21st Century Oppenheimer: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons and the Fight to Turn Back the Clock on Doomsday.

Image source: United States Department of Energy – National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Public Domain, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=124728459) 

90 seconds to midnight. This is how close atomic scientists believe we are to triggering nuclear war, but is doomsday truly upon us, or have we simply fallen victim to scaremongering tactics and alarmists? 

From the recent success of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Oppenheimer’ to Putin’s threats of all out nuclear war, there has been a fevered reinvigoration of interest in nuclear weapons and the likelihood of WW3. This article will explore both the past and present of nuclear power, to judge truly just how close we are to midnight. 

History 

Beginnings 

While early nuclear research can be dated back to the late 1700s, it wasn’t until the German discovery of fission in 1933, that we saw the first real signs of nuclear life. No longer a dream, harnessing atomic power for weapons was now a reality. 

It was well known that in his path to glory, Hitler would stop at nothing to achieve his ends. And so, with Nazi Germany taking the first steps to exploit their newest discovery, word was quick to reach the US and under President Roosevelt’s advisement, the Americans did what they always do — put their superiority complex to work. The Advisory Committee on Uranium was hence formed, tasked with studying the emerging theories behind nuclear weaponry. 

While slow at first, the Committee’s work was markedly expedited following the events of Pearl Harbor in 1941, after which the US formally entered into WW2. With the Advisory Committee’s report and the green light from the White House, the Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan Engineer District, the birthplace of the infamous Manhattan Project. 

The Manhattan Project and the Trinity Test

Kept tightly under wraps, the Manhattan Project was a $2.2 billion effort of scientific and military power. Led by the relentless General Groves and a group of renowned scientists, including of course the infamous Robert J. Oppenheimer, their sole purpose was to unlock the capabilities of the atomic bomb — and so, they did. 

5:29 am July 16, 1945. It must have seemed that the sun rose early that day as the world’s first atomic bomb erupted across the Jorndado del Muerto desert of New Mexico, USA.

This searing ball of light emitted more energy than 20,0000 tons of TNT and produced a fireball over 600m in diameter. Rather fittingly, the desert’s name roughly translates to ‘Dead Man’s Journey’, a testament to the fact that the world was not ready for the cataclysmic power discovered that day, and likely will never be. 

Image source: NBC Universal Archive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY8q1ky3dLY&t=15s) 

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of Worlds”. 

– Robert J. Oppenheimer 

He was the American Prometheus, the man who brought fire to the world. And yet in his later interviews, Oppenheimer spoke of his creations with a conscience so visibly solemn and disturbed that we ought to have known what to expect. Perhaps then we could have prevented the catastrophic events that were to follow, that would not only destroy the lives of thousands but incite an arms race that has left us vulnerable to a war like no other.

Before any such foresight could be had, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made less than a month after the success of the Trinity Test. More than 200,000 people are estimated to have died and those who lived on to suffer the horrific effects of radiation remain innumerable.

It becomes rather perplexing, how in light of such atrocities we, or rather, the world’s leaders continued to support the creation of nuclear weapons. In 1947 an attempt was, however, made by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to bring awareness to the realities of nuclear power and, depending on the current political climate, the likelihood of us destroying the world with our own creation. This took form as the ‘Doomsday Clock’.  

The Cold War

Despite the foreboding sounds of the Doomsday Clock ticking forward, what followed from WW2 was a rather misguided ‘fight fire with fire’ approach to addressing the impending challenges of nuclear power.

This period marked the dawn of a new era — the Cold War. At its core, this period of tension between the US and then Soviet Union was driven by irresolvable differences in political ideology, in particular, the spread of communism. This took the form of a nuclear arms race — a fundamental show of force and superiority from both sides. What ensued was the proliferation of nuclear weaponry at a rather disturbing rate. The US acquired nearly 30,000 warheads between 1955 and 1965, that’s 3 per day. A little slower to be sure, but the USSR’s efforts were just as impressive, peaking at about 40,000 warheads in the late 1980s. 

The consequences of this arms race is what continues to loom over us today. The stockpiling and hoarding of nuclear weapons poses an inherent threat and continues to be used and abused by leaders, poking and prodding a rather explosive bear at the first sight of conflict. This is exemplified rather well by North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and his affinity for military parades and nuclear showcasing. 

Today and beyond 

As time went on, the dust of conflicts past began to settle and with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Doomsday Clock was turned back to a relatively comfortable 17 minutes to midnight. But sometime in the past 30 odd years, we’ve managed to find ourselves staring right back in the face of atomic ruin. 

Russia and the Middle East

While vague threats have indeed been spouted since the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022, none were so real and explicit as the one given by President Putin in February this year. He spoke with an unnerving sense of calm and clarity when he forewarned of what would happen if Western leaders continue to interfere with Russia’s affairs, in particular, continuing the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine. The severity and frequency of these threats mean we can no longer chalk this down to a case of the boy who cried wolf, particularly when Dmitry Medvedev, Chairman of the Security Council warned of a “nuclear apocalypse…[drawing] closer”.

Moving south, the recent climax in Israeli-Palestinian conflict has brought about similarly concerning developments. Namely, threats of nuclear strikes on Gaza have been made by an Israeli minister, confirming Israel’s previously obscure nuclear capabilities and coaxing us further still to midnight. Now, the US has continuously supported Israel on this matter and meek condemnation of such nuclear posturing can only serve to undermine disarmament efforts, is likely to incite further conflict and will only serve to push the clock forward.

So, why aren’t we viewing these issues as isolated, contained events? Why should we be so concerned about these conflicts (apart from the obvious)? It should hopefully become clear as to why these conflicts in particular, are likely what stands between us and WW3. We know that alliances, NATO and Western involvement make up the ingredients for a successful global war and at the moment, we seem to be teetering on a very fine line.

These growing tensions are also starting to bear a rather concerning resemblance to those felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963. The displays of power, the meddling in each other’s affairs (today, concerning the invasion of Ukraine as opposed to the spread of communism) and the incessant will they won’t they between the US and Soviet Union proved to be a dangerous guessing game even then. The world has never come closer to nuclear warfare than it did during those years — perhaps until now.

However, if the past is indeed set to repeat itself, alarmists don’t panic just yet. As you know, the events of 1963, although volatile, failed to incite all out nuclear war. And so, there is a positive lesson to be learnt here and if you’ll remember, the Doomsday Clock even managed to find its way back to its least ominous hour. 

So, doom and gloom aside, how did they, and now how do we, prevent the clock striking 12? 

A Way Out

The obvious answer to our problems can be found in treaties and agreements alike — bilateral, multilateral, you name it.  There are already a number in existence, all aiming to regulate nuclear weapons in some form or another; through their testing, use, proliferation and even existence.

Multiple bilateral agreements can be found between the US and Russia, who have been the only two notable contestants in this historic game of who can build the most bombs. For the past half century, particularly following the Cold War, these two nations have engaged in a series of arms control measures which have considerably reduced their nuclear arsenal from about 60,000 in the 1980’s to just over 10,000 today. Between the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (“SALT I”) and the most recent Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (“New START”), perhaps there is hope of climbing back out of this nuclear sized hole we have dug ourselves.

On a global scale, the UN has spearheaded efforts since day one, with nuclear disarmament being the subject of the General Assembly’s first resolution in 1946. Since then, a number of regulatory treaties have been drawn up and in 2018, the UN launched the milestone initiative, ‘Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament’. At the heart of the agenda is a push to resume dialogue and negotiations between key players, appealing to the idea of a world free from the threat of nuclear destruction. While it devises a relatively tangible and optimistic action plan, as with all UN agendas and treaties, the issue of practicality and reality remain unavoidable. 

Image source: Jonathan Ansel Moy de Vitry on Unsplash

Indeed, we have already seen how easy it is to go back on past promises when things don’t go someone’s way. Almost a year to the day of their invasion into Ukraine, Russia announced its intention to withdraw from “New START”. Sure, public reputation and perception may take a hit, but apart from that what real, legally enforceable consequences are there?

Looking ahead, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is our latest hope of disarmament and has already garnered significant support with 93 signatories and 70 parties to its name. Although characteristically verbose and aspirational, it successfully identifies the only true mitigant we have against nuclear war. 

“Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, [State Parties] recognize the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances”

Now, while deep concern is all well and good, we must once again continue to ask the hard questions, those of enforceability and accountability, which have not been strictly answered here. Until the day these can be assured, the clock will only keep ticking toward midnight.

And so, perhaps we are fools, for as long as nuclear warheads remain in existence we can’t continue dealing with this issue in metaphors of ticking clocks. We must face the truth for what it is, a bomb whose detonation timer does not deal in ifs but whens, and whose hands can not be turned back, save to take them away all together.