, 2015.

The Future of Nuclear Weapons

More proliferation or further reductions?

Keith Hansen

February 19, 2015

Introduction Cover central issues regarding nuclear weapons Uncertainty of US – Russian relations & China raises doubts about further reducing our nuclear arsenal Potential proliferation and ISIS/ISIL activities raise questions about the utility of nuclear weapons

Key Questions

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

Why do other countries want nuclear weapons?

Should we be concerned about further proliferation?

Are nuclear weapons really useful?

Is the total elimination of nuclear weapons likely?

Are terrorists likely to use nuclear weapons?

Terminology & Concepts

Weapon-grade fissile material (U-235 & Plutonium)

Nuclear bombs & warheads

Nuclear weapon systems

US & Russian strategic nuclear arsenals Cold War:

From a few bombs (late 1940s) to over 10,000 deployed bombs & warheads (1980s)

Post-Cold War:

START (1991) – reduced bombs/warheads to 6,000SORT (2002) – further reduced to ~3,500New START (2010) – now reducing to ~1,550 (by 2018)*

*Additional bombs & warheads are kept in reserve & in maintenance

Other Nuclear Weapon States* UK – 1950 ~300 bombs/warheadsFrance – 1960 ~300 “China – 1964 ~500 “Israel – 1960s (undeclared) ~100 “India – 1974 & 1998 ~100 “Pakistan – 1998 ~100 “North Korea – 2006 ~12 “

*South Africa – had 6 bombs until early 1990s

Why Nuclear Weapons? National security - deter potential aggressors

International prestige & status

Political/strategic agenda

Nuclear Weapons Are a Game Changer Alter the power balance, especially between large & small countries Effective in deterring potential aggressors Credible weapon of last resort if a state’s existence is threatened Therefore, the motivations to have them are strong!

So, Further Proliferation is Likely

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

South Korea

Taiwan

Japan

But, Successful Proliferation Requires a

Comprehensive Nuclear-weapon Program

Production of weapon-grade fissile material

Ability to build bombs or warheads

Delivery systems, effective command/control, maintenance, & secure storage

Further Proliferation Increases Chances of …

A nuclear-weapon being used

Fissile material being sold or stolen

Provoking even more proliferation

Weakening diplomacy & sanctions

Therefore, it threatens international stability!

International Efforts* to Prevent Proliferation

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) – 1968

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring

UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions & sanctions

Comprehensive Nuclear Testban Treaty (CTBT) – 1996

Regional Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones *Demonstrate widespread concern about the implications of further proliferation

National Efforts to Prevent Proliferation

Intelligence collection, analysis, & other activities

Diplomatic initiatives/incentives/pressure

Economic sanctions

International Efforts to prevent Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) – 2002

Threat of military force

Are Nuclear Weapons Really Useful?

Do they deter other nuclear-weapon states?

Do they deter larger conventional forces?

Do they deter attacks by rogue states?

Do they deter attacks by terrorist groups?

If Not, Why Not Eliminate Them? It would require …

A comprehensive agreement by all nuclear weapon countries

Effective verification to deter cheating

The willingness to deal with cheating

Does this seem feasible?

Are Terrorists Likely to Use Nuclear Weapons? Strong motivations, but they must …

Obtain an existing nuclear bomb or weapon-grade fissile material

Have the expertise to handle and deploy The challenges are formidable, but further proliferation would make it easier! Meanwhile, other types of weapons are more feasible.

Conclusions Further proliferation is more likely than total elimination!

Chances are high that additional nuclear-weapon states will emerge.

Chances are low that all nuclear-weapon states will give up their arsenals.

Motivations for having such weapons are strong. Terrorist use of nuclear, chemical or biological material is a matter of when, not if!

Nightmare Scenarios

North Korea becomes even more aggressive

Pakistan becomes a radical Islamic state

Iran becomes a nuclear-weapon state

Questions?