global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report

Recommendations

Info

GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION REPORTDE-ALERTING AND STABILIZING THE WORLD’S NUCLEAR FORCE POSTURESto draw up detailed de-alerting road maps, both near-termand longer term; verification procedures; and protocols forcontingent re-alerting for purposes of training, exercising,or dealing with security emergencies. Military-to-militaryconsultations would greatly facilitate these efforts.Currently, U.S.-Russian consultations are moribund, a casualtyof the abnormal rift in their political relations. Thisdamage will need to be repaired and relations returned totheir normal footing. Similar obstacles that stymie consultationsamong other nuclear weapons countries such as Indiaand Pakistan also need to be surmounted. A high levelof expertise in nuclear affairs and operations is essential tothe success of such consultations. The <strong>commission</strong>ers whoparticipated in this report’s preparation represent unofficialadvisors doing spadework intended to help lay foundationsfor future military-to-military engagement and other officialendeavors to reduce nuclear risks. The single-most importantrecommendation of this study is that governmentsappoint task forces consisting of former senior national securityofficers and officials to review the other recommendationsof this report!III. INTRODUCTIONToday, nine countries possess a total stockpile of nearly16,000 nuclear weapons. 5 These weapons are the currency ofcomplex and dynamic operations conducted largely in secretaround the globe. At this very moment and around theclock, hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons operatorsand their support teams are engaged in nuclear war preparations.Every day and night the airwaves and landlines buzzwith nuclear test and exercise messages. Strategic submarinesplying the oceans, and land-based rockets on mobilelaunchers and in underground silos, stand ready to receivethe go-code for launch. In several western U.S. states, nuclearmissile crews train around the clock in mock launch centers,pretending to fight a nuclear war. An aircraft mannedby a battle staff capable of relaying orders for a nuclear strike5 An estimated 6,000 out of the 16,000 are waiting in a queue for dismantlement.The Russian queue size is very uncertain, however.may well be orbiting above the Midwestern plains. 6 Russianhigh-level nuclear battle staffs sit on alert in deep bunkersat multiple locations around greater Moscow. A thousandnuclear weapons roam on combat patrol every day, andhundreds continuously stream back and forth between theircombat alert sites and their maintenance facilities.Missile attack early warning teams in the Unites States andRussia maintain constant vigilance searching space and theskies for incoming warheads. Each day they receive sensordata from satellites or ground radar requiring them to urgentlyassess whether or not a missile attack is underway. Ahost of phenomena catch the attention of their surveillancesensors and have to be evaluated rapidly – a Japanese civilianrocket lifting a commercial satellite into space, a Chineseanti-satellite missile test, a Russian test firing of a nuclear-capablemissile from a submarine, a U.S. warplane onafterburners catapulting off a carrier, and even the moon rising,a flock of geese, a volcanic eruption or wildfire. The U.S.crew in the main early warning center in Colorado strains torender within three minutes an initial assessment that couldstart the countdown to a presidential (or successor) decisionto launch U.S. missiles in retaliation to an apparent attack.Once or twice a week, typically, the phenomena appear topose a possible nuclear missile threat requiring a second,closer look. 7 On rare occasions, one of these will appear torepresent a real threat, and all hell breaks loose.These vignettes barely scratch the surface of the scope, dynamismand riskiness of the <strong>global</strong> nuclear weapons “enterprise.”Multiply this activity many-fold and extend it to manycorners of the globe. All the nuclear weapons countries prepareand exercise detailed plans to employ their weapons incombat, and to blunt through offensive and defensive operationstheir adversaries’ employment of them should hostilitieserupt. In jockeying for position, they conduct inten-6 These airborne patrols are conducted randomly for eight hours eachday in peacetime.7 This sentence and the next are derived from Recent False alerts fromthe Nation’s Missile Attack Warning System, Committee Print, Report ofSenator Gary Hart and Senator Barry Goldwater to the Senate Committeeon Armed Services, 96 Cong. 2 sess., GPO, 1980.12
GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION REPORTDE-ALERTING AND STABILIZING THE WORLD’S NUCLEAR FORCE POSTURESsive surveillance on one another and routinely square off inclose quarters as, for instance, submarines trail each other,reconnaissance aircraft probe borders for leaky air defenses,and fighter planes hang on the wings of opposing strategicbombers on practice bombing runs.The nuclear countries run myriad risks in their daily operations,risks that balloon during crises. The list is long. It includesthe risk that deterrence could collapse if national survivalseems at risk or under the pressure of critical militaryexigencies, resulting in the deliberate initiation of nuclearstrikes. It includes such dark scenarios as the hasty orderingof a large-scale preemptive nuclear strike based on a misinterpretationof enemy intentions or on misleading indicationsof imminent enemy attack. The list of risks includesaccidental detonations, unauthorized launches, and panickymistaken launches caused by false indications of incomingenemy warheads coupled to hasty decision timelines. Otherrisks include low-level encounters that incite deliberateor inadvertent escalation that spirals out of control, nuclearweapons falling into the hands of terrorists, and other fatefulincidents and scenarios that have not yet occurred toanyone. Cyber attack will probably be at the center of manysuch surprises.Having carefully assessed this gamut of risks, this <strong>commission</strong>’soverall assessment is that the large-scale operation ofnuclear forces around the globe runs excessive risk of theiruse, and that new measures are needed to help mitigatethose risks. The report takes a hard and critical look at currentoperational practices and at the overarching strategiesfrom which they stem, focusing particularly on the UnitedStates and Russia. It comes as no surprise that the tenets oftheir nuclear strategies (forged a half-century ago during theheight of the Cold War) and their associated force posturesneed to be revised or replaced. They and all nuclear weaponscountries should adjust their nuclear postures – attackreadiness and peacetime, crisis, and wartime operating procedures– in ways that advance the following specific aims:• Increase nuclear warning and decision time for leadersand commanders;• Remove the threat of sudden, surprise nuclear attack;• Strengthen crisis stability: relieve pressure to generatenuclear forces to launch-ready status in a crisis, and to“use or lose” forces in a conflict;• Increase force and command survivability;• Provide the time and information needed to identify/attribute the source of an attack, whether nuclear, conventional,or cyber;• Strengthen safeguards against the accidental or unauthorizeduse of nuclear weapons;• Protect nuclear forces and command-control-communicationsand early warning networks from cyber attacks;• Prevent terrorists from capturing and using nuclearweapons; and• Provide more tools for flexibly managing a crisis andcontaining a confrontation below the level of nuclearthreat or conflict.One key tool in advancing these aims is “de-alerting.”De-alerting is a means of lowering the attack readiness ofnuclear forces, thereby lowering risks of the accidental, unauthorized,or mistaken launch of nuclear forces, as well asthe chances of their deliberate use. It conveys the intentionnot to resort to nuclear violence and to pursue their ultimateelimination. Off alert forces cannot be fired in hasteor by unauthorized action, or used in a surprise first strike.De-alerting also addresses a host of emerging 21st centurydangers that are raising the <strong>global</strong> risks of nuclear weaponsuse – such as increasing “operationalization” and usabilityof the nuclear forces in several regions of the world, particularlyAsia; growing cyber warfare and insider threats tothe nuclear command and control networks of all countries;and growing opportunities for terrorists to capture nuclearweapons. Not least important, de-alerting also offers analternative approach to nuclear arms control at a time ofstagnation and even regression in the traditional arena ofnegotiated reductions in U.S. and Russian strategic arms.The United States and Russia bear primary responsibility forpursuing a serious agenda of de-alerting. They own the lion’sshare (>90 percent) of the world’s nuclear stockpile, and theycontinue to operate Cold War-era fast reaction postures thatexpose the entire world to unacceptable risks. Strong joint leadershipby the White House and Kremlin would facilitate theirrevamping of nuclear command systems and alert postures.13
Page 3 and 4: GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSIONON NUCLEAR RI
Page 7: TABLEOF CONTENTSExecutive Summary1O
Page 10 and 11: GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR R
Page 30: GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR R
Page 71 and 72:
GLOBAL ZERO COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR R
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
show all

global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template ?