Nuclear (non)proliferation and the Security of Earth

We all want global security, since at least for now, the Earth is the only planet we’ve got. In the words of The Tick (in the 1990s cartoon), “You can’t blow up the world…That’s where I keep all my stuff!”

MV5BMTU1OTc0MDA3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzI4NTQzMQ@@._V1._CR0.883331298828125,1.5333404541015625,351,459_SY317_CR14,0,214,317_AL_

In my previous post, I ended by raising the issue of the political scientist James Doyle, who was apparently fired from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico after publishing a scholarly article questioning US nuclear weapons doctrine and defending President Obama’s goal of a nuclear weapons-free future. James Doyle’s article was titled “Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?,” and I’ll give you an extended quote from its conclusions, as it’s written rather well:

The marginal contribution that nuclear deterrence now makes to the absence of major aggression between great powers is being purchased at too high a price. That price is the constant risk that a complex, tightly coupled and largely automated system subject to normal, systemic and human error will, as science tells us, inevitably fail, and fail catastrophically, with unprecedented and unjustified loss of civilian life…Nuclear weapons are useless for confronting and resolving the most likely future international security challenges, but steady progress towards the elimination of such weapons can help nations confront these transnational problems…[E]limination of nuclear weapons will allow creative, intellectual, technical and financial resources now devoted to nuclear threats to be focused toward the resolution of transnational crises faced by all nations. As nuclear weapons are drawn down those resources can be re-focused toward developing clean energy, carbon-capture technologies, clean water management and low-impact, high-productivity agriculture.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is calling on Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to get involved in the case. According to Science journal, the lab recently made the following statement: “James Doyle’s separation from Los Alamos National Laboratory was a layoff due to the lack of available or anticipated funding in his area of expertise. The separation was unrelated to his publications or professional writings.” Many external arms control specialists are skeptical and believe Doyle’s downfall is the result of his airing of views that are unpopular among those opposing disarmament, including some of the Armed Services Committee’s Republican leaders and staff. And if you’re curious about how many resources LANL spends on weapons activity versus nonproliferation, take a look at the following graph (reported by the Center for Public Integrity).

chart

Although nuclear weapons (and “mutually assured destruction”) seem like a Cold War issue and a thing of the past, they’re as relevant as ever today. In and near the Middle East, where Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons, proliferation is a real concern. In addition, according to Newsweek, countries in Russia’s neighborhood are now considering nuclear deterrence. Altogether, the US possesses 2,104 (active) nuclear warheads, Russia has a similar number, and numerous other countries have hundreds either mounted on planes or on submarines. Germany will not continue its nuclear-hosting duties beyond the 2020s, and a Central European official was recently quoted as saying, “If the Germans don’t want [the bombs], we’ll take them.”

According to Scientific American, the FAS begin with the “scientists’ movement” in the mid-1940s when many scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project recognized that they had a special responsibility to educate policymakers and the public about the implications of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. (Carl Sagan, who is one of my heroes, had served on FAS’s advisory council and was a leading scientist devoted to reversing the nuclear arms race.) The FAS’s Nuclear Weapons Database is one of the most reliable sources on global nuclear arsenals, and the numbers in the previous paragraph were obtained from it. As far as we know, the US is not developing new nuclear weapons, but unfortunately it’s improving the weapon delivery systems (see this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists). This does not aid the goals of nonproliferation and reducing nuclear weapons, nor does the US’s nearly 500 land-based missiles on “hair-trigger” alert.

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, nuclear weapons are also relevant to space security and to the risk of a space arms race. Although deploying nuclear weapons in space may be prohibitively expensive and are a violation of the Outer Space Treaty, certain nuclear missiles could have trajectories outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, and anti-satellite missiles are another concern. In any case, space weapons—nuclear or otherwise—increase tensions between countries and increase the risk of conflict.

Another related issue is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which, by the way, has never been signed by India, Israel, and Pakistan). In the 21st century era of worsening climate change, we need alternatives to fossil fuel-based energy, but nuclear energy surely is not ideal. It’s not clear how much, if it all, nuclear energy should play a role in our transition to a fossil fuel-free economy. Even in Iran, where there is an apparent abundance of oil, people are trying to prepare for the transition, and as in other places, they have turned to nuclear energy. An additional concern is that developing nuclear energy technologies produces a pathway for countries to develop nuclear weaponry as well; unfortunately, we’ve seen other countries follow this path already. In the case of Iran, as usual, what is required is a diplomatic and political settlement. As argued in a report by the FAS and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, by offering Iran cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, especially to take advantage of the country’s solar energy potential, a positive precedent could be set for other nuclear-hopefuls.

Extreme Space Weather Event #23072012

You may have seen some dramatic headlines in the news last week: “‘Extreme solar storm’ could have pulled the plug on Earth” (Guardian); “Solar ‘superstorm’ just missed Earth in 2012” (CBS); “How a solar storm two years ago nearly caused a catastrophe on Earth” (Washington Post blog). Also see this Physics Today article, which was published online today and reviewed the press attention to the event.

Though journalists and editors often write hyperbolic headlines, the danger from solar storms is very real, though extreme ones are as rare as massive earthquakes. When you think of solar flares and eruptions threatening humans, it may evoke Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris or the Doctor Who episode 42, but at least our sun isn’t sentient (as far as we know)!

A less threatening solar storm on the Sun

The solar storm in question occurred two years ago on 23 July 2012, and the media reported on it following a NASA public-information release and accompanying four-minute YouTube video (see below). It seems that those of us who live on Earth and use electronic technology were lucky that this was a near miss. The threat of solar storms is also relevant to “space security”, which I wrote about in a previous post.

The paper itself was published last fall in the Space Weather journal by Daniel Baker, of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, and six colleagues from NASA, Catholic University, and the University of New Hampshire. Its full title is “A major solar eruptive event in July 2012: Defining extreme space weather scenarios,” and here is their abstract (abridged):

A key goal for space weather studies is to define severe and extreme conditions that might plausibly afflict human technology. On 23 July 2012, solar active region 1520 (141°W heliographic longitude) gave rise to a powerful coronal mass ejection (CME) with an initial speed that was determined to be 2500 ± 500 km/s [5.6 million miles/hr!]… In this paper, we address the question of what would have happened if this powerful interplanetary event had been Earthward directed. Using a well-proven geomagnetic storm forecast model, we find that the 23–24 July event would certainly have produced a geomagnetic storm that was comparable to the largest events of the twentieth century…This finding has far reaching implications because it demonstrates that extreme space weather conditions such as those during March of 1989 or September of 1859 can happen even during a modest solar activity cycle such as the one presently underway. We argue that this extreme event should immediately be employed by the space weather community to model severe space weather effects on technological systems such as the electric power grid.

The solar storm missed the Earth but hit NASA’s STEREO-A spacecraft, which was safely outside the Earth’s magnetosphere and was able to measure and observe the approaching CME, a billion-ton cloud of magnetized plasma. “I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did,” says Baker. “If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.” According to the simulations in their follow-up paper by Chigomezyo Ngwira et al., had the 2012 CME hit the Earth, it could have produced comparable or larger geomagnetically induced electric fields to those produced by previously observed Earth-directed events and would have put electrical power grids, global navigation systems, orbiting satellites, etc. at risk.

Pete Riley, a physicist at Predictive Science Inc., published a paper in 2012 in the same journal entitled “On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events.” He analyzed historical records of solar storms, and by extrapolating the frequency of ordinary storms, he calculated the odds that a Carrington-class storm (which occurred in 1859) would hit Earth in the next ten years is between 8.5 and 12%!

NASA has calculated that the cost of the 2012 CME hitting the Earth would have been twenty times the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina—on the order of $2tn. The storm would have begun with a solar flare, which itself can cause radio blackouts and GPS navigation failures, and then it would have been followed by the CME a few minutes later, potentially causing widespread havoc with global technological infrastructure. Anything that uses electricity, including water supplies, hospital equipment, and radio and television broadcasts could be shut down. How do we prepare as a society for an event like that?

Climate Change is an Environmental Justice issue

In a previous blog post, I introduced the concept of environmental justice (EJ), which refers to the fair treatment of people regardless of race or class with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. I’ve also previously written about climate change here and about some efforts to address it here. Now my point here that climate change is an EJ issue, especially because anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) have been primarily produced by people in wealthier countries, while people in poorer countries and regions will likely bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, drought, and access to food staples.

The new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was just released a week ago, soon before Earth Day. (You can read news coverage of the report in the Guardian, NY Times, and Atlantic.) The IPCC report was produced by 1,250 international experts and approved by 194 governments, and it is the last of three reports to assess climate research conducted since 2007. The authors argue that only an intensive push in the immediate future can limit climate change to less than catastrophic levels, but lowering costs of alternative energies have made transitioning on a mass scale practical and affordable. Avoiding (the worst of) climate change will be less costly than attempting to adapt to it later with unpredictable geoengineering technologies. The report also discusses “co-benefits“: for example, efforts to reducing air pollution (including GHGs) would improve public health and save millions of lives, balancing the cost of reducing the emissions. The report states that putting a price on GHG emissions, such as through carbon taxes or emission permits (which I’ll write about in a later post), would help to redirect investment toward more climate-friendly technologies and away from fossil fuels.

It’s also interesting to see what was not included in the IPCC report. For example, rich countries (including the US) pushed to remove a proposed section that called for hundreds of billions of dollars of aid per year to be paid to developing countries. The report does refer to “issues of equity, justice, and fairness [that] arise with respect to mitigation and adaptation,” but these are issues that should be further discussed and addressed. For example, we are already seeing extreme climate events, including heat waves, floods, wildfires, and droughts, and poor countries and small island nations are particularly vulnerable to storm surges, coastal flooding, and rising sea levels.

In order to mitigate climate change, the report views favorably the cutting energy waste and improving efficiency and the shift toward renewable energies, especially the zero-emission sources like wind and solar, whose costs are dropping and becoming competitive. Wealthier countries can lead these efforts, and they could fund low-carbon growth in poorer countries, which are unfortunately expanding the use of coal-fired power plants. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has even advocated for an anti-apartheid style campaign against ­fossil fuel companies to respond to the “injustice of climate change.” On that note, I’ve noticed that the term “climate justice” has become increasingly common.

Many vulnerabilities to climate change are visible in the US as well (see this UCS blog), and much more can be done to work toward climate change mitigation and adaptation. In addition, unfortunately, climate change has not yet been connected to EJ in US policy, in spite of the Executive Order signed by Pres. Bill Clinton twenty years ago, which instructed all federal agencies to consider impacts on people of color, the elderly, and those of low-income when crafting new policies and rules. (See this post by post by Robert Bullard, one of the leaders of the EJ movement.) The Environmental Protection Agency’s new Plan EJ 2014 briefly mentions climate change, and at least this is a start.

In order to mobilize people, governments, and institutions to active address climate change, we should discuss how climate change issues are framed. A week ago, I attended an interesting political science talk by Sarah Anderson, professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara. (By the way, I have to admit that the political scientists at UCSD have more comfy chairs than us astrophysicists. We’ll have to work on that!) She mentioned the “moral foundations theory” (proposed by Jonathan Haidt; and Lakoff & Wehling): political liberals construct their moral systems primarily upon two psychological foundations (fairness/justice and harm/care), while conservatives’ moral systems are also based on others (including ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/degradation). So if the goal is to address climate change–which may be one of the greatest environmental and socioeconomic problems of our generation–then we should try to appeal to everyone, not just those identified as liberals or leftists. To do so, maybe we need to use additional frames, such as by emphasizing the importance of avoiding environmental degradation and the potential economic benefits of mitigating climate change.

Finally, political scientists often focus on the workings of the state and on policies and regulations, but there are many important actors outside the state, especially among social movements and civil society. Fortunately, organized opposition to the Keystone pipelines and fracking, for example, have made these climate change issues more pressing for policy-makers.
Harvard poli sci professor Theda Skocpol (quoted in a New Yorker article) criticizes the tactic of mobilizing support exclusively through the media; instead, she argues, “reformers will have to build organizational networks across the country, and they will need to orchestrate sustained political efforts that stretch far beyond friendly Congressional offices, comfy board rooms, and posh retreats.” Perhaps what the environmental movement need are more “federated structures,” which have national leaders to interact with political officials in the White House and Congress as well as local chapters which regularly meet (and organize rallies or teach-ins) to develop their larger goals.

An introduction to “space security”

I’m curious about what people refer to as “space security”, as well as space policy and sustainability, and if you’re interested, you can learn with me. This post will just be an introduction to some of the issues involved. Note that I’m not an expert on many of these issues, so take my comments and thoughts with a grain of salt.

images

The idea of “space security” might conjure images of invading aliens, but as much fun as that is, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m also not planning on talking about killer asteroids and dangerous radiation, though these are much less far-fetched. For example, the Pan-STARRS survey (of which I was briefly a member a few years ago) received funding from NASA to assess the threat to the planet from Near Earth Objects, some of which pass closer to us than the moon. (A limitation of Pan-STARRS, however, was that images that happened to contain passing satellites had software applied to black out or blur the pixels in the region.) On the other hand, solar flares can produce “coronal mass ejections” and intense cosmic rays that could be hazardous to spacecraft but on Earth we’re somewhat protected by our atmosphere and magnetosphere. This and other forms of “space weather” could be the subject of another post later.

I’d like to talk about the issue of satellites, as well as weapons and reactors, in space. More than 5,000 satellites have been launched into orbit and about 1,000 are in operation today. The act of destroying a satellite or of colliding satellites can damage the space environment by creating dangerous amounts of debris. (If you’ve seen the Oscar-winning Gravity, then you know that debris from satellites can be a serious problem.) For example, in a demonstration of an anti-satellite weapon in 2007, China destroyed one of its own satellites; the resulting “space junk” then struck and destroyed a small Russian satellite last year. The following computer-generated images of the growing number of objects in low-earth orbit (courtesy of the NASA Orbital Debris Office) illustrates the problem. Only 5% of the objects are satellites; the rest are debris. Currently more than 21,000 pieces of debris larger than 10cm are being tracked, and there are as many as 500,000 additional untracted pieces larger than 1cm.

Satellites and orbital debris_500x350

In addition, the loss of an important satellite could create or escalate a conflict, especially during a time of tension between states. The US and other countries possess “anti-satellite” weapons (ASATs) and have or are considering space-based missile defense systems. Attacks on satellites are a very real possibility, and it is important to beware of the destabilizing effects and potential for proliferation with such weapons. Moreover, since the Cold War, the US and other governments have considered deploying nuclear reactors on spacecraft, which have proven to be controversial (such as the dubiously named Project Prometheus, which was cancelled in 2006); an intentionally or unintentionally damaged nuclear reactor in space could have major consequences.

Considering that we are increasingly dependent on satellites and that there are military, commercial, and civil interests in space, how can we attempt to ensure space security and sustainability in the future? In the US, the Obama administration has a National Space Policy, which was released in June 2010. The policy mainly consists of: (1) limit further pollution of the space environment; (2) limit objects from colliding with each other and/or exploding; (3) actively removing high-risk space debris. The policy a good start, but much more could be done. An emphasis on international cooperation rather than unilateral action would help; space debris are clearly a global problem requiring global solutions. It is also important to negotiate on the control of space weapons. The US and other space powers should declare that they will not intentionally damage or disable satellites operating in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty and that they will not be the first to station weapons in space. Moreover, “space situational awareness” (SSA), which allows for the coordination of space traffic, can be improved in collaboration with other countries, and satellites can be made less vulnerable to collision or attack. Finally, the US should play an active role in negotiations with the international community on space security and sustainability. The United Nations has the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), with 76 member states, has been working on a variety of programs to improve the long-term sustainability of space activities, and in particular, to develop and adopt international standards to minimize space debris.