The risks of nuclear weapons range from nuclear terrorism, or a ‘tactical nuclear’ attack on a single city, which could kill millions of people, to global nuclear war, which could kill billions. Notably, the latter has almost happened many times by accident. The potential impacts of these risks are countless; many are still unexplored. A 1979 report estimated, based on initial blasts, radiation risks, power grid disruption and more, that 28-88% Americans and 22-50% Soviets would die. That was before nuclear winter was discovered.

In the 1980s, researchers saw that a nuclear war could cause vast amounts of smoke to spread around the globe, blocking out sunlight and transforming summers into winters, much as asteroids or supervolcanoes did in the past, causing mass extinctions. Today’s more sophisticated climate models show that 1980s research underestimated this impact. In several core farming regions, climate models show temperatures will reduce by 20°C for several summers, and by about half ten years later. The world as we know it would crumble, due to starvation, hypothermia, and epidemics.

Even if just one superpower launched its full nuclear arsenal against the other without retaliation, nuclear winter would still ensure the attacking country’s self-destruction. This realisation helped motivate the ‘nuclear freeze’ movement following the Cold War, which saw a 75% reduction of global nuclear stockpiles. But despite the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s pledge to disarm, progress has dwindled. The nuclear freeze is thawing.

The design and production of new nuclear weapons are not only unnecessary for deterrence, but actually make accidental war more likely. As well as encouraging states to develop nuclear weapons, it gives terrorists better access to enrichment materials.

FLI thus opposes such development, as well as weapons testing. We also encourage steps to reduce the tremendous risk of nuclear winter: this includes de-escalation from tense war scenarios – when near-misses have disproportionately occurred – and smaller steps like the removal of weapons from ‘hair-trigger’ alert.

Looking to recent developments, we also stand firmly against efforts to incorporate Artificial Intelligence systems into nuclear weapons controls. Such an incorporation raises the possibility of catastrophic miscalculations and blunders by speeding up response times, and excluding the human intuition and hesitation which have many times helped avert World War III.

New Report Calls Out Banks that Make Nuclear Weapons Investments

By Kirsten Gronlund

Despite the 2017 international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, weapons companies continue to build them. Facilitating this production is a massive amount of investment capital contributed by private financial institutions.

Don’t Bank on the Bomb’s new report, Shorting our security: Financing the companies that make nuclear weapons, identifies which banks are investing in nuclear weapons producers, and how much they’re investing. The aim of the report is to end the production of nuclear weapons by increasing the stigma associated with these investments.

Many nuclear weapons producers engage in commercial activity other than weapons production, and investors have no way of ensuring how their investments will be used. Thus, “the report shows investments in those nuclear weapon producers at the group level, regardless of the other activities of the company or the percentage of turnover it derives from nuclear weapons-related activities.”

The report finds that over 748 billion USD was invested in the top 18 nuclear weapons companies between January 2017 and January 2019. Investments in these companies have grown by 42% compared to Don’t Bank on the Bomb’s previous analysis, up from 325 billion USD. This is due in large part to a 40% increase in Boeing’s share prices; since the conclusion of this analysis, the Boeing 737Max airplane crash has negatively affected the company.

The 748 billion USD represents investments by 325 financial institutions, headquartered in 28 countries. In the previous analysis, only 25 countries hosted institutions with investments in nuclear weapons producers. Since that analysis, 94 institutions representing at least 55,507 million USD in investments ended their contributions. However, this loss is more than offset by the 90 institutions that have since made first-time investments totaling 107,821 million USD. Over half the total investment capital came from just the top 10 investors.

Who is investing the most?

The top 10 investors are all US companies. Their total investments, in millions USD, are listed below.

[av_table purpose=’tabular’ pricing_table_design=’avia_pricing_minimal’ pricing_hidden_cells=” caption=” responsive_styling=’avia_responsive_table’]
[av_row row_style=’avia-heading-row’][av_cell col_style=”]Name[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2019 Report[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2018 Report[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Change[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]% Change[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Vanguard[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]66,048[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]35,267[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]30,781[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]87%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]BlackRock[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]61,200[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]38,381[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]22,819[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]59%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Capital Group[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]59,096[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]36,739[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]22,357[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]61%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]State Street[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]52,835[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]33,370[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]19,465[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]58%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Verisight (now known as Newport Group, formerly Evercore)[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]31,509[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]13,712[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]31,509[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]130%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]T. Rowe Price[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]31,234[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]8,896[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]22,228[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]251%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Bank of America[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]29,033[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]25,851[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,182[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]12%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]JPMorgan Chase[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]23,962[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]29,679[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-5,717[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-19%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Wells Fargo[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]20,261[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]13,497[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]6,764[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]50%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Citigroup[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]17,017[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]16,489[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]528[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[/av_table]

Search here to find out if your bank is investing in nuclear weapons.  

Who stopped investing?

Below are the ten largest investors that no longer have investments in the top 18 weapons producers.

[av_table purpose=’tabular’ pricing_table_design=’avia_pricing_default’ pricing_hidden_cells=” caption=” responsive_styling=’avia_responsive_table’]
[av_row row_style=’avia-heading-row’][av_cell col_style=”]Name[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Country[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Millions USD[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Children’s Investment Fund Management[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]UK[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]1,469[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Marathon Asset Management[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Canada[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]635[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]William Blair & Company[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]474[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Mackie Research Financial[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]223[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Discovery Capital Management[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]174[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]ABP[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Netherlands[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]104[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Blue Harbour Group[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]97[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Manning & Napier[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]UK[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]82[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Teacher Retirement System of Texas[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]73[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Glenmede[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]70[/av_cell][/av_row]
[/av_table]

Who started investing?

Below are the ten new investors with the highest investments.

[av_table purpose=’tabular’ pricing_table_design=’avia_pricing_default’ pricing_hidden_cells=” caption=” responsive_styling=’avia_responsive_table’]
[av_row row_style=’avia-heading-row’][av_cell col_style=”]Name[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Country[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Millions USD[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Unum Group[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]31,508.7[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]WBC Holdings[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]20,260.8[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]SMBC Group[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Japan[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]8,201.5[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Dassault Family[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]France[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]6,772.5[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Janus Henderson[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]UK[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]6,104.9[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]United Overseas Bank[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Singapore[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]4,314.4[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]AXA Equitable[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,733.7[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Point72 Asset Management[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,546.3[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Strategic Incoe Management[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]USA[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2,704.8[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Development Bank of Japan[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Japan[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]1,973.0[/av_cell][/av_row]
[/av_table]

Where is the money going?

Total investments in each company are listed in millions USD.

[av_table purpose=’tabular’ pricing_table_design=’avia_pricing_default’ pricing_hidden_cells=” caption=” responsive_styling=’avia_responsive_table’]
[av_row row_style=’avia-heading-row’][av_cell col_style=”]Name[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2019 Report[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2018 Report[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]Change[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]% Change[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Aecom[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]19,048[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]20,101[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-1,054[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-5%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Aerojet Rocketdyne[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]4,791[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2,685[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2,107[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]78%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Airbus[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]44,455[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]30,691[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]13,764[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]45%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]BAE Systems[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]22,814[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]25,986[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-3,172[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-12%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Bechtel[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]4,000[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]7,000[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-3,000[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-43%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Boeing[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]254,296[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]87,010[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]167,286[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]192%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]BWX Technologies[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]8,987[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]5,865[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,122[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]53%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Fluor[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]17,465[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]18,276[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-812[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-4%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]General Dynamics[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]72,630[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]45,437[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]27,193[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]60%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Honeywell[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]78,397[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]86,806[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-8,408[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-10%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Huntington Ingalls Industries[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]12,568[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]9,915[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2,653[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]27%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Jacobs Engineering (includes CH2M Hill)[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]15,563[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]11,616[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,947[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]34%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Larsen & Toubro[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]14,855[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]15,905[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-1,050[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-7%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Lockheed Martin[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]77,543[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]79,118[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-1575[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-2%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Northrop Grumman (includes Orbital ATK)[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]53,023[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]52,507[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]516[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]1%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Safran[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]24,661[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]18,105[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]6,556[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]36% [/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Serco[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]2,265[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]3,653[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-1,389[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]-38%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=”][av_cell col_style=”]Thales[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]21,080[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]5,269[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]15,811[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]300%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[av_row row_style=’avia-heading-row’][av_cell col_style=”]Grand Total[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]748,440[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]525,945[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]222,495[/av_cell][av_cell col_style=”]42%[/av_cell][/av_row]
[/av_table]

On February 1, a little more than 30 years after it went into effect, the United States announced that it is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Less than 24 hours later, Russia announced that it was also suspending the treaty.

It stands (or stood) as one of the last major nuclear arms control treaties between the U.S. and Russia, and its collapse signals the most serious nuclear arms crisis since the 1980s. As Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, said to The Guardian, “If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972.”

The INF treaty, which went into effect in 1988, was the first nuclear agreement to outlaw an entire class of weapons. It banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles — nuclear, conventional, and “exotic”— with a range of 500 km to 5500 km (310 to 3400 miles), leading to the immediate elimination of 2,692 short- and medium-range weapons. But more than that, the treaty served as a turning point that helped thaw the icy stalemate between the U.S. and Russia. Ultimately, the trust that it fostered established a framework for future treaties and, in this way, played a critical part in ending the Cold War.

Now, all of that may be undone.

The Blame Game Part 1: Russia vs. U.S.

In defense of the suspension, President Donald Trump said that the Russian government has deployed new missiles that violate the terms of the INF treaty — missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to European targets, including U.S. military bases. President Trump also said that, despite repeated warnings, President Vladimir Putin has refused to destroy these warheads. “We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we’re not allowed to,” he said.

In a statement announcing the suspension of the treaty, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that countries must be held accountable when they violate a treaty. “Russia has jeopardized the United States’ security interests,” he said, “and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it.” Pompeo continued by noting that Russia’s posturing is a clear signal that the nation is returning to its old Cold War mentality, and that the U.S. must make similar preparations in light of these developments. “As we remain hopeful of a fundamental shift in Russia’s posture, the United States will continue to do what is best for our people and those of our allies,” he concluded.

The controversy about whether Russia is in violation hinges on whether the 9M729 missile can fly more than 500km. The U.S. claims to have provided evidence of this to Russia, but has not made this evidence public, and further claims that violations have continued since at least 2014. Although none of the U.S.-based policy experts interviewed for this article dispute that Russia is in violation, many caution that this suspension will create a far more unstable environment and that the U.S. shares much of the blame for not doing more to preserve the treaty.

In an emailed statement to the Future of Life Institute, Martin Hellman, an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Nuclear Risk Analysis at the Federation of American Scientists and Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, was clear in his censure of the Trump administration’s decision and reasoning, noting that it follows a well-established pattern of duplicity and double-dealing:

The INF Treaty was a crucial step in ending the arms race. Our withdrawing from it in such a precipitous manner is a grave mistake. In a sense, treaties are the beginning of negotiations, not the end. When differences in perspective arise, including on what constitutes a violation, the first step is to meet and negotiate. Only if that process fails, should withdrawal be contemplated. In the same way, any faults in a treaty should first be approached via corrective negotiations.

Withdrawing in this precipitous manner from the INF treaty will add to concerns that our adversaries already have about our trustworthiness on future agreements, such as North Korea’s potential nuclear disarmament. Earlier actions of ours which laid that foundation of mistrust include George W. Bush killing the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea “for domestic political reasons,” Obama attacking Libya after Bush had promised that giving up its WMD programs “can regain a secure and respected place among the nations,” and Trump tearing up the Iran agreement even though Iran was in compliance and had taken steps that considerably set back its nuclear program.

In an article published by CNN, Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Adam Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, echo these sentiments and add that the U.S. government greatly contributed to the erosion of the treaty, clarifying that the suspension could have been avoided if President Trump had collaborated with NATO allies to pressure Russia into ensuring compliance. “ allies told our offices directly that the Trump administration blocked NATO discussion regarding the INF treaty and provided only the sparest information throughout the process….This is the latest step in the Trump administration’s pattern of abandoning the diplomatic tools that have prevented nuclear war for 70 years. It also follows the administration’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement,” they said.

Russia has also complained about the alleged lack of U.S. diplomacy. In January 2019, Russian diplomats proposed a path to resolution, stating that they would display their missile system and demonstrate that it didn’t violate the INF treaty if the U.S. did the same with their MK-41 launchers in Romania. The Russians felt that this was a fair compromise, as they have long argued that the Aegis missile defense system, which the U.S. deployed in Romania and Poland, violates the INF treaty. The U.S. rejected Russia’s offer, stating that a Russian controlled inspection would not permit the kind of unfettered access that U.S. representatives would need to verify their conclusions. And ultimately, they insisted that the only path forward was for Russia to destroy the missiles, launchers, and supporting infrastructure.

In response, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov accused the U.S. of being obstinate. “U.S. representatives arrived with a prepared position that was based on an ultimatum and centered on a demand for us to destroy this rocket, its launchers and all related equipment under US supervision,” he said.

Suggested Reading

Accidental Nuclear War: A Timeline of Close Calls

The most devastating military threat arguably comes from a nuclear war started not intentionally but by accident or miscalculation. Accidental nuclear war has almost happened many times already, and with 15,000 nuclear weapons worldwide — thousands on hair-trigger alert and ready to launch at a moment’s notice — an accident is bound to occur eventually.

The Blame Game Part 2: China

Other experts, such as Mark Fitzpatrick, Director of the non-proliferation program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, assert that the “real reason” for the U.S. pullout lies elsewhere — in China.

This belief is bolstered by previous statements made by President Trump. Most notably, during a rally in the Fall of 2018, the President told reporters that it is unfair that China faces no limits when it comes to developing and deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles. “Unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say, ‘let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable,” he said.

According to a 2019 report published for congress, China has some 2,000 ballistic and cruise missiles in its inventory, and 95% of these would violate the INF treaty if Beijing were a signatory. It should be noted that both Russia and the U.S. are estimated to have over 6,000 nuclear warheads, while China has approximately 280. Nevertheless, the report states, “The sheer number of Chinese missiles and the speed with which they could be fired constitutes a critical Chinese military advantage that would prove difficult for a regional ally or partner to manage absent intervention by the United States,” adding, “The Chinese government has also officially stated its opposition to Beijing joining the INF Treaty.” Consequently, President Trump stated that the U.S. has no choice but to suspend the treaty.

Along these lines, John Bolton, who became the National Security Adviser in April, has long argued that the kinds of missiles banned by the INF treaty would be an invaluable resource when it comes to defending Western nations against what he argues is an increasing military threat from China’s.

Pranay Vaddi, a fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, feels differently. Although he does not deny that China poses a serious military challenge to the U.S., Vaddi asserts that withdrawing from the INF treaty is not a viable solution, and he says that proponents of the suspension “ignore the very real political challenges associated with deploying U.S. GBIRs in the Asia Pacific region. They also ignore specific military challenges, including the potential for a missile race and long-term regional and strategic instability.” He concludes, “Before withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the United States should consult with its Asian allies on the threat posed by China, the defenses required, and the consequences of introducing U.S. offensive missiles into the region, including potentially on allied territory.”

Suggested Reading

1100 Declassified U.S. Nuclear Targets

The National Security Archives recently published a declassified list of U.S. nuclear targets from 1956, which spanned 1,100 locations across Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and North Korea. This map shows all 1,100 nuclear targets from that list, demonstrating how catastrophic a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia could be.

Six Months and Counting

Regardless of how much blame each respective nation shares, the present course has been set, and if things don’t change soon, we may find ourselves in a very different world a few months from now.

According to the terms of the treaty, if one of the parties breaches the agreement then the other party has the option to terminate or suspend it. It was on this basis that, back in October of 2018, President Trump stated he would be terminating the INF treaty altogether. Today’s suspension announcement is an update to these plans.

Notably, a suspension doesn’t follow the same course as a withdrawal. A suspension means that the treaty continues to exist for a set period. As a result, starting Feb. 1, the U.S. began a six-month notice period. If the two nations don’t reach an agreement and decide to restore the treaty within this window, on August 2nd, the Treaty will go out of effect. At that juncture, both the U.S. and Russia will be free to develop and deploy the previously banned nuclear missiles with no oversight or transparency.

The situation is dire, and experts assert that we must immediately reopen negotiations. On Friday, before the official U.S. announcement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that if the United States announced it would suspend compliance with the treaty, Germany would use the six-month formal withdrawal period to hold further discussions. “If it does come to a cancellation today, we will do everything possible to use the six-month window to hold further talks,” she said.

Following the US announcement, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tweeted, “there will be less security without the treaty.” Likewise, Laura Rockwood, executive director at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, noted that the suspension is a troubling move that will increase — not decrease — tension and conflict. “It would be best to keep the INF in place. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s been an extraordinarily successful arms control treaty,” she said.

Carl Bildt, a co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, agreed with these sentiments, noting in a tweet that the INF treaty’s demise puts many lives in peril. “Russia can now also deploy its Kaliber cruise missiles with ranges around 1.500 km from ground launchers. This would quickly cover all of Europe with an additional threat,” he said.

And it looks like many of these fears are already being realized. In a televised meeting over the weekend, President Putin stated that Russia will actively begin building weapons that were previously banned under the treaty. President Putin also made it clear that none of his departments would initiate talks with the U.S. on any matters related to nuclear arms control. “I suggest that we wait until our partners are ready to engage in equal and meaningful dialogue,” he said.

The photo for this article is from wiki commons: by Mil.ru, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63633975

Click here to see this page in other languages:  Russian 

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States will be pulling out of the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The INF treaty, which went into effect in 1987, banned ground-launched nuclear missiles that have a range of 500 km to 5,500 km (310 to 3,400 miles). Although the agreement covers land-based missiles that carry both nuclear and conventional warheads, it doesn’t cover any air-launched or sea-launched weapons.

Nonetheless, when it was signed into effect by Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, it led to the elimination of nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles. More significantly, it helped bring an end to a dangerous nuclear standoff between the two nations, and the trust that it fostered played a critical part in defusing the Cold War.

Now, as a result of the recent announcements from the Trump administration, all of this may be undone. As Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, stated in an interview with The Guardian, “This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s. If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972.”

Of course, the U.S. isn’t the only player that’s contributing to unravelling an arms treaty that helped curb competition and contributed to bringing an end to the Cold War.

Reports indicate that Russia has been violating the INF treaty since at least 2014, a fact that was previously acknowledged by the Obama administration and which President Trump cited in his INF withdrawal announcement last week. “Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years, and I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out,” Trump stated. “We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.…so we’re going to terminate the agreement. We’re going to pull out,” he continued.

Trump also noted that China played a significant role in his decision to pull the U.S. out of the INF treaty. Since China was not a part of the negotiations and is not a signatory, the country faces no limits when it comes to developing and deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles — a fact that China has exploited in order to amass a robust missile arsenal. Trump noted that the U.S. will  have to develop those weapons, “unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say, ‘let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable.”

A Growing Concern

Concerns over Russian missile systems that breach the INF treaty are real and valid. Equally valid are the concerns over China’s weapons strategy. However, experts note that President Trump’s decision to leave the INF treaty doesn’t set us on the path to the negotiating table, but rather, toward another nuclear arms race.

Russian officials have been clear in this regard, with Leonid Slutsky, who chairs the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament, stating this week that a U.S. withdrawal from the INF agreement “would mean a real new Cold War and an arms race with 100 percent probability” and “a collapse of the planet’s entire nonproliferation and disarmament regime.”

This is precisely why many policy experts assert that withdrawal is not a viable option and, in order to achieve a successful resolution, negotiations must continue. Wolfgang Ischinger, the former German ambassador to the United States, is one such expert. In a statement issued over the weekend, he noted that he is “deeply worried” about President Trump’s plans to dismantle the INF treaty and urged the U.S. government to, instead, work to expand the treaty. “Multilateralizing this agreement would be a lot better than terminating it,” he wrote on Twitter.

Even if the U.S. government is entirely disinterested in negotiating, and the Trump administration seeks only to respond with increased weaponry, policy experts assert that withdrawing from the INF treaty is still an unavailing and unnecessary move. As Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia nonproliferation program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, notes, the INF doesn’t prohibit sea- or air-based systems. Consequently, the U.S. could respond to Russian and Chinese political maneuverings with increased armament without escalating international tensions by upending longstanding treaties.

Indeed, since President Trump made his announcement, a number of experts have condemned the move and called for further negotiations. EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said that the U.S. and Russia “need to remain in a constructive dialogue to preserve this treaty” as it “contributed to the end of the Cold War, to the end of the nuclear arms race and is one of the cornerstones of European security architecture.”  

Most notably, in a statement that was issued Monday, the European Union cautioned the U.S. against withdrawing from the INF treaty, saying, “The world doesn’t need a new arms race that would benefit no one and on the contrary, would bring even more instability.”

German

Russian 

To celebrate that today is not the 35th anniversary of World War III, Stanislav Petrov, the man who helped avert an all-out nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S. on September 26 1983 was honored in New York with the $50,000 Future of Life Award at a ceremony at the Museum of Mathematics in New York.

Former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said: “It is hard to imagine anything more devastating for humanity than all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States. Yet this might have occurred by accident on September 26 1983, were it not for the wise decisions of Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov. For this, he deserves humanity’s profound gratitude. Let us resolve to work together to realize a world free from fear of nuclear weapons, remembering the courageous judgement of Stanislav Petrov.”

Stanislav Petrov’s daughter Elena holds the 2018 Future of Life Award flanked by her husband Victor. From left: Ariel Conn (FLI), Lucas Perry (FLI), Hannah Fry, Victor, Elena, Steven Mao (exec. producer of the Petrov film “The Man Who Saved the World”), Max Tegmark (FLI)

Although the U.N. General Assembly, just blocks away, heard politicians highlight the nuclear threat from North Korea’s small nuclear arsenal, none mentioned the greater threat from the many thousands of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russian arsenals that have nearly been unleashed by mistake dozens of times in the past in a seemingly never-ending series of mishaps and misunderstandings.

One of the closest calls occurred thirty-five years ago, on September 26, 1983, when Stanislav Petrov chose to ignore the Soviet early-warning detection system that had erroneously indicated five incoming American nuclear missiles. With his decision to ignore algorithms and instead follow his gut instinct, Petrov helped prevent an all-out US-Russian nuclear war, as detailed in the documentary film “The Man Who Saved the World”, which will be released digitally next week. Since Petrov passed away last year, the award was collected by his daughter Elena. Meanwhile, Petrov’s son Dmitry missed his flight to New York because the U.S. embassy delayed his visa. “That a guy can’t get a visa to visit the city his dad saved from nuclear annihilation is emblematic of how frosty US-Russian relations have gotten, which increases the risk of accidental nuclear war”, said MIT Professor Max Tegmark when presenting the award. Arguably the only recent reduction in the risk of accidental nuclear war came when Donald Trump held a summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki earlier this year, which was, ironically, met with widespread criticism.

In Russia, soldiers often didn’t discuss their wartime actions out of fear that it might displease their government, and so, Elena only first heard about her father’s heroic actions in 1998 – 15 years after the event occurred. And even then, Elena and her brother only learned of what her father had done when a German journalist reached out to the family for an article he was working on. It’s unclear if Petrov’s wife, who died in 1997, ever knew of her husband’s heroism. Until his death, Petrov maintained a humble outlook on the event that made him famous. “I was just doing my job,” he’d say.

But most would agree that he went above and beyond his job duties that September day in 1983. The alert of five incoming nuclear missiles came at a time of high tension between the superpowers, due in part to the U.S. military buildup in the early 1980s and President Ronald Reagan’s anti-Soviet rhetoric. Earlier in the month the Soviet Union shot down a Korean Airlines passenger plane that strayed into its airspace, killing almost 300 people, and Petrov had to consider this context when he received the missile notifications. He had only minutes to decide whether or not the satellite data were a false alarm. Since the satellite was found to be operating properly, following procedures would have led him to report an incoming attack. Going partly on gut instinct and believing the United States was unlikely to fire only five missiles, he told his commanders that it was a false alarm before he knew that to be true. Later investigations revealed that reflections of the Sun off of cloud tops had fooled the satellite into thinking it was detecting missile launches.

Last years Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Beatrice Fihn, who helped establish the recent United Nations treaty banning nuclear weapons, said,“Stanislav Petrov was faced with a choice that no person should have to make, and at that moment he chose the human race — to save all of us. No one person and no one country should have that type of control over all our lives, and all future lives to come. 35 years from that day when Stanislav Petrov chose us over nuclear weapons, nine states still hold the world hostage with 15,000 nuclear weapons. We cannot continue relying on luck and heroes to safeguard humanity. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides an opportunity for all of us and our leaders to choose the human race over nuclear weapons by banning them and eliminating them once and for all. The choice is the end of us or the end of nuclear weapons. We honor Stanislav Petrov by choosing the latter.”

University College London Mathematics Professor  Hannah Fry, author of  the new book “Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms”, participated in the ceremony and pointed out that as ever more human decisions get replaced by automated algorithms, it is sometimes crucial to keep a human in the loop – as in Petrov’s case.

The Future of Life Award seeks to recognize and reward those who take exceptional measures to safeguard the collective future of humanity. It is given by the Future of Life Institute (FLI), a non-profit also known for supporting AI safety research with Elon Musk and others. “Although most people never learn about Petrov in school, they might not have been alive were it not for him”, said FLI co-founder Anthony Aguirre. Last year’s award was given to the Vasili Arkhipov, who singlehandedly prevented a nuclear attack on the US during the Cuban Missile Crisis. FLI is currently accepting nominations for next year’s award.

Stanislav Petrov around the time he helped avert WWIII

Saturday sessions

• Continuing Dangers from Nuclear Weapons
  • Prof. Aron Bernstein, Prof. Elaine Scarry, Stephanie Savell.
• International Initiatives Toward Disarmament
  • Joseph Gerson, Hon. John Tierney, Charles Knight, Chuck Johnson, Jim Anderson (Chair).
• Political Initiatives
  • John Tierney, Medea Benjamin, Kristina Romines, Jonathan King, Andrea Miller (Chair).
• Campus Organizing for Peace & Justice: What Works? What Doesn’t? Where Next?
  • Campus Peace leaders including Caitlin Forbes (Mass Peace Action), Kate Alexander (Peace Action of NY), Eric Stolar (Fordham), Luisa Kenausis (MIT).
• Actions for the Coming Period: Shout Heard Round the World
  • Michelle Cunha, Poor Peoples 40 Day Campaign (Paul Johnson), Peace for Koreans (Mike Vanelzakker), Cole Harrison (Chair).

Workshops

• Resisting the Trillion dollar Nuclear Weapons Escalation
  • Prof. Gary Goldstein, Peter Casey, Prof. Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Richard Krushnic, Guntram Mueller (Chair).
• Congressional Budget-Civilian vs Pentagon
  • Subrata Ghoshroy, Andrea Miller, Stephanie Savell, Paul Shannon, Michelle Cunha (Chair).
• Don’t Bank on the Bomb Divestment Campaigns
  • William Hartung, Lucas Perry, State Rep. Mike Connolly, Medea Benjamin, Councilor Dennis Carlone (Chair).
• Preventing Nuclear Weapons Use
  • Lisbeth Gronlund, Dr. Kea van der Ziel, Prof. Elaine Scarry, Shelagh Foreman, Jerold Ross (Chair).

Sunday Morning Planning Breakfast

Student-led session to design and implement programs enhancing existing campus groups, and organizing new ones; extending the network to campuses in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine.

For more information, contact Jonathan King at <jaking@mit.edu>, or call 617-354-2169

Create a nuclear weapons free investment policy

Once financial institutions make the decision to put a nuclear weapons free policy into place, there are some key aspects to consider. The following checklist gives a brief overview of the different elements to include in nuclear weapons policies

Why make a policy at all?

1. • Nuclear weapons are inhumane
   • There is a stigma attached to financing the bomb
   • Consumers are going green
   • Nuclear weapons producers don’t generate more profit than other industries
   • Nuclear weapons are prohibited by international treaty

3 steps to be nuclear weapons free

1. • Announce the intention to end involvement with nuclear weapons (or announce that currently
     no known investments exist)
   • Develop a comprehensive policy preventing investment in nuclear weapon producers
   • Prepare a timeline for divesting from existing holdings (if applicable)

Get into the Don’t Bank on the Bomb Hall of Fame

MAKE SURE THE POLICY EXCLUDES ALL NUCLEAR WEAPON ASSOCIATED COMPANIES

1. • Whole companies, not only nuclear related projects
   • Companies associated with nuclear weapons including through joint ventures
   • Companies regardless of their country of origin
   • Companies regardless of their country of operation

MAKE SURE THE POLICY EXCLUDES ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES

1. • Developing, testing, production, maintenance or trade of nuclear weapons related technology,
     parts, products or services
   • Delivery systems that are specifically developed for nuclear tasks, including ‘dual use’
     technology

MAKE SURE THE POLICY APPLIES TO ALL THE INSTITUTION’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR THE ENTIRE GROUP, INCLUDING SUBSIDIARIES

1. • To all commercial banking, investment banking activities and to all asset management classes
     – passive and active, internal and external.
   • To all existing and future investments.

For more detailed information, please visit www.dontbankonthebomb.com

You decided to divest, what now?

✓ Step 1: Check on your financial institution or investment

Is it listed in the Don’t Bank on the Bomb report?

• • Yes:

    In the Hall of Fame –> go to Step 4

    In the Runners up –> go to Step 2

    In the Hall of Shame –> go to Step 2

  • No: Check to see if they are a subsidiary of another financial institution.

    Yes, they are a subsidiary –>

    find out what their parent institution is and go back to step 1

    No, they are not a subsidiary –> go to Step 2

✓ Step 2: Make Contact

Find the right person to talk to: board of directors, operating managers, the sustainability department, investment managers, the communication department. Always reach as high as you can!

1. • Hall of Fame
     • Tell them you are a client
     • Thank them for having a policy
     • Ask them to help you support the ICAN campaign by sharing information on the BanTreaty, co-signing a letter to the government, or other activity.

1. • Runners – Up
     • Thank them for having a policy
     • Encourage them to fix the gaps in the policy (use Don’t Bank on the Bomb for the specific recommendation)
     • If they have also have investments, ask them to urgently divest.

1. • Hall of Shame
     • Tell them you are a client
     • Ask them to urgently divest
     • Ask them to develop a policy to prevent future investments.

✓ Step 3: Escalate the engagement

Keep contacting the financial institution until they respond to your message, set up a policy and divest!

If they don’t respond at first:

1. • Send your message again, but this time copy other departments (including communications or
     public relations)
   • Ask through social media- Facebook or Twitter
   • Give a local journalist a scoop- telling them the whole story from investment to (lack of) action
   • Publish an op-ed or letter to the editor in the newspaper
   • Organize demonstrations at their offices

When the financial institution responds to your letter in a positive way:

Suggest the following points for their nuclear weapons policy:

1. • Exclude all nuclear weapon associated companies
   • Exclude all nuclear weapon associated activities
   • Apply to all the institution’s products and services
   • Actively divest from any current holdings in nuclear weapon producers

✓ Step 4: Communicate & Congratulate

One success is inspiration for another, and another and another. One defeat is an opportunity to learn
and improve and get creative in making new plans.

Don’t forget to:

1. • Tell the team at Don’t Bank on the Bomb about your activities:
     info@dontbankonthebomb.com
   • Thank the people you’ve worked with at the financial institution for their efforts
   • Publish some “good news” by asking local media to cover the success story
   • Celebrate the win globally through social media

Tips for letter writing

How to Begin:
Let the financial institution know who you are. Do you hold a bank account with them? Are you a member of their pension or investment plan? Do you own shares in their company”? Are you writing as a representative of a particular organization? Are you simply a concerned citizen?

What to Include:
Inform the financial institution that you are aware of their investments in nuclear weapons companies. Specify which companies and briefly describe the activities these companies are engaged in. Outline why you believe that financing nuclear weapons is illegitimate.

Ask for Information:
Inquire as to whether the financial institution has a policy on investing in the arms industry. If you are already aware that such a policy exists, ask the institution to explain how its investments in nuclear weapons companies can be justified under the terms of the policy.

Call for Action:
Call on the financial institution to divest from all nuclear weapons companies. Explain that nuclear weapons are illegitimate and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

How to End:
Make it clear that you expect a response, and share that response with other campaigners.

Citing the growing threats of climate change, increasing tensions between nuclear-armed countries, and a general loss of trust in government institutions, the Bulletin warned that we are “making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as dangerous as it has been since World War II.”

The Doomsday Clock hasn’t fallen this close to midnight since 1953, a year after the US and Russia tested the hydrogen bomb, a bomb up to 1000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And like 1953, this year’s announcement highlighted the increased global tensions around nuclear weapons.

As the Bulletin wrote in their statement, “To call the world nuclear situation dire is to understate the danger—and its immediacy.”

Between the US, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, the threats of aggravated nuclear war and accidental nuclear war both grew in 2017. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry said in a statement, “The events of the past year have only increased my concern that the danger of a nuclear catastrophe is increasingly real. We are failing to learn from the lessons of history as we find ourselves blundering headfirst towards a second cold war.”

The threat of nuclear war has hovered in the background since the weapons were invented, but with the end of the Cold War, many were pulled into what now appears to have been a false sense of security. In the last year, aggressive language and plans for new and upgraded nuclear weapons have reignited fears of nuclear armageddon. The recent false missile alerts in Hawaii and Japan were perhaps the starkest reminders of how close nuclear war feels, and how destructive it would be. 

But the nuclear threat isn’t all the Bulletin looks at. 2017 also saw the growing risk of climate change, a breakdown of trust in government institutions, and the emergence of new technological threats.

Climate change won’t hit humanity as immediately as nuclear war, but with each year that the international community fails to drastically reduce carbon fossil fuel emissions, the threat of catastrophic climate change grows. In 2017, the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and global carbon emissions grew 2% after a two-year plateau. Meanwhile, NASA and NOAA confirmed that the past four years are the hottest four years they’ve ever recorded.

For emerging technological risks, such as widespread cyber attacks, the development of autonomous weaponry, and potential misuse of synthetic biology, the Bulletin calls for the international community to work together. They write, “world leaders also need to seek better collective methods of managing those advances, so the positive aspects of new technologies are encouraged and malign uses discovered and countered.”

Pointing to disinformation campaigns and “fake news”, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board writes that they are “deeply concerned about the loss of public trust in political institutions, in the media, in science, and in facts themselves—a loss that the abuse of information technology has fostered.”

Turning Back the Clock

The Doomsday Clock is a poignant symbol of the threats facing human civilization, and it received broad media attention this week through British outlets like The Guardian and The Independent, Australian outlets such as ABC Online, and American outlets from Fox News to The New York Times.

“[The clock] is a tool,” explains Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University and member of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board. “For one day a year, there are thousands of newspaper stories about the deep, existential threats that humanity faces.”

The Bulletin ends its report with a list of priorities to help turn back the Clock, chocked full of suggestions for government and industrial leaders. But the authors also insist that individual citizens have a crucial role in tackling humanity’s greatest risks.

“Leaders react when citizens insist they do so,” the authors explain. “Citizens around the world can use the power of the internet to improve the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren. They can insist on facts, and discount nonsense. They can demand action to reduce the existential threat of nuclear war and unchecked climate change. They can seize the opportunity to make a safer and saner world.”

You can read the Bulletin’s full report here.