Harvard expert warns urgently of nuclear war: “Dark clouds are gathering”

A Harvard professor warned that the world is dangerously close to nuclear war at a time when leading experts crucial to preventing such conflicts are “aging”. He called on politicians to urgently enlist the help of a new generation of scientists and engineers.

Matthew Bunn, professor of energy, national security and foreign policy, said “the risk of nuclear war has not been this high since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.”

“Dark clouds are gathering on the nuclear horizon, with threats coming from all directions,” he wrote in an editorial for the scientific journal Sciencepublished on Thursday. “The world may soon face an unbridled arms race for the first time in more than five decades – and a more complex one, involving more countries and more technologies.”

In his editorial, Bunn warned that the 2010 New START treaty was the last remaining agreement limiting American and Russian nuclear forces, but it was set to expire in 2026 because Russia was blocking required inspections and no new talks were taking place.

He pointed to a global landscape characterized by heightened tensions in the nuclear conflict, including the nuclear threat posed by Russia in the Ukraine conflict, the construction of numerous missile silos by China, North Korea’s missile tests, the ongoing rivalry between India and Pakistan in the nuclear conflict, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In response to these events, US policymakers are considering a possible nuclear buildup. In addition, technological advances such as hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence are further destabilizing the military balance.

In 2024, there will be more than 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia has about 5,580 warheads, the United States about 5,100, China 500, and France and Britain 290 and 225 respectively. India and Pakistan have about 170 each, Israel 90, and North Korea 50.

In the past, non-governmental dialogues between scientists and engineers have facilitated the conclusion of arms control agreements, Bunn said.

“Comprehensive technical discussions involving the scientific community are essential when addressing issues such as reducing the threat of conflict in space and cyberspace and how new technologies such as commercial space systems and artificial intelligence can help verify the next generation of weapons limitations,” Bunn wrote.

“The United States, Russia and China must find ways to create predictability, reduce hostilities and avoid the dangers and costs of unbridled competition,” he added. “All three parties should stop relying on ‘launch with warning’ strategies and putting missiles off alert so that decisions about the life and death of millions of people do not have to be made in a matter of minutes.”

Bunn suggests that initial steps should focus on reducing tensions between the US and China, Russia and North Korea, and on implementing communication and risk reduction measures.

He said: “Governments need the help of scientists and engineers to understand the dangers that continue to be posed by nuclear weapons and to find ways to reduce them. Those who have done much of this work are getting older. By educating themselves, joining groups working on these issues, and participating in arms control dialogues and research efforts, a new generation of scientists and engineers working across national borders can provide this help.”

Other experts in the field agree with Bunn’s view.

“We are at a time of tension in the context of Russia, North Korea, India and Pakistan,” said Becky Alexis-Martin, a lecturer in peace studies and international development at the University of Bradford in the UK. Newsweek“As long as we have nuclear weapons, there is a real danger of nuclear war.”

Robert M. Dover, professor of intelligence and national security at the University of Hull in the UK, said Newsweek that Bunn failed to mention a crucial step.

“As conventional forces are reduced, the escalation ladder shortens and the danger increases,” Dover said. “Many commentators talk about a low threat because it would amount to a suicide pact. But that depends on the quality of the indoctrination of officers in the use of these technologies and the containment of the threats.”

“The other aspect is a superficial treatment of the development of different types of nuclear weapons (eg tactical versus strategic), the lowering of norms against (weapons of mass destruction), the relative complacency and lack of understanding of how vulnerable some people and systems are in this area. For example, do we see that the relative weakness of NATO forces in the east (Polish border) could lead to increased risk – e.g. are we making the situation riskier because we cannot fight a conventional war?”

Newsweek has asked spokespeople from Russia, China and North Korea for comment.

Do you have a tip for a science story that Newsweek should report? Do you have a question about nuclear war? Let us know at [email protected].