Latest news with #JohnErath
RTÉ News
22-06-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
What is the nuclear world order and how did we get here?
In the corridor adjacent to the UN General Assembly Hall at UN headquarters in New York, a giant photograph of the mushroom cloud billowing up from the destroyed city of Nagasaki hangs on the wall. It is part of a permanent exhibition designed to remind passersby of the horrors of nuclear war. After all, the UN was set up in no small part to prevent it ever happening. "Nuclear weapons post a threat to our very existence," reads a nearby quote from the UN Secretary General António Guterres. "The total elimination of nuclear weapons remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations," it adds. One wonders, though, how many delegates have ever paused to ponder the terrifying images on display. Considering that since the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan eighty years ago, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, several more countries have acquired their own nuclear arsenals. In fact, in that same UN exhibition, a flat screen television monitor shows the number of nuclear tests in the world since World War II. As the reel begins, isolated flashes in the US and the former Soviet Union first appear. The number of explosions steadily gathers pace through the Cold War until the grainy screen displays a mesmerising crescendo of detonations across the whole planet. It's hardly surprising that many historians believe we were miraculously lucky to escape nuclear annihilation in the 20th Century. So, what is the state of the world nuclear order today? The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, estimates that today 30 nations have nuclear capability. But only nine have nuclear weapons. They are, in order of the most nuclear warheads in their possession: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. There are an additional six nations that host nuclear weapons namely Italy, Türkiye, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands for the United States and Belarus for Russia. There could have been a lot more, according to John Erath, a former US State Department diplomat, now with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. "When the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in the late 1960s," he told RTÉ News, "the general estimate was that in 10 years, we would have had 20 nuclear powers". The NPT was a cornerstone UN treaty aimed at curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons and committing member states to nuclear development for peaceful means only. The treaty recognised only five nuclear powers who were, and still are, the permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and US. Today, 191 UN member states are signatories to the NPT. Five are not, namely Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan and South Sudan. "There has been some success for non-proliferation, and I credit the NPT for getting us there," he said. Some countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Japan and South Korea had very advanced nuclear capabilities, Mr Erath told RTÉ News. Brazil had even mastered the entire fuel cycle. "[These countries] could build nuclear weapons in no time, but they decided their security needs do not require them to do so," Mr Erath said. Other nations, though, took a different view. The race for a nuclear deterrent Nations usually decide to pursue a nuclear deterrent in response to their own security concerns - whether real or perceived - despite the enormous price tag and the risk of international condemnation. "Nobody likes having nuclear weapons," John Erath said, adding "they're tremendously expensive, very dangerous and very difficult to build and maintain". He added: "So, the real question is: Why do these threats exist and lead countries to decide to develop and build nuclear weapons?" A report published earlier this year by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons found that the nine nuclear-armed states collectively spent $100 billion (€87 billion) on their arsenals in 2024. The report found that's the equivalent of $3,100 (€2,705) per second. In 2003, North Korea - one of the poorest countries in the world where 60% of people live below the poverty line - quit the NPT and three years later, carried out its first nuclear test. It followed a speech by then US President George Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks branding North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, an "Axis of Evil". In the spring of 2003, the US illegally invaded Iraq on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction". "North Korea took [the Axis of Evil speech] to mean that they were next on the list," Mr Erath said. How much the toppling of Saddam Hussein in neighbouring Iraq fed into Tehran's decision-making over its nuclear programme is hard to assess. Iran remained in the NPT and claimed it was developing nuclear power for civilian use. But officials elsewhere, especially hawkish policymakers in the US and Israel, accused Iran of stringing negotiators along while secretly enriching uranium to weapons grade. It's fair to assume that the successful acquisition of a nuclear deterrent by North Korea - a fellow member of the so-called - won't have been lost on the Iranian leadership. And there were lessons to be drawn elsewhere too. At the end of the Cold War, Ukraine was in possession of the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union. However, the control systems and launch codes remained in Moscow, which limited Ukraine's ability to use them independently. Nevertheless, under pressure from the Clinton administration in the US, which sought to denuclearise eastern Europe, and in exchange for assurances on territorial integrity from Russia, the UK and the US, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. It was a key foreign policy decision that former US President Bill Clinton came to regret following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. "I feel a personal stake because I got them [Ukraine] to agree to give up their nuclear weapons," Mr Clinton said in an interview with RTÉ's Prime Time, in April 2023. "And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons," he said. Russia's so-called "stunt" coupled with US President Donald Trump's ambivalence about defending Europe reignited the debate in Europe over its own nuclear deterrent. French President Emmanuel Macron - which is the EU's only nuclear power - floated the idea of extending the French "nuclear umbrella" to cover all of Europe. That would mean deploying French warheads across the continent like Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands while Türkiye currently hosts American nuclear weapons. Mr Macron's opening gambit was greeted warmly by leaders in Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Denmark. But Russia slammed the French president's move as "extremely confrontational". Mr Trump's 'America First' doctrine also prompted a re-think in South Korea, where opinion polls now show that more than three quarters of South Koreans support the idea of a national nuclear deterrent. And in south Asia, India, which tested its first bomb in 1974, cited the need for a deterrent against regional rivals China and Pakistan. In response, Pakistan - with the help of China as well as the clandestine nuclear technology-smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist AQ Khan - became a nuclear power in 1998. Neither country has signed the NPT and last year Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India said he was reconsidering India's "no first use," policy – a long-standing commitment to a retaliatory strike only. A sudden outbreak of conventional hostilities between the two regional enemies in April, once again raised the spectre of nuclear war. Israel and Iran One of the world's most secretive and controversial nuclear programmes belongs to Israel, centred around the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel is believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads but has never publicly admitted its nuclear capability. Israel's nuclear ambiguity and its non-membership of the NPT meant it never faced international sanctions over its nuclear programme, unlike North Korea, Iran and for a time, India and Pakistan. Last week, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran's nuclear programme posed an existential threat to Israel. Iranian leaders have frequently called for the eradication of Israel. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Israel was doing "the dirty work" for other countries, by taking out Iran's nuclear potential. But while Iran's nuclear programme will likely be set back given recent strikes by Israel, and the US overnight, it's unlikely to be destroyed altogether, Mr Erath told RTÉ News. "The most important factor in producing a nuclear weapon is knowledge," he said, "and it's very difficult to kill knowledge". "It's tremendously expensive in terms of resources that both Israel and Iran would be putting into this and most importantly, the cost in human lives," he said. Before the US targeted three Iranian nuclear faciities, Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo, anti-nuclear campaigners had called Israel's initial airstrikes "illegal and unjust". "Israel is the only country in the region that has nuclear weapons," Susi Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons told RTÉ News, "Iran does not". "Iran was not posing an existential threat to Israel, and that is just a false narrative that Israel is portraying right now in order to justify what is honestly an illegal action," she said. Mad times The famous doctrine of MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – was credited with keeping the peace during the Cold War. It held that a nuclear strike by the United States or the Soviet Union would trigger retaliation, thereby guaranteeing mutual annihilation. In the 1980s, scientists predicted that even if humans survived the first round of bombs, the explosions would emit so much smoke and ash into the atmosphere, it would block out the sun, triggering a "nuclear winter" that could kill all life on earth. That was surely something neither side would be willing to risk. But on a number of occasions during the 20th Century, the world came perilously close to such a disaster - notably the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when the USSR positioned nukes in Cuba and NATO's Able Archer war game of 1983, which the Soviets mistook for a real attack and readied their nuclear arsenals to strike back. Is MAD still relevant today? Anti-nuclear campaigners argue that more nuclear-armed states make for a more dangerous world, while rising global tensions increase the risk of deliberate or accidental use. And there's little sign that the world's largest nuclear powers are interested in changing course. President Vladimir Putin formally announced a revision of the Russian nuclear doctrine last year, lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike. Under President Xi Jinping, China has rapidly expanded its nuclear arsenal, while the US continues to pour money into the modernisation of its nuclear programme. "The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end," according to Hans Kristensen, Stockholm International Peace Research. "Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements." Technological advancements have also dramatically increased the potency of modern atomic bombs. The United States, for example, is building a new bomb designed to be 24 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. At the centre of the UN exhibition stands a charred and mottled statue of St Agnes holding a lamb. It was found face down in the ruins of a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Nagasaki.
NBC News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
What to know about Israel's nuclear weapons program
The Federation of American Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an independent international organization dedicated to researching arms control and disarmament, estimate that Israel has around 90 nuclear warheads. Due to Israel's official stance of ambiguity regarding its nuclear program, the organizations note the difficulties in determining the extent of the country's nuclear capabilities. "They are intentionally secretive about their nuclear capabilities and that's part of the policy that they follow," John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said in a phone interview Wednesday. He said that policy was likely in part to ensure Israel's "potential adversaries would not know what they can do in the event of a crisis." How it began Historical records suggest Israeli leaders had hoped to build a nuclear arsenal to help ensure the country's safety after it was founded in 1948 in the years after the Holocaust, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, an online encyclopedia published by the American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard's nonprofit organization American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. In a July 1969 declassified memo to President Richard Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that Israel had committed "not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Near East," when buying the U.S.' Phantom aircraft, though it has never been made clear precisely what that means. Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician who worked at Israel's atomic reactor in Dimona in the Negev Desert in the late 1960s and early 1970s, sent shock waves around the world when he disclosed details and photographs of the reactor to Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.
Newsweek
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Map Shows US States Most Likely to Survive Nuclear War
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With nuclear tensions rising due to the conflict between Israel and Iran, Newsweek has analyzed maps of what a nuclear war would look like if the U.S. were targeted. Israel launched a wave of strikes on Iran on Friday morning, targeting nuclear facilities, military sites, and key officials in what it said was the start of an operation named "Operation Rising Lion". Why It Matters Israel has struck major Iranian targets, and Iran has retaliated with their own drones. Both Israel and Iran have nuclear capabilities, which means that any escalation in fighting could have disastrous consequences for the international community. What To Know Newsweek has looked at Scientific American's fallout map of a hypothetical nuclear attack on missile silos in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota to see which states would be the least affected and would therefore be the safest places to be during a strike. In the "average-case scenario," these safest states would be Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, which are the furthest away from any strikes and the resulting fallout. Map showing an average-case scenario in a Scientific American simulation of a nuclear attack on U.S. silos. Map showing an average-case scenario in a Scientific American simulation of a nuclear attack on U.S. silos. Scientific American Other states that would be less affected include Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas and Illinois, though these areas are all closer to the hypothetical strike zones. Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota would be the worst states to be during a strike, as that is where the nuclear silo fields that might be targeted are situated. Scientific American said that a strike in this area would "annihilate all life in the surrounding regions and contaminate fertile agricultural land for years", while also affecting Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas with high levels of radiation. What People Are Saying John Erath, the Senior Policy Director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Newsweek: "While those who live near military facilities, ICBM silos in the Midwest or submarine bases along the coasts might bear the most immediate and severe consequences of a nuclear attack, there's no question: ANY nuclear war or weapons detonation would be bad for everyone. "Nowhere is truly 'safe' from fallout and other consequences like contamination of food and water supplies and prolonged radiation exposure. "Administrations of both parties have long understood nuclear weapons are only for defense and deterrence, not for starting a nuclear war. We would all do well to remember former President Ronald Reagan's words, recently reaffirmed by President Joe Biden: 'A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.'" What Happens Next Iran has launched retaliatory strikes on Israel. Iran has launched similar strikes before, which did not result in an all-out war between the nations.
Newsweek
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons: How Far Can Missiles Travel?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Pakistan became nuclear capable just prior to the turn of the century but possesses about the same number of weapons, if not more, than neighbor India. Why It Matters Pakistan and India are embroiled in a new entanglement feared to lead to warfare following the April 22 terrorist attack in the India-controlled part of Kashmir, perpetrated by Islamist terrorists linked to Pakistan, that led to 26 deaths. Pakistani officials said Wednesday that they had "credible intelligence" that India intends to carry out military action against it in the "next 24-36 hours on the pretext of baseless and concocted allegations of involvement in the Pahalgam incident," according to Reuters. What To Know Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998. Unlike India, the nation has no "first use policy" that vows not to be the first to fire such weapons unless provoked. In 1999, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency projected that Pakistan would have 60 to 80 warheads by 2020. Estimates within the past five years have put Pakistan's official nuclear arsenal, consisting of air, sea and land weapons, at about 170. Pakistani army soldiers stand on a vehicle carrying a long-range ballistic missile Shaheen during the Pakistan Day parade in Islamabad on March 23, 2022. Pakistani army soldiers stand on a vehicle carrying a long-range ballistic missile Shaheen during the Pakistan Day parade in Islamabad on March 23, 2022. GHULAM RASOOL/AFP via Getty Images But nuclear experts more recently acknowledged that the 170-warhead stockpile could realistically grow to around 200 by this year due to the country's growth rate. Pakistan's Mirage III and Mirage V fighter bombers, located at two bases, are nuclear-capable. The Mirage V wields nuclear gravity bombs as part of a small arsenal, according to the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists. Mirage III can launch Ra'ad air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) as well as the add-on Ra'ad-II. The Ra'ad "can deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with great accuracy," according to a 2011 press release issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations, a media and public relations wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces. It can travel 350 kilometers and "complement[s] Pakistan's deterrence capability" by achieving "strategic standoff capability on land and at sea." The Ra'ad II, tested in February 2020, has even more range and can reportedly reach targets of 600 kilometers. Pakistan, which has been sanctioned by countries like the United States in the past, boosted its nuclear arsenal over many years due to threats from India. Both countries gained independence from Great Britain in 1947 yet have repeatedly clashed over claims of Kashmir. John Erath, senior policy director at the nonprofit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Newsweek that India has a "huge advantage" in a air warfare with Pakistan due to the proximity of Pakistan's population centers being within reach of Indian aircraft and ballistic missiles. "India and Pakistan have been regional rivals since they got their independence, so the the idea of border clashes and tension that could lead to military action is never not there," Erath said. "It goes and it comes a little bit as to the seriousness. The last time we saw things like what are going on now was in 2019, when there were shots fired over the border and there was an Indian strike on a Pakistani facility that they said was training terrorists. "I would take that as something of a model and expect that if the Indians feel that they have to take some kind of action in response to this massacre, they would do something like that—strike a Pakistani facility or what they believe is a training facility or one of these militant groups." But it would be conventional, Erath added, saying "therein lies the danger" should a missile be fired with a conventional payload and Pakistani officials come under the assumption that the payload is nuclear and requires a response. In a speech on December 19, 2024, former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer speech, sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association, said that Pakistan's missile activity is an "emerging threat to the United States." He claimed Pakistan is pursuing "increasingly sophisticated missile technology," such as long-range ballistic missiles and large rocket motors that could eventually "strike targets well beyond South Asia, including the United States." A statement issued in response to Finer's comments by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry did not confirm nor deny the development of more long-range missiles. Erath said that both India and Pakistan have been carefully planning out wartime strategies over the course of 60 years should attacks become extreme. "Pakistan is definitely in an inferior position," he said. "They have a smaller country, a smaller military, fewer resources, but they know what they're up against and they they have ideas about how to stop it, including as a last resort the use of nuclear weapons. "If one side or the other were to make a major military incursion, as we see in Ukraine, that sort of thing is very difficult to do. It requires tremendous logistics, tremendous resources and tremendous expense, and neither side really want to take that on unless they feel that they have no other option. "The best that both sides and the rest of the world can do now is to urge restraint and look for what the off-ramp is going to be." What People Are Saying India Prime Minister Nemandra Modi said on X that India will "identify, track and punish every terrorist, their handlers and their backers. ... We will pursue them to the ends of the earth." U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce stated: "The United States stands with India, strongly condemns all acts of terrorism. We pray for the lives of those lost and for the recovery of the injured and call for the perpetrators of this heinous act to be brought to justice." U.S. Vice President JD Vance said: "Growing relations between our countries over the last decade are part of what led America to designate India a Major Defense Partner — the first of that class." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun: "We strongly condemn the attack. China firmly opposes all forms of terrorism. We mourn for the lives lost and express sincere sympathies to the bereaved families and the injured." What Happens Next Nuclear provocations will be the major goal for diplomacy from the perspective of the United States, whose leaders have offered full-throated support to India due to decades of allyship. The situation's outcome will not just impact South Asia but could also reshape global security, particularly with China's growing influence in the region.
Newsweek
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
India's Nuclear Weapons: How Far Can Missiles Travel?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. India has been a nuclear power for over 50 years, possessing an arsenal that is publicly clandestine but capable in warfare—notably against its neighboring country, Pakistan, amid their decades-long clash over Kashmir. Why It Matters Last week, animosities reignited after Islamist militants shot and killed 26 people in Pahalgam, in the India-administered stretch of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region. Harsh rhetoric erupted out of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, two nations that have been aggressive toward one another—largely due to laying claim over the Kashmir region—since both achieved independence from Great Britain in 1947. On Wednesday, Pakistan said it had "credible intelligence" that India intends to carry out military action against it in the "next 24-36 hours on the pretext of baseless and concocted allegations of involvement in the Pahalgam incident," Reuters reported. What To Know India first tested its nuclear weapons in 1974, becoming the sixth country to detonate a nuclear weapon. The arsenal ranges from 10 to 40 kilotons, though exact numbers remain unknown, according to The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. While the exact number of nuclear weapons has never been made fully public by India, the nation's stockpile was estimated to be 160 nuclear warheads in 2022, according to the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists. A soldier salutes next to an Akash missile system during the country's 76th Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26, 2025. A soldier salutes next to an Akash missile system during the country's 76th Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26, 2025. SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP via Getty Images They said that India at that time produced enough military plutonium, approximately 700 kilograms, for 140 to 210 nuclear warheads—data which has been supported by the International Panel on Fissile Materials. India can deliver approximately 48 nuclear warheads via the aging Mirage 2000H/I, Jaguar IS/IB and potentially the French-made Rafale aircraft, according to the Nuclear Information Project—the first two of which were deployed in the early 1980s and have ranges of 1,850 and 1,600 kilometers, respectively. The Rafale has a range of about 2,000 kilometers. There were 64 land-based missiles as of 2022. "In a nuclear exchange, which we certainly hope does not happen, India has a huge advantage because Pakistan's population centers are within reach of Indian aircraft and ballistic missiles—and many Indian population centers are difficult to hit from Pakistan," John Erath, senior policy director at the nonprofit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Newsweek. He added: "The real—I hate to use the phrase center of gravity—but the focal point of the Pakistani state is in Punjab, and that's very close to the Indian border. So Indian reach those centers of Pakistani identity relatively easily." Erath said that Indian nuclear policy has been relatively consistent in that they don't want to use such weapons as a deterrent, either against Pakistan or China—the latter of which has been involved in border disputes with India every few years, where some shots have been fired but no major warfare has occurred. "China has an extensive and growing number of nuclear weapons, and this makes the Indians very nervous that one of these border states could spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear response," he said. "China has a 'no first use' policy on its nuclear weapons, but that's increasingly difficult to believe." What People Are Saying U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce stated: "The United States stands with India, strongly condemns all acts of terrorism. We pray for the lives of those lost and for the recovery of the injured and call for the perpetrators of this heinous act to be brought to justice." U.S. Vice President JD Vance said: "Growing relations between our countries over the last decade are part of what led America to designate India a Major Defense Partner — the first of that class." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun: "We strongly condemn the attack. China firmly opposes all forms of terrorism. We mourn for the lives lost and express sincere sympathies to the bereaved families and the injured." What Happens Next Nuclear provocations will be the major goal for diplomacy from the perspective of the United States, whose leaders have offered full-throated support to India due to decades of allyship. The situation's outcome will not just impact South Asia but could also reshape global security, particularly with China's growing influence in the region.
