Below, Nick Matzke responds to the question:
The boundaries of science are continually expanding as scientists become increasingly integral to finding solutions for larger social issues, such as poverty, conflict, financial crises, etc. On what specific issue/problem do you feel we need to bring the scientific lens to bear?
Obviously there are hundreds of important problems that scientists need to work on. But if we are talking about prioritizing, the number 1 problem that the world needs to solve can be summarized in one word: nukes. It's the same problem we've had for 60 years.
The case for this proposition is clear and convincing. Consider all of the dangers our global civilization faces--and by this, I mean events which could hypothetically rub out the human species, or at least really horrendously damage civilization for a long period of time. It's a pretty short list: (1) war, (2) infectious disease, (3) climate change, (4) environmental destruction, (5) resource crisis (catastrophic collapse of energy, food, or water availability), (6) astronomical events (e.g. a major bolide impact), oh, and (7) nukes. Of these, some have been a permanent feature of human existence, and appear to be self-limiting and burn themselves out if they get really bad (1 and 2). Others have a very slow timeline (decades at least), giving society ample time to diagnose and adapt to the situation (3 through 5). Astronomical disasters (6) are either easily avoidable with present resources (asteroid monitoring), or so improbable and unavoidable as to be not worth worrying about (black hole wandering by, direct hit from in-galaxy gamma ray burst, yadda yadda).
So that leaves nukes. The risk of global nuclear war is substantially lower now than it was in the Cold War, but it is still nonzero. More importantly, the risk of nuclear war can change dramatically over short timescales--the last 60 years are evidence of that. The reason the risk can change so easily is that it depends on human political structures and even personalities. It's astounding and ridiculous if you think about it. All it would take is a turn for the worse in China or Russia, or a continued nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Asia for a few decades, and we will be right back where we were in the Cold War, where the only thing standing between us and nuclear holocaust is a few very nervous humans--and in the future, the humans in question might not even be more-or-less rational communists and capitalists with a strong interest in self-preservation.
I have used my space here on prioritizing the problem, not on solutions, but scientists should at least publicize the problem and keep pushing for the only ultimate solution, which is a global ban on nuclear weapons.
- Log in to post comments
I think it is a very bad idea to ban all nuclear weapons. There needs to be a few super power countries to keep world peace, does your president not understand that is why most war is avoided is because of fear of the United States and everyone knows that the man with the biggist toys wins?
What makes you think scientists are the right people to reduce the risk for nuclear war? Science and technology can invent new, more dangerous, weapons, but once invented have very little influence on if and how they are used.
The genie is out of the bottle. Weapons inspectors have proven themselves to be useless when it concerns clandestine programs. Reductions in nuclear stockpiles would make war more likely, not less. The threat of mutually assured destruction keeps all players playing nice.
giving society ample time to diagnose and adapt to the situation (3 through 5)
*Shakes magic 8-ball*
Don't count on it.
Here's a short article about a nice man with fun pictures realising nukes aren't as scary as he thought.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-i-learnt-to-stop-worryin…
Not that I necessarily think that nukes are our friends, but it's a perspective.
I can think of a few other places where "a turn for the worse" could result in a return to Cold-War levels of nuclear insecurity... But no, it's always "them" that's the problem, isn't it?
(At times like this, I'm often reminded of a conversation which apparently took place between Kennedy and one of his military advisers during the Cuban missile crisis. Paraphrasing from memory:
Kennedy: "Can't they see how provocative this is? How would they feel if we were to start stationing missiles in Turkey?"
Aide: "Mr President, we already have missiles stationed in Turkey.")
Good to see this still-present danger highlighted. 23,300 nukes (4,400 on 24/7 alert) can't be wrong.
Significant part of the solution:
A Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) to ban nukes and verify their elimination.
http://www.icanw.org/nuclear-weapons-convention
I have a scheme that I think will work to prevent the first use of nuclear weapons, and doesn't cost anything to implement and doesnât require agreement of nuclear weapon states and doesnât require inspections or things like that.
Each state makes unauthorized use of nuclear weapons on its territory a crime and a crime against humanity and declares that the penalty for doing so is the immediate forfeiture of all assets of the nuclear weapons using state and nationals of that nuclear weapon using state.
Each state agrees that for all co-ratifying states, that any non-defensive non-authorized use of nuclear weapons on the territory of a co-ratifying state will for these purposes be treated as a use on that state and so subjects the using state to the immediate forfeiture of all assets of the nuclear weapon using state and nationals of the nuclear weapons using state.
Each state issues letters of marquee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque
to its nationals authorizing them to seize and confiscate all assets in international waters of the nuclear weapons using state and nationals of the nuclear weapons using state.
All seized assets are to be turned over to a fund administered by the seizing state with 10% going to the seizing party, the remaining 90% to be administered for rebuilding and humanitarian purposes in the nuclear weapon affected state, any excess to be used in for humanitarian purposes in a state with a per capita GDP less than that of the seizing state with 10% used to pay for administrative purposes. It is contemplated that the 80% remaining would mostly be spent in the seizing state, with the goods and services going to the receiving state with the lower per capita GDP or affected by the nuclear weapon.
I would also impose a complete 100% trade embargo and maintain the letters of marquee authorizing seizure of all assets in international waters until the leaders of the nuclear weapons using state were turned over for trial at the International court.
Commerce is international enough that most nations have serious out-of-country assets. Many wealthy individuals and pension funds do to. Those wealthy individuals would look very unkindly toward leaders who would use nuclear weapons and so cause them to lose their assets.
Any movement of assets in anticipation of the use of nuclear weapons would be obvious and would drive prices down. The super rich might change their citizenship to nations without nuclear weapons to avoid possible confiscation in the event leaders do use nuclear weapons.
There are a lot of details to be worked out, but the seizure and confiscation could be self-funded by the assets of the nuclear weapons using state (and its nationals). If a state subscribed to this protocol, its neighbors would have a pretty good incentive to foster as much trade as possible with nuclear weapons possessing states because if nuclear weapons were used, assets in state would be confiscated.
The point of this proposal is to cause an economic doomsday scenario in the state that first uses nuclear weapons so as to provide a massive incentive for that to never happen. No doubt it would cause hardship, but a lot less hardship than being retaliated against with nuclear weapons. Trade tariffs and surcharges could be used too.
daedalus2u, you optimistically assume that, following the use of some 4,400 launch-on-warning nukes, that there would be "assets" remaining in existence to seize.
Use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are already a crime against humanity under the International court of Justice, for what it's worth...
You are right, this wonât deter madmen. What it might do is cause rich people to prevent madmen who would use nuclear weapons from coming to power.
Adam, what Bush had his panties in a bunch over was the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. If Iran used a nuclear weapon and lost all assets out of country, how long would that government stay in power? How long would any government stay in power if all the wealth of its citizens out of country was confiscated as a consequence of government action? The Iranian economy would totally collapse without a shot being fired.
If Israel signed up for a protocol that called for all assets of Israeli citizens outside of Israel to be confiscated if Israel used a nuclear weapon non-defensively, wouldnât that lend some credibility to a no-first-use statement? It might also cause a shift in the rhetoric and political activities of wealthy Israelis. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons would have economic consequences because the value of assets of nationals of the threatening nation would drop. If saber rattling caused the stock market to drop by 20% in a day, some rich people would be somewhat ticked off.
How much of North Koreaâs assets are in country? All of their cash is likely in banks in Switzerland. Those Swiss bankers would just love an excuse to confiscate all that cash and get 10% of it as a fee for doing so. They would do it in a heart beat. What is NK going to do instead? Do transactions in gold? If assets canât be transmitted electronically (where they are vulnerable to confiscation), then that is the only option left.
The purpose of my suggestion is to prevent the first use of a nuclear weapon by anyone by threatening economic destruction. This would work particularly well for Russia because Russia is now controlled by oligarchs, by rich people who looted the assets of the former Soviet Union. It would work well for any nation where there are extreme disparities of wealth between the leaders (or those that choose the leaders) and everyone else. No one with assets would want to be a citizen of a country that was poised to use nuclear weapons first. There would be a massive exit from such countries of people with assets that could be moved.
There are not 4,400 "launch on warning" warheads. Maybe there was during the height of the cold war, but there are not that many now. There may not be any "launch on warning" warheads in the US or Russia. There is no credible threat of a massive first strike by Russia or the US on the other. The most credible threat now is from small numbers of warheads by rogue states such as NK or Iran, or Pakistan, and maybe Venezuela. If use of nuclear weapons would lead to virtually certain economic ruin, why would any rational leader spend the money to acquire them? Why would the rich people in a country with an irrational leader let him do it?