Opinion | Brink: Facing the risk of nuclear war

threat of Nuclear war has hung over humanity for too long. We have survived so far through luck and brinkmanship. But the old, limited safeguards that kept the Cold War in place are long gone. More and more nuclear states are becoming less wary. Without demanding any action from our leaders, we condemned another generation to live on a planet where one gross act of arrogance or human error is enough to keep us from destruction. That has to change.

New York Times Opinion’s latest series, “The Brink,” examines the realities of nuclear weapons today. This is the culmination of nearly a year of reporting and research. We will explore where the current dangers lie in the next arms race and what we can do to make the world safe again.

The project’s lead author, WJ Hennigan, today reveals what is at stake if nuclear weapons are used, and how close the world is to ending decades of war. We begin that discussion by revealing for the first time the details of what U.S. officials thought was the case. Nuclear taboo.

Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened in his 2024 annual address that more direct intervention in Ukraine by Western powers could lead to a nuclear conflict. But U.S. intelligence assessments suggest that in the first year of Mr. Putin’s invasion, the world may have been much closer to the brink of a nuclear launch more than a year ago.

This is the first look at the Biden administration’s efforts to avoid that fate, and how it hopes to contain the devastating fallout if it fails. Hennigan explores what happened during that tense period, what officials thought and did, and how we approach a precarious future.

In less than two years, the last remaining major arms treaty between the United States and Russia will expire. But as global instability increases and geopolitics shifts, world leaders are turning a blind eye to diplomacy. Instead, they responded by developing more technologically advanced weapons. Recent information about Russia’s development of space-based nuclear weapons is the latest reminder of the enormous power these weapons continue to have on our lives.

The complexity of today’s nuclear age is unprecedented. The polarization of the Cold War gave way to great power competition with far more emerging powers. With Donald Trump likely to return as president, Iran advancing its nuclear program and China on track to stockpile 1,000 warheads by 2030, German and South Korean officials say Like other important voices, they are vocally questioning whether their country should have nuclear weapons. in Poland, Japan and Saudi Arabia.

The latest generation of nuclear technology can still cause unspeakable destruction. Artificial intelligence may one day automate warfare without human intervention. No one can predict with confidence how deterrence will or will function under these dynamics, or even what will happen to strategic stability. Establishing new terms of engagement will require a new commitment to diplomatic negotiations that could last years.

Over the past few months, I, along with some colleagues, have been asking why nuclear arsenals exist when the world faces so many other challenges, including climate change, rising authoritarianism, economic inequality, and ongoing wars. I’ve been asked if I want to raise awareness about management. in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Part of the answer is that both of these active conflicts would be far more devastating if nuclear weapons were introduced. Consider Putin’s threat at the end of February. “We also have weapons that can attack targets on their territory,” the Russian leader said in his annual address. “Don’t they understand that?”

Another answer lies in our recent history. In the 1960s, ’70s, ’80s, and early ’90s, as people around the world began to understand the nuclear dangers of the era, vocal voters demanded and made change.

In the last century, fears of mutual annihilation prompted governments to come together and form a series of global agreements to reduce risk. Their efforts helped end atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which in some cases harmed people and the environment. The adversaries began a dialogue, which allowed them to avoid accidental use. Stockpiles have decreased. The majority of countries agreed that if the countries possessing these weapons were to make a good faith effort to eliminate them, they would never produce these weapons in the first place. That promise was not kept.

In 1982, one million people gathered in Central Park to demand the abolition of nuclear weapons from the world. Recently, some isolated voices have been sounding the alarm: JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said last year that “the most serious thing facing humanity is nuclear proliferation.” However, such activities are almost unthinkable today. The renewed threat of nuclear weapons is not part of the public debate at all. And the world is becoming less safe.

Currently, the nuclear safety net is dysfunctional. The good news is that it can be re-stitched. American leaders need Washington to marshal international support for this mission, but they also need to lead by example. There are several actions the U.S. president can take without the consent of Congress, which is unlikely to cooperate.

As a first step, the United States could push for the reinvigoration and establishment of a joint intelligence and crisis management center with Russia and China to prevent misunderstandings and escalation. Most of these hotlines are dormant. The United States could also abandon the strategy of launching nuclear weapons solely on warning of an enemy’s launch, which would prevent the United States from starting a nuclear war by accident, human or mechanical failure, or simple misunderstanding. It gets lower. The United States may insist on strict control over artificial intelligence in the process of launching nuclear weapons.

Democracy rarely prevents war, but it can ultimately serve as a restraint. Nuclear use is always an exception, and no scenario gives voters enough time to consider whether to deploy nuclear weapons. Therefore, the people need to exercise sufficient influence before the country finds itself in such a situation.

We must not allow the next generation to inherit a world even more dangerous than the one we were given.

This is an introduction to our new opinion series on modern nuclear threats.read first essay In this series, WJ Hennigan explains the risks of a new nuclear age and how we got here.