Chance of nuclear war is greater than you think: Stanford engineer makes risk analysis

Jul 20, 2009 BY CHRISTINE BLACKMAN
Professor Emeritus Martin Hellman began his work on the threat of nuclear destruction in the 1980s.

What are the chances of a nuclear world war? What is the risk of a nuclear attack on United States soil? The risk of a child born today suffering an early death due to nuclear war is at least 10 percent, according to Martin Hellman, a tall, thin and talkative Stanford Professor Emeritus in Engineering.

Nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing the need to take a long look at how the United States handles weapons of mass destruction, Hellman said.

Auto manufacturers assess the risk of injury to drivers, and engineers assess potential risks of a new nuclear power plant. So why haven’t we assessed the risk of nuclear conflict based on our current arms strategy? Hellman and a group of defense experts, Nobel laureates and Stanford professors are calling for an in-depth analysis.

With more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in existence and the ability to build many times more, the choice is between creating a safer world and having no world at all, Hellman wrote in his paper “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence.”

Weapons from the Cold War still remain, but public concern for nuclear strategy has dissipated, Hellman said. Many of those who do think about it, such as political leaders, say the fantasy of nuclear disarmament is too risky for national defense, he explained.

“People who are saying change is too risky are implicitly assuming that the current approach is risk free, but no one really knows what the risk is if we don’t change,” Hellman said.

Hellman’s story

Hellman first became concerned about nuclear war in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan became president. Reagan brought the nuclear threat into clearer focus by being honest about fighting plans, Hellman said. Also, a fellow Stanford professor, Harry Rathbun, started a group to convince people that nuclear weapons represented more than just scientific progress, but a real threat of global destruction. Hellman credited his wife, Dorothie, for getting him to join the group: “I never would have gotten involved if it wasn’t for her.”

In 1982, Hellman took an 18-month, unpaid leave from Stanford to work as a volunteer for the group started by Rathbun. During this time, Hellman became convinced that nuclear destruction not only could happen, but would happen unless we changed some of our fundamental beliefs about national security and war.

Hellman’s numbers

About fifteen years after Hellman became convinced of impending destruction, he began punching numbers to calculate the probability of such a catastrophe based on events focused around the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. According to Hellman’s numbers, the risk of a person not living out his or her natural life because of nuclear war is at least 10 percent.

Hellman gives another analogy: “The risk that each one of us dies as a result of failed deterrence is thousands of times greater than the risk you would bear if a nuclear power plant were built right next to your home.”

Determining such a risk seems a little like predicting the future, but Hellman is confident about his numbers. He justifies his probability by breaking down a catastrophe into a sequence of smaller failures, incorporating expert opinions, examining history and estimating within a range of numbers.

Hellman’s path to risk assessment

Before returning to Stanford from his volunteer leave, Hellman started a project with the Soviet Academy of Sciences through a committee led by Evgeny Velikhov, who later became Mikhail Gorbachev’s science advisor. In 1984, Hellman and his wife traveled to the Soviet Union to create dialog and build relationships with the Soviet scientists. Soviet restrictions on free speech prevented totally open discussion, but by 1986, Gorbachev lifted censorship, and the project became possible, Hellman explained.

The fruit of their labor came a year later in the form of a book called Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking. It had the radical thesis that either humanity would end war or war would end humanity.

But the cold war faded, along with public support, and Hellman focused his work on easing ethnic tension on campus (for which he won three awards) before retiring in 1995. After a few years of attending to family responsibilities, he returned to his work on risk assessment.

Hellman’s method

Hellman used a approach, which breaks down a catastrophic event into a sequence of smaller failures. He further simplified the analysis by only considering failures triggered by a crisis involving Cuba. He began by evaluating three events that could have initiated a conflict: deploying American missiles in Turkey (which began in 1961), re-imposing a naval blockade around Cuba (which was threatened in the 1980s) and installing a missile defense system in eastern Europe, a current project that has drawn objections from Russia.

Based on the outcomes of these events, Hellman estimated these numbers:

• Rate of initiating events: six percent per year
• Probability that an initiating event leads to a major crisis: 33 percent
• Probability that a major crisis leads to the use of a nuclear weapon: 10 to 50 percent

The third probability is hardest to estimate because we have yet to drop a bomb on Russia (or vice versa). Hellman used the 10 to 50 percent range based on studying what transpired in the Cuban Missile Crisis and on statements by the participants. People can make irrational decisions when under the gun, he explained. Once a major crisis erupts, it becomes a question of who will back down first; like a game of nuclear chicken, he said.

Iran and North Korea

Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing add complexity to the assessment, Hellman explained. Nuclear terrorism was not included in the preliminary analysis, which makes Hellman’s probability more conservative. Factoring in nuclear terrorism adds a scary new dimension with additional risk, he said. A country with nuclear weapons and a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war, especially if the terrorist hostility is directed at a United States or Russian city, Hellman explained.

“If New York or Moscow went up in smoke, as horrendous as that would be, it could be a catalyst for an even worse catastrophe.” Conflict could arise as United States and Russian troops meet in the terrorist country to secure any remaining weapons, he explained.

According to Hellman, solving the conflict with Russia is the first key step to addressing issues with Iran or North Korea.

“Let’s work on the United States and Russia first because that’s where the most weapons are, it’s the easiest one to solve, and it will make a more fertile ground for solving later crises,” he said. “If we behave more rationally toward Russia, it might help Iran and North Korea see us as more trustworthy.”

Is disarmament the answer?

Moving toward a solution starts with taking small steps, such as recognizing the problem and analyzing the risk, Hellman explained.

“When people think about nuclear disarmament - if they do - they tend to think nothing will change except that we get rid of . That’s not going to happen. Before we can even determine if nuclear disarmament is possible, we need to get beyond the simple good-guy/bad-guy view of the world and recognize that things are much more complex.”

While many might brand him as foolish for tackling such a seemingly insoluble problem, Hellman takes that as an unintended compliment, noting that his award-winning work in cryptography was seen in a similar light - until it paid off.

He looks to events in the past that give humanity hope for the future. If America had rejected seemingly impossible tasks, we’d still have slavery and women wouldn’t be able to vote; history has proven that people can change, he said.

Provided by Stanford University (news : web)

Explore further: China's reform of R&D budget management doesn't go far enough, research shows

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

U. S. envisions a new generation of nuclear weapons

Mar 19, 2007

Almost 62 years after detonation of the first atomic bombs, the United States is considering controversial proposals to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons and revamp its nuclear weapons complex, according to an article ...

Nobel prize winner Joseph Rotblat dies

Sep 02, 2005

Scientists around the world paid tribute to Joseph Rotblat, a Polish nuclear physicist and Nobel peace prize winner, who died at age 96.

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

User comments : 10

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mvg
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2009
"history has proven that people can change,"

Unforturnately, it also shows that when they do change it is not always for the better.
Avitar
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2009
The most profound zone of danger is in the instability of having several countries equal. Fifteen hundred warheads scattered among five countries as three hundred each is much more dangerous than 25,000 if 95% of those warheads are in two countries.
Disarmament also would run the danger of making the world safe for war. The FBI may have been selling a fantasy with regard to their theory of one person producing weaponized anthrax right after 9/11 but that will not always be true. There are much worse biologicals than anthrax. Eight years from now a class five pathogen may be within the capabilities of a college biology lab, the undergraduate%u2019s lab.
paulthebassguy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2009
This is all scaremongering to me. It's attitudes like this, and articles like this that put people on edge, create paranoia, and actually increase the likelihood of war.
zevkirsh
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2009
useless. this isnt news. there is a reason darpas idea of a futures exchange on global terrorism was shut down. and its not because of the moral hazard.
DMorse
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
We have a pretty good weapons defense system. I think the likelihood of the US being hit by a nuke is extremely low. Now an unconventional nuclear attack is another thing altogether.
PaulLove
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2009
Strikes me that two people with bombs who wish to live but kill each other have common ground. When one of those two people doesn't care if he lives the chance of resolution drops to zero.
docknowledge
3.5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
DMorse, the evidence is pretty fair that a rogue Russian submarine once already tried to launch a nuclear missile (at Hawaii). It was only stopped because the Russians had put in a fail safe that the submarine commander was not aware of.

You don't think that some loony in Iraq or Pakistan or North Korea would launch a missile at the United States to "teach it a lesson"? Think again!

When I was a boy, fear of nuclear war, shelters, fallout was a common topic on the playground. From what I hear now, it's rarely spoken of. It appears in computer games such as "Fallout" as a kind of boogie man, like vampires and pirates. Seems to me to be a huge difference.
Sanescience
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2009
This doesn't entirely pass my BS smell-o-meter. Just like you can compute the average age of a room full of elderly and infants and produce a true but useless statistic, the probability of death by nuclear war seems pretty useless except for the authors paycheck and publicity. Even if "true", real world ultra complexities can not be factored in and much like predicting the weather, every moment brings in new information that might completely change a forecast, making any prediction into the significant future using available information at the time destined to be irrelevant by the time the future date is reached.
jerryd
3 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2009

Even if several nuke exchanges happened no where near 10% of the earth pop would be killed. This is probably the worst BS I've seen in print. These are a couple of nut cases.

Those making these calculations just don't understand the power of nukes which is no where as big as they think. Most nukes are now quite small with 5-10 well placed ones needed just to take out NYC.

The US and Russia exchanges weapons is a joke as both have too much to lose.

A main reason we need to get independent of oil is to avoid such a war.

While likely a limited exchange it will be between middle east/Asian countries, not the west, Europe.
Nartoon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2009
"Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking. It had the radical thesis that either humanity would end war or war would end humanity"
RADICAL -- common sense to me!