Introduction: Near-misses, close calls, and early warnings

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Pub Date : 2023-05-04 DOI:10.1080/00963402.2023.2202526
D. Drollette
{"title":"Introduction: Near-misses, close calls, and early warnings","authors":"D. Drollette","doi":"10.1080/00963402.2023.2202526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unexploded nuclear bombs still lie off American coasts, embedded in swamps, or down on the seabed. These are just a few examples of America’s 32, officially recognized “Broken Arrows”—the Pentagon’s terminology for the unintentional launches, detonations, thefts, or losses of US nuclear weapons. (Technically speaking, the Pentagon defines Broken Arrows as only the worst types of accidents and puts some similar accidents into categories such as “Bent Spear” and “Empty Quiver,” but in common parlance they are generally all lumped together as Broken Arrows.) In a vein closely related to these near-misses with disaster, there was the 1983 NATO “Able Archer” war game—a nuclear exercise that was too realistic, causing the leaders of the Soviet Union to go to high alert and possibly bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The reasons why one should be concerned about such incidents is obvious. But the world’s close calls are not limited to the world of nuclear weapons. What happened at Fukushima, Japan, in 2011—one of the world’s best-known nuclear accidents—could correctly be called a “near-miss;” but for luck, spent fuel in the plant’s storage pool could have boiled dry and caught fire, spewing even more radiation than the power plant’s three melted reactor cores emitted, with truly dire results. Because there have been similar almost-catastrophes across our coverage areas, we’ve devoted this special issue to near-misses, close calls, and early warnings, focusing it on the lessons humanity can learn from these narrow escapes. In this issue, Eric Schlosser—the author of Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety— explains why the actual number of Broken Arrows is probably in the hundreds, rather than the official figure of 32. He also shares some declassified documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act that contain information about accidents and incidents that shocked nuclear weapons development and safety engineers at Sandia National Laboratories. Schlosser says these and other declassified reports show that no system for safeguarding nuclear weapons will ever be 100-percent effective, and that the United States (and other nuclear weapons nations, which have their own Broken Arrows) can never completely eliminate the potential for a catastrophic nuclear error. In the article “Able Archer: How close of a call was it?” Thomas Fraise and Kjølv Egeland—experts with the Nuclear Knowledges program at the Center for International Studies in Paris—delve into just how close the superpowers came to blows, because some Soviet leaders feared that a NATO military exercise was a ruse meant to disguise a NATO attack. Lest readers think that such close calls are limited to the Cold War era, technology policy expert Kris Shrishak describes how poorly designed navigation apps employing artificial intelligence led users into greater danger during the 2017 wildfires in California. Technically, the app was not wrong: It was designed to identify and suggest the quickest route to a destination, and one of the criteria it used was how crowded roads are. A street everyone has fled due to an inferno would certainly be devoid of vehicles. There is a silver lining to close calls: Human beings can learn from them and avoid their recurrence. As Susan Solomon points out in her interview for this issue, the planet had a climate change near-miss when the hole in the ozone layer threatened to become so large that, in her words, “by the year 2050 there pretty much would have been an ozone hole everywhere over the whole planet. It would have been just one giant doughnut hole— with no doughnut.” Fortunately, due to science, industry, good policy making, and international cooperation, the culprits—chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs—were eliminated. The 1989 Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs is probably the best example of international cooperation to resolve","PeriodicalId":46802,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists","volume":"79 1","pages":"135 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2023.2202526","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unexploded nuclear bombs still lie off American coasts, embedded in swamps, or down on the seabed. These are just a few examples of America’s 32, officially recognized “Broken Arrows”—the Pentagon’s terminology for the unintentional launches, detonations, thefts, or losses of US nuclear weapons. (Technically speaking, the Pentagon defines Broken Arrows as only the worst types of accidents and puts some similar accidents into categories such as “Bent Spear” and “Empty Quiver,” but in common parlance they are generally all lumped together as Broken Arrows.) In a vein closely related to these near-misses with disaster, there was the 1983 NATO “Able Archer” war game—a nuclear exercise that was too realistic, causing the leaders of the Soviet Union to go to high alert and possibly bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. The reasons why one should be concerned about such incidents is obvious. But the world’s close calls are not limited to the world of nuclear weapons. What happened at Fukushima, Japan, in 2011—one of the world’s best-known nuclear accidents—could correctly be called a “near-miss;” but for luck, spent fuel in the plant’s storage pool could have boiled dry and caught fire, spewing even more radiation than the power plant’s three melted reactor cores emitted, with truly dire results. Because there have been similar almost-catastrophes across our coverage areas, we’ve devoted this special issue to near-misses, close calls, and early warnings, focusing it on the lessons humanity can learn from these narrow escapes. In this issue, Eric Schlosser—the author of Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety— explains why the actual number of Broken Arrows is probably in the hundreds, rather than the official figure of 32. He also shares some declassified documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act that contain information about accidents and incidents that shocked nuclear weapons development and safety engineers at Sandia National Laboratories. Schlosser says these and other declassified reports show that no system for safeguarding nuclear weapons will ever be 100-percent effective, and that the United States (and other nuclear weapons nations, which have their own Broken Arrows) can never completely eliminate the potential for a catastrophic nuclear error. In the article “Able Archer: How close of a call was it?” Thomas Fraise and Kjølv Egeland—experts with the Nuclear Knowledges program at the Center for International Studies in Paris—delve into just how close the superpowers came to blows, because some Soviet leaders feared that a NATO military exercise was a ruse meant to disguise a NATO attack. Lest readers think that such close calls are limited to the Cold War era, technology policy expert Kris Shrishak describes how poorly designed navigation apps employing artificial intelligence led users into greater danger during the 2017 wildfires in California. Technically, the app was not wrong: It was designed to identify and suggest the quickest route to a destination, and one of the criteria it used was how crowded roads are. A street everyone has fled due to an inferno would certainly be devoid of vehicles. There is a silver lining to close calls: Human beings can learn from them and avoid their recurrence. As Susan Solomon points out in her interview for this issue, the planet had a climate change near-miss when the hole in the ozone layer threatened to become so large that, in her words, “by the year 2050 there pretty much would have been an ozone hole everywhere over the whole planet. It would have been just one giant doughnut hole— with no doughnut.” Fortunately, due to science, industry, good policy making, and international cooperation, the culprits—chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs—were eliminated. The 1989 Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs is probably the best example of international cooperation to resolve
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
简介:未遂事件、千钧一发和预警
未爆炸的核弹仍然躺在美国海岸外,埋在沼泽里,或者在海底。这些只是美国官方认可的32枚“断箭”中的几个例子。“断箭”是五角大楼对无意发射、引爆、盗窃或损失美国核武器的术语。(从技术上讲,五角大楼将“断箭”定义为最严重的事故类型,并将一些类似的事故归类为“弯矛”和“空箭袋”,但在通常的说法中,它们通常都被统称为“断箭”。)与这些险些酿成灾难的事件密切相关的,还有1983年北约的“神射手”(Able Archer)军演——这是一场过于现实的核演习,导致苏联领导人进入高度戒备状态,并可能将世界带到核战争的边缘。人们应该关注这些事件的原因是显而易见的。但是,世界上的死里逃生并不局限于核武器世界。2011年发生在日本福岛的事故——世界上最著名的核事故之一——可以准确地称为“险些”;但幸运的是,核电站储存池中的乏燃料可能已经煮干并起火,喷出的辐射甚至比核电站三个熔化的反应堆堆芯释放的辐射还要多,造成真正可怕的后果。因为在我们的报道范围内也发生过类似的几乎是灾难的事件,所以我们把这期特刊专门用于介绍“死里逃生”、“死里逃生”和早期预警,重点关注人类可以从这些死里逃生中吸取的教训。在本期中,《指挥与控制:核武器、大马士革事故和安全幻觉》一书的作者Eric schlosser解释了为什么“断箭”的实际数量可能是数百人,而不是官方数字32人。他还分享了一些根据《信息自由法》获得的解密文件,其中包含了震惊桑迪亚国家实验室核武器开发和安全工程师的事故和事件的信息。施洛瑟说,这些和其他解密的报告表明,没有任何一个保护核武器的系统会百分之百有效,美国(以及其他拥有“断箭”的核武器国家)永远无法完全消除发生灾难性核错误的可能性。在文章《能手:有多险胜?》Thomas Fraise和Kjølv egeland是巴黎国际研究中心核知识项目的专家,他们深入研究了这两个超级大国是如何差点打起来的,因为一些苏联领导人担心北约的军事演习是一个掩饰北约攻击的诡计。科技政策专家克里斯·施里沙克(Kris Shrishak)描述了2017年加州野火期间,采用人工智能的导航应用程序设计糟糕,导致用户陷入更大的危险,以免读者认为这种死里逃生的情况仅限于冷战时代。从技术上讲,这款应用并没有错:它的设计目的是识别并建议到达目的地的最快路线,它使用的标准之一是道路的拥挤程度。一条所有人都因为地狱而逃离的街道肯定没有车辆。死里逃生也有一线希望:人类可以从中吸取教训,避免重蹈覆辙。正如苏珊·所罗门(Susan Solomon)在本期杂志的采访中指出的那样,当臭氧层上的空洞变得如此之大时,地球就差点发生了气候变化,用她的话来说,“到2050年,整个地球上几乎到处都是臭氧空洞。”它可能只是一个巨大的甜甜圈洞——没有甜甜圈。”幸运的是,由于科学、工业、良好的政策制定和国际合作,罪魁祸首氯氟烃(cfcs)被淘汰了。1989年禁止氟氯化碳的《蒙特利尔议定书》可能是国际合作解决问题的最佳范例
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Where climate journalism is now: Interview with Emily Atkin, the fire behind the Heated climate newsletter Climate anxiety is not a mental health problem. But we should still treat it as one Book excerpt—Catastrophic climate change: Lessons from the dinosaurs Introduction: Climate change—where are we now? Redefining the wildfire problem and scaling solutions to meet the challenge
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1