Via digby: Jorge Hirsch at UC San Diego has gathered a few of his friends — Nobel Laureates, Boltzmann and Fields Medalists, Medal of Science winners, and past Presidents of the American Physical Society — to write a letter to President Bush, urging him not to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The signatories are:
- Philip Anderson, professor of physics at Princeton University and Nobel Laureate in Physics
- Michael Fisher, professor of physics at the Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland and Wolf Laureate in Physics
- David Gross, professor of theoretical physics and director of the Kavli Institute of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Nobel Laureate in Physics
- Jorge Hirsch, professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego
- Leo Kadanoff, professor of physics and mathematics at the University of Chicago and recipient of the National Medal of Science
- Joel Lebowitz, professor of mathematics and physics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and Boltzmann Medalist
- Anthony Leggett, professor of physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Nobel Laureate, Physics
- Eugen Merzbacher, professor of physics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and former president, American Physical Society
- Douglas Osheroff, professor of physics and applied physics, Stanford University and Nobel Laureate, Physics
- Andrew Sessler, former director of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and former president, American Physical Society
- George Trilling, professor of physics, University of California, Berkeley, and former president, American Physical Society
- Frank Wilczek, professor of physics, MIT and Nobel Laureate, Physics
- Edward Witten, professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Study and Fields Medalist
In reality, winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t make you an informed judge of geopolitical affairs. But anyone in their right mind can see it would be a bad idea to launch a nuclear first strike against Iran or anyone else, and these folks are in their right minds. Hopefully they can lend some heft and gather some publicity for the cause.
Part of me wonders whether the administration understands perfectly well that a nuclear strike would be madness, but they want to give the impression of being reckless cowboys so that Iran will dismantle their nuclear program — that’s a hopeless plan, of course, but at least not wildly irreponsible. Then I remember that they have consistently acted like reckless cowboys in every previous situation, and my heart sinks a little. Remember DeLong’s Law: “The Bush Administration is always worse than one imagines, even when taking into account DeLong’s Law.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your analysis of the tactical nuclear weapon situation is a bit off, as is the analysis of most any other sane person trying to make sense of the Sy Hersh article.
The confusion here rests primarily on the difference between strategy and tactics. While many Americans are well aware of the nuclear strategic decisions made during the Cold War, such as the implementation and success of Mutual Assured Destruction, many are unaware of nuclear tactical planning. In most respects, the tactical usage of nuclear weapons started at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I concede that a fair argument can be made for the strategic implications being more important. However, it is far more likely that the use of the bomb was a tactical decision at its most basic. We had seen the effects of fire-bombing and massive campaigns in Dresden and Tokyo; had we continued such a campaign, it is highly likely the Japanese would have still surrendered. But how could we achieve the same effects with the use of one weapon? The answer was clear: drop the bomb. Save thousands of planes and tons of munitions by simply using one or two bombs, one or two planes.
This evolved drastically with the emergence of a Soviet conventional threat, especially in Europe. It had been NATO doctrine for years to use tactical nuclear weapons as the only real way of stopping a massive Soviet conventional force. So while on a strategic level we were limited to the confines of MAD and the red telephone, tactically the nuclear option remained as real as it ever had.
After the end of the Cold War, tactical usage of nuclear weapons lost prominence in much the same way strategic usage of the weaponry did. The lack of a large conventional threat made us rethink our military’s tactical aims. Only recently, as the “New World Order” has continued time and again to prove itself less orderly, and with the emergence of the so-called “rogue states,” has the development and usage of the tactical nuclear weapon re-emerged in its importance. Supposedly, no other weapon possesses the abilities that the “bunker busters” have, for instance, in eliminating certain unconventional threats in rogue regimes quickly and efficiently. As a matter of policy, we withdrew our strategic “No First Strike” policy early on; this had obviously been a long time coming.
As the Hersh article points out, if we were to attack Natanz, for example, then the bunker buster seems the only “logical” tactical choice. For those in the administration, it has not come down to a matter of looking at the big picture. There is no big picture anymore for them. It is about what gets the job done fast and hard, just like 1945.
It is my hope we can avoid this option at all costs. Humanity is too close to emerging from this age of trial by fire to risk it all for another misguided adventure. I hope the rest of us can join our fellow Americans in writing to our representatives to end this insanity before it begins. After all, you don’t have to be a physicist to understand this one.
I would argue that the use of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs, as a demonstration of nuclear power, was a strategic decision.
But that’s not the point. Whether you use a tactical nuke or a strategic nuke, once you cross the nuclear threshold, the only hope you have is that it will be so horrible that the world will collectively jumped back to sanity. I cannot imagine living in a world where use of nukes is considered an option to any end.
I actually question how effective the standard “deterrence” argument really is anymore; times change, the nature of warfare has changed, yet Cold War mentalities still seem to prevail. More to the point, human memory is short. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading into the distant past, to such an extent that Japan — a country that once swore it would never pursue nuclear weapons — is on the brink of considering it.
Not a scientific assessment… just that of a concerned citizen. 🙂 I hope the letter carries some weight…
Well, to be perfectly honest, theres not much of a technical difference between bombing the nuclear installations to such an extent as to penetrate and cave in the bunkers (massive, repetitive and enormous strikes over many days/weeks) as using a bunker buster. Even with the additional probability that the bunkerbusters blast leaks radioactivity out from the fissure.
The loss of life and carnage to the environment will be more or less identical. In many ways, its sorta like positing which is worse, firebombing alla Dresden or using the A bomb. Both are equally successful in destroying more or less the totality of what they are designed to do.
Otoh, nuclear weapons carry a certain stigma to them, so I suppose its ultimately far more sage to keep that cat leashed in the box.
To underline the reasons for Arthur Schlesinger’s gloom, see “Ahmadinejad’s Demons” in the New Republic:
Ahmadinejad is representative of those—the Basiji—who sent children into the minefields.
I concur with Haelfix — the real issue here is the irrational stigma against powerful weapons that just happen to be nuclear. The horror of nuclear armament should not be exhalted over that of white phosphorus, Claymore mines, and so on.
The US already has (and will never relinquish) awesome nuclear capability, and is the only nation to ever deploy a nuclear weapon. The cat’s already out of the bag.
Actually, I completely disagree with putting other “conventional” weapons on the same footing as nuclear weapons. There is no way that any set of conventional weapons can match the destructive power of nuclear weapons. Horrible as those conventional weapons can be, nuclear weapons are magnitudes more destructive than all of them combined.
I agree with Eugene that the stigma is actually deserved. But regardless of whether or not it is deserved, as Haelfix mentions, the fact that the stigma exists is reason enough not to deploy nuclear weapons. Americans are already seen to condone torture and other nasty things. Deploying nuclear weapons, in whatever form, would send up a huge, mushroom-shaped, neon-lit sign reading “Hate America!”
Chris W, we are representative of the people who backed Saddam’s invasion of Iran.
A cruise missile carries half a ton of conventional explosives. A nuclear armed cruise missile with a nuke with a tiny yield – 1 kiloton – is 2000 times more explosive than the conventional cruise missile.
The whole issue of limiting destruction is that there is a chance than the insanity will stop at the 100th or the 1000th cruise missile. With the nuke however, there is no stopping it. Moreover, the means may not exist. Ahmednejad cannot do much to Israel today, because something bad will happen to him before he lobs the 50th conventional missile. The whole reason we see a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat is because of the instantaneous nature of the destruction that can happen.
Chris W. on Apr 19th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
“To underline the reasons for Arthur Schlesinger’s gloom, see “Ahmadinejad’s Demons” in the New Republic:”
First, The New Republic is a bad source for decent analysis. Second, as has been pointed out above, the USA, in particular the GOP, supported Saddam in his war, up to and including the use of chemical weapons on civilians. Third, whenever reading about the alleged suicidal tendencies of the current Iranian leadership, remember that anybody in Iran who wanted martyrdom had a zillion chances of getting it. Their leadership is no more suicidal than the average GOP leader.
Arun on Apr 20th, 2006 at 7:49 am
“A cruise missile carries half a ton of conventional explosives. A nuclear armed cruise missile with a nuke with a tiny yield – 1 kiloton – is 2000 times more explosive than the conventional cruise missile.
The whole issue of limiting destruction is that there is a chance than the insanity will stop at the 100th or the 1000th cruise missile. With the nuke however, there is no stopping it. Moreover, the means may not exist. Ahmednejad cannot do much to Israel today, because something bad will happen to him before he lobs the 50th conventional missile. The whole reason we see a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat is because of the instantaneous nature of the destruction that can happen. ”
Arun, you’ve provided an excellent justification for the government of Iran to seek nuclear weapons.
Nuking clandestine nuclear facilities, while leaving the dangerous regime responsible for them untouched, strikes me as a foolish strategy. Nuking will not destroy the Iranian regime’s capacity to strike back at American cities with simple radiological bombs smuggled across our porous southwestern border. Nuking will, however, make the regime feel totally justified in attempting such a thing.
The problem isn’t Iranian nukes. It’s the Iranian regime.
The best bet is to remove it. The U.S. should bribe the Russian and Chinese leaderships and effect Iranian regime change through fomented revolution assisted by and coordinated with American air power, funds, electronic intel, and communications/propaganda assets.
Barry, even if Iran had nukes they could not attack Israel, because Israel would still be capable of attacking after being attacked first.
Belizian, the US is already trying to do some of these things, but it isn’t working.
The best bet is to remove it. The U.S. should bribe the Russian and Chinese leaderships and effect Iranian regime change through fomented revolution assisted by and coordinated with American air power, funds, electronic intel, and communications/propaganda assets.
They tried that. They ended up supporting the Shah, who turned out to be a hideous despot, leading to the backlash of the Iranian revolution.
Or, to belabour the point, outside meddling does not go well with actual Iranians. How would Americans act if a foreign gvt fomented revolution in their country? I bet they wouldnt like it.
I don’t want to be overly cynical, but “no bunch of eggheads is gonna tell me what to do, I’ll show ’em”.
This is old style politics, what you need now is very old style politics, namely a very rich person explaining quietly to some people that this would be bad for business, say a physics educated head of a major investment fund, or the head of large technology based corporation.
If I were overly cynical I would worry about what business this is good for and who they know to talk to…
> Even with the additional probability that the bunkerbusters blast leaks radioactivity out from the fissure.
Just so there is no mistake.
The nuclear bunkerbuster does not penetrate deep enough to just “leak radioactivity”. You will have significant nuclear fallout and all the usual side effects.
Count Iblis (from comment#14 to Berry) – Are you implying that it would be rather pointless for Iran to first attack Isreal (a hypothetical enemy) because Isreal (a hypothetical enemy) has a superior counter-attack response mechanism enabling Isreal to momentarily survive an initial nuke attack by Iran? Questioned in the reverse: are you implying that Iran has an inferior counter-attack response mechanism to Isreal’s more superior counter-attack response mechanism? If the answers to these questions are in the absolute affirmative, then one can draw the following two conclusions: 1) the final outcome of a nuke-attack-counter-nuke attack initiated by Iran would – more likely – lead to bilateral destruction on both sides -yet (in contrast) 2) the final outcome of a nuke-attack-counter-nuke attack initiated by Isreal would – more likely – lead to unilateral destruction on one side. Therefore, it appears that a nation’s intrinsical nuke strength lies more in its ability to have a strong counter-attack system than its ability to have a strong initial attack system. In addition, could you please furnish me with a hierarchical list of nations with the best counter-attack response system to nations with the worst counter-attack response system? Keep in mind, my understanding of nuke strategy is quite infantile.
> nuke strength lies more in its ability to have a strong counter-attack system than its ability to have a strong initial attack system.
Sounds (and is) absurd, but this is actually correct. Counter-attack capability requires more complex technology, like submarines with underwater fired nuclear missiles (and all the command-control issues that come with it).
Israel reportedly does have this capability already.
The list includes of course US, Russia, China and perhaps India.
Wolfgang:
As far as I am aware, India does not actually *have* an assembled *anything*, so that if attacked, it will take over a month to respond, even though they do have the technology. The reason is that the attack is most likely to come from Pakistan or China, and counter-attacking EITHER country would mean radiation fallout in India too, and would lead to over 100 million deaths within a few months. As far as I can see, no Indian politician (no matter how idiotic) is THAT stupid.
This is the sad thing about the Indian situation: say China/Pakistan attack India with nukes. India knows it cannot possibly respond, but the US nukes China (it will never nuke Pakistan, since it has served as an American watchdog against India for decades) and the winds carry the radiation fallout to NE Indian states. End result: several hundreds of millions dead, i.e. 50% of India’s population wiped out in a few months due to strikes and counterstrikes, in a war not started or desired by them.
Whoo!
India was working on the ATV (a nuclear powered submarine) and leased a similar vessel from Russia for a while. I am certainly no expert on India’s capabilities and most of this is probably not discussed in the public domain.
I forgot to mention that by 2002 a typical estimate was that India had 30-35 nuclear warheads stockpiled. Of course, I do not know the readiness of such weapons.
Count Iblis,
As of 2005 the CIA has done little other than fund the feckless Reza Pahlavi. It has not funded dissent groups to any substantial degree, nor has is coordinated with them on plans for a surgical decapitation strike, nor has it carried out this strike. [For example, we turned our backs on the massive student uprising in Tehran in July 1999.] [The general feeling in the U.S. administration seems to be that they should allow Iran to go nuclear, because stopping them would result in bad press. And when they get the bad press resulting from an Iranian-nuked American city, they’ll already be out of office.]
Guthrie,
The cold war is over. The cost of direct intervention has reduced sufficiently that we need no longer take the cheap route of installing a despot loyal to us. We can now afford to do the hard work of building democracies. [Incidentally, the Shah’s despotism, severe as it was, pales in comparison to savagery that followed the revolution. An indication of this is the relative easy with which he was ousted.]
Suppose that Pat Robertson and his followers had taken over the United States, imposed a brutally repressive “Christian” regime, slaughtered all challengers be they believers or not, and — to consolidate power — provoked an 8 year war with Mexico in which he used children as young as 12 as human land mine detectors. Most Americans would welcome foreign intervention. I bet you would, too.
Off-topic: http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_051114.html
This is directly on topic:
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers18%5Cpaper1765.html
especially question 5 and beyond.