ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

A New Generation Already Knows How to Love the Bomb

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



U.S. Strategic Bombers

U.S. Major General William A. Chambers came in to our offices today to talk about how things are going with the nation’s nuclear deterrence efforts. Chambers, who carries the title of assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, talked about the stockpile stewardship program, the one intended to keep thousands of nuclear weapons functional without underground nuclear testing.

The most interesting event occurred after the general left, though. I fell into a conversation with two younger colleagues about the reality that we still have 5,000 nuclear warheads with almost 2,000 of them at the ready, waiting to launch at a moment’s notice. They thought that this embedded legacy of the Cold War was no big deal, just an unfortunate commonplace of contemporary living, something similar to their conception of climate change, avian flu, airport security, world poverty and the like. Both of them were born well after the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, so I guess they just hadn’t absorbed the strontium-90 in their baby teeth as I did.

Anyway, I was fascinated.

I grew up with duck-and-cover drills under the desk in elementary school and remember having vivid teeth-grinding nightmares around the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I still carry the distinct memory of my father and grandfather at the dining room table discussing plans for the number of sandbags needed in our basement to stop the gamma radiation. In thinking about the future, I always imagined that we would never make it to the turn-of-the-century without New York’s skyscrapers being flattened to burnt rubble in a fusion-induced conflagration. There had to be some glitch, some errant technicians in an ICBM silo who would turn the keys to set off a nuclear endgame.

None of this seemed to preoccupy my thirtysomething colleagues. They hadn’t had to learn to love the bomb like I had. From an early age, they had, it seems, achieved peaceful coexistence with the thermonuclear threat. Those multi-megaton haymakers were always there just looming, an abstraction from books, movies or a Scientific American article, similar to the threats from near-Earth asteroids. By the time they had reached adulthood, John  le Carré had largely moved beyond his Smiley series. So for these young’uns, yes, it could be bad.  But it was still just so much white noise in background. No big deal.

That conversation was in keeping with the one with General Chambers, one of the most earnestly agreeable people that you could ever hope to meet. You could see how he  had made his way up through the ranks, from  navigator in an FB-111A to two stars, serving as a public voice for the Air Force before Congress, or on a visit to a science magazine or a potentially hyper-critical audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he went after meeting with Scientific American. Every query we had about force levels and estimated failure rates for warheads met with a welcoming nod and smile. General Curtis LeMay, who inspired, in part, the General Buck Turgidson character played by George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove, might have bristled at a subordinate with such an affable demeanor.

But although the messenger was softer, the message was not. Chambers echoed a mission statement from the earliest years of the Cold War—the need to retain, for one, a large stable of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The missiles, still on high alert as they have been for decades, serve as a counter-response that an adversary must take into account before considering a “bolt out of the blue” strike against the U.S. The punch line: A potential enemy “has to consider that we have 450 missiles across hundreds of miles of America, all ready to go.”

The Russian Federation, he said “still represents an existential capability, particularly in light of how the Russians continue to treat their strategic forces, continue to invest in them, continue to keep them in a high state of readiness.”

The New START treaty, which went into effect a year ago, calls for each superpower to cut back the number of deployed warheads to 1550 by 2017, with thousands still stored as backups. But the ability to wield superior firepower—encompassed by the Cold War triad of missiles, strategic bombers and nuclear submarines—will still be required moving forward, Chambers asserted. The Obama Administration, immersed in a review of the nation’s nuclear capabilities, will assuredly receive the same message that Scientific American editors did. Some cutbacks are feasible and the current nuclear arsenal can preserve its potency with high-powered “exoscale” computer simulations in place of underground testing. But a substantial stockpile and all three legs of the triad are still essential.

Whether the elaborate edifice of Cold War deterrence can be reshaped in an election year seems a stretch. Online piracy and Gingrich’s open marriage are likely to remain center stage. Progress on weapons reduction and proliferation may just have to wait.

On Jan. 10, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock one minute closer to midnight.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

 

 

 

 

About the Author: Gary Stix, a senior editor, commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for more than 20 years at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, Miriam Lacob, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte? Follow on Twitter @@gstix1.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Add Comment

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X