“Fear should not arise from the possible harm itself, but from the likelihood of that harm, for reason allows us to assess risks logically.” ~ Rene Descartes
The Threat
As citizens of the world who are not privy to the inner workings of powerful States that have nuclear weapons at their disposal, we might think the threat of nuclear war seems unlikely, and one which no powerful State would transcend.
I felt terrified when I read Bob Woodward’s book War (Simon &Schuster:2024) where Woodward – a great journalist of our time and one who has an insider view of national and international security matters – recounts a critical instance in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Colin Kahl, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s principal advisor, notices a message on social media that Russian sources were alleging that Ukraine was planning to use a dirty bomb on Russian territory. Ascribing this communication to a ploy by Russia to justify the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US authorities immediately bring in agents of The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Ukraine’s nuclear facilities to find no evidence of such preparation.
Woodward continues: “ The White House and Pentagon mobilized every communication line, calling the Chinese, the Indians, the Israelis, the Turks – countries friendly with Russia who were also having calls with Putin. Nobody should use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Send the Signal to Putin.
These countries did.
In under 12 hours it appeared they had blown the whistle on Russia’s plot”.
President Biden is reported to have said: “(L)et me just say Russia would be making an incredibly serious mistake if it were to use a tactical nuclear weapon”
That is as close to how we got to a nuclear Armageddon.
The Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock, first conceived in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, serves as a symbolic representation of the existential risks facing humanity, particularly nuclear threats, ecological concerns, and technological disruptions. This clock has been a means to alert the global community to the urgency of addressing these challenges, with its position adjusted annually to reflect the prevailing global circumstances.
At its inception, the Doomsday Clock was set to 7 minutes to midnight, following the end of World War II and the advent of the atomic age. The primary concern at that time was the burgeoning nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, compounded by the global tensions of the Cold War. The clock’s early adjustments mirrored the rapidly escalating geopolitical situation. In 1949, the clock was moved to 3 minutes to midnight, reflecting the Soviet Union’s successful detonation of its first nuclear weapon, thereby intensifying the perceived threat of nuclear war. The proximity to midnight further shrank in 1953, when both the United States and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear weapons, prompting the clock to reach its closest point at 2 minutes to midnight. This reflected the heightened and immediate dangers of a nuclear catastrophe.
During the Cold War, the clock’s adjustments continued to track the evolution of global tensions. In 1963, following the Partial Test Ban Treaty between the U.S., the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, the clock was set back to 12 minutes to midnight, the farthest from catastrophe in the history of the Doomsday Clock. However, this period of relative optimism was short-lived. In 1984, amidst the intensification of the arms race, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the resurgence of nuclear rhetoric, the clock was reset to 3 minutes to midnight. This reflected the precarious state of international security.
The end of the Cold War in 1991 saw a significant shift in the clock’s positioning. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) marked a period of relative peace and hope for global disarmament, leading the clock to move to its furthest point, 17 minutes to midnight. This was the most optimistic setting in the history of the clock, indicating a reduction in nuclear threat and a broader sense of international cooperation.
In the subsequent years, however, the focus of the Doomsday Clock broadened beyond nuclear risks. In 1998, after nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, the clock was set to 9 minutes to midnight, signaling the resurfacing of nuclear tensions in regional conflicts. Additionally, growing concerns about environmental issues, such as climate change, began to shape the clock’s adjustments. The year 2007 saw the clock moved to 5 minutes to midnight, reflecting both the continuing nuclear threats and the emerging challenges posed by climate change.
In the 21st century, the Doomsday Clock has become increasingly sensitive to a confluence of global threats. In 2018, it was set to 2 minutes to midnight, primarily due to the geopolitical tensions involving the United States, Russia, and North Korea, compounded by insufficient action on climate change. The clock’s most recent setting, in 2020, reached an unprecedented 100 seconds to midnight, underscoring the dire situation created by the accelerating risks of nuclear proliferation, climate inaction, and the rise of disruptive technologies. This marked the closest the clock had ever been to midnight, illustrating the convergence of existential threats.
As of 2023, the clock remains at 90 seconds to midnight, reflecting the intensifying dangers posed by nuclear conflict, climate crisis, and the disruptive potential of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and biotechnology. These global risks underscore the need for urgent, coordinated international efforts to safeguard the future of humanity. The Doomsday Clock, in its symbolic capacity, continues to serve as a clarion call for responsible governance, collective action, and the preservation of peace and stability on a global scale.
Expert Views
Jeffrey Sachs
Jeffrey Sachs, a renowned economist and global policy expert, has expressed significant concern regarding the imminent threat of nuclear destruction, emphasizing that the risk of global catastrophe due to nuclear weapons is alarmingly close. In his commentary, Sachs has repeatedly warned that the current geopolitical environment, marked by escalating tensions between nuclear-armed States, is fostering an environment ripe for catastrophic consequences. Sachs identifies the ongoing arms race, compounded by the rhetoric of nuclear deterrence and the modern-day resurgence of nuclear proliferation, as critical factors exacerbating this existential threat.
Sachs underscores that the global security landscape, while ostensibly stable, is far more fragile than commonly perceived. He highlights the perilous developments arising from the nuclearization of regional conflicts, the potential miscalculation or error in judgment, and the destabilizing nature of advanced nuclear arsenals. In this context, Sachs emphasizes that the current proximity to nuclear war is not merely a theoretical scenario but a real and tangible threat that requires immediate, concerted action by the international community.
Moreover, Sachs has critiqued the lack of substantial progress in nuclear disarmament initiatives and arms control treaties. Despite significant advancements in diplomacy and multilateral agreements in the past, he notes that the renewed focus on nuclear modernization by major powers has undermined previous disarmament efforts. Sachs advocates for a renewed commitment to multilateral diplomacy, international cooperation, and the dismantling of nuclear stockpiles as critical measures to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict.
Sachs’ analysis is one of deep alarm, urging global leaders to recognize the gravitas of the situation and to take decisive steps to avert a potential nuclear disaster, thereby safeguarding the future of humanity.
Yuval Noah Harari
Yuval Noah Harari, a distinguished historian and author of seminal works such as Sapiens and Homo Deus, delineates three principal perils confronting humanity in the 21st century, namely: nuclear warfare, ecological degradation, and the systemic disruptions precipitated by technological advancements. An analysis of Harari’s exposition on these threats reveals pertinent considerations for global governance and legal oversight.
With regard to nuclear warfare, Harari posits that the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons constitute a persistent existential threat to humanity. This assertion holds notwithstanding the cessation of the Cold War, as the specter of nuclear conflict remains omnipresent. Harari underscores the imperative of robust governance frameworks and multilateral cooperation to mitigate the risks inherent in the continued possession and potential deployment of such armaments. The ramifications of nuclear engagement are characterized by catastrophic consequences, rendering the subject a matter of paramount concern within the domain of international peace and security. Like Jeffrey Sachs, Harari further cautions against the heightened potential for devastation arising from inadvertent errors or miscalculations, whether stemming from human fallibility or technological malfunction. Such scenarios underscore the exigency of meticulous regulatory oversight and adherence to international legal instruments designed to prevent nuclear escalation.
This perspective invites critical engagement with extant legal mechanisms, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which embodies the collective will of the international community to curtail the spread of nuclear capabilities and promote disarmament. Harari’s insights serve to reiterate the necessity for states to remain vigilant and committed to diplomatic endeavors that reinforce global stability, particularly amidst escalating geopolitical tensions.
My Take
In the philosophical framework of René Descartes, the concept of fear is intricately tied to the perceived likelihood of harm rather than the harm itself. Descartes contends that fear does not emanate from the actualization of a harmful event but rather from the anticipatory recognition of potential consequences. This principle is consistent with his broader analysis of human passions, wherein he underscores the influence of irrational emotions on decision-making. Descartes asserts that the intensity of fear is directly proportional to the probability of an adverse occurrence, rather than its eventual realization.
In this context, Descartes advocates for a rational approach, emphasizing the importance of logical deliberation in mitigating undue emotional responses. He suggests that the human propensity to fear can be regulated through reasoned evaluation, thereby diminishing the influence of irrational apprehensions. Consequently, the philosopher implies that a careful, rational assessment of risk is critical in reducing the disproportionate effects of fear on human conduct.
The threat of nuclear war, while undeniably real, should not overwhelm us with fear or inaction. It is important to acknowledge that the possibility of such an event remains unlikely, even though its consequences would be catastrophic. The fact that the global community is acutely aware of the devastating impact of nuclear conflict has prompted extensive diplomatic efforts, arms control treaties, and international cooperation to prevent such a scenario. While the risk is present, it is mitigated by these international safeguards, which are continually reinforced through global dialogue and conflict resolution strategies.
That being said, it is prudent to focus on what we can control in our own life. The threat of nuclear war may be beyond the scope of our direct influence, yet we do have agency over our daily actions and decisions. We should pursue our personal aspirations, whether through education, career, or meaningful community engagement. The fulfillment and stability gained from these pursuits contribute not only to our well-being but also to the positive impact we can have in our immediate environment.
Further, staying informed about the broader global landscape allows us to become a responsible and engaged citizen. Understanding issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and global peace initiatives can give us a sense of participation in a larger, collective effort. We can advocate for policies that contribute to global stability, supporting organizations and movements that seek to reduce nuclear risks and foster international peace.
Finally, living a life of purpose and resilience is essential. It is important to continue engaging in life with meaning, despite the uncertainties that might arise. We must build strong relationships, maintain balance, and strive to contribute positively to society. By focusing on these areas, we would not only enhance our personal life but also reinforce the societal foundations that contribute to global stability. In this way, we can confront the challenges of the world with hope, while remaining grounded in the present moment.