Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Nukes Too Dangerous in World of Human Error

by Katie Mounts [contact information]

Published in the Asheville Citizen Times on April 12, 2009

As I shivered outside my car a few weeks ago, waiting on a locksmith in freezing temperatures, I knew it wasn't the first time I had locked my keys in the car. Knowing me, it won't be the last.

Moments like this reinforce the fact that we live in a world fraught with human error. Thankfully we've found ways to protect ourselves from the daily blunders we all make. As rational people, we assess risks and benefits and then make decisions accordingly.

Years ago, most national security experts concluded that maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War was a matter of national survival. But times have changed. The Soviet Union, justification for an oversized U.S. nuclear arsenal, is long gone. The overwhelming U.S. nuclear stockpile has done little to stop Iran and North Korea’s suspected efforts to build nuclear weapons. And the risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists is greater than ever.

In today’s world, the possession of thousands of nuclear weapons is no longer necessary for U.S. survival. In fact, the very existence of so many weapons increases the danger that human error will trigger an unintentional nuclear catastrophe. Unlike for my car, however, there is no locksmith for nuclear accidents.

A number of recent mishaps demonstrate that nuclear weapons today are a much greater liability than they are an asset. For example, in 2007, six armed nuclear cruise missiles were accidentally flown from North Dakota to Louisiana and then left outside unattended for hours. The United States also mistakenly shipped nuclear weapon triggers to Taiwan instead of helicopter batteries in 2006.

As if these foul ups weren’t bad enough, British and French nuclear missile submarines collided in the Atlantic in February. Then in March, two U.S. Navy ships collided in the waters just south of Iran. Fortunately, the U.S. ships were not carrying nuclear weapons. But as the British and French accident proved, they certainly could have been.

These incidents are the plot lines – or even punch lines – of movies, not the stuff of smart and responsible foreign policy. Primary fault should not only lie with those directly responsible for the accidents, however, but with a security policy that has failed to adapt to post-Cold War realities. These nuclear errors do not indicate that we need more nuclear weapons, as some conservatives suggest, but rather that we need to decide what to do with those we possess already.

Thankfully, national leaders, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, are publicly acknowledging the need for a different U.S. nuclear policy. Gates has decried the "gradual erosion of nuclear standards." In late March, Tom D'Agostino, head of the agency responsible for our nuclear weapons programs, said, "We must stop pouring money into an old, Cold War weapons complex that is too big and too expensive."

Today, those who used to balk at the idea of a nuclear weapons-free world are some of its most vocal advocates. Proponents range from former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to retired Senator Sam Nunn to former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain have endorsed the concept of moving toward this goal. And tens of thousands of Americans have joined these leaders’ call.

So what are we waiting for?

As the demand for a nuclear weapons-free world moves from a small but vocal group to mainstream public and expert opinion, it's time to enact reforms to reach this ambition. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a key treaty for reducing weapons stockpiles in the United States and Russia, expires in December. Both countries already are working to negotiate a follow-on agreement. Ideally, this new agreement will mandate that each country possess 1,000 or fewer warheads, leaving a smaller number of warheads in existence that could be prone to accidents.

When it comes to car keys, mistakes are not the end of the world. When it comes to nuclear weapons, however, they might be.