top of page
  • bluesky
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Y2K and Accidental Nuclear War?

Sep 1, 1998
3 min read

Several thousand nuclear weapons in Russia and U.S.A., and several hundred in four other nuclear weapon states are still on full alert, with warning systems and some aspects of their launch and control systems run by computers. The world has survived all the false alarms and computer malfunctions in 40 years with this disaster waiting to happen, by a combination of luck and good management.

Little change has been made since the Cold War ended, despite statements by U.S. and Russian presidents about “de-targetting”. Bruce Blair of the Brookings Institute referred in testimony to U.S. Congress to: “…the serious false alarm in January 1995, triggered by the firing of a Norwegian scientific rocket, which for the first time in Russian history triggered a strategic alert of their LOW [launch on warning] forces, an emergency nuclear decision conference involving their President and other national command authorities, and the activation of their famous nuclear suitcases.”

From 1 January 2000 the operation of all computer systems with a 2- digit year in it anywhere, will be uncertain. Expert “fixes” cannot be certain to work under every combination of circumstances. Could there be a malfunction that could trigger an accidental nuclear war? No expert can guarantee that there could not. Satellite navigation for cruise missiles and intercontinental rockets is one example where a date input is required. Could a test rocket flight, or a cruise missile launched by the U.S. military against terrorists, land in quite the wrong place — or appear to a computer-operated early warning system as if it were going to?

I know of no way of estimating whether the increased risk will be large or small, but it must be an increase. My interest in this matter is not so much the actual increase of the risk — there has been an unacceptable risk of accidental war throughout the nuclear deterrence era — as that this threat could become the trigger which makes governments of the nuclear powers listen to the concerns of their citizens, and abolish the risk.

The way to make the risk zero is to remove all warheads from their delivery systems. Computers can issue warnings or even command a launch, but they cannot bolt warheads back in position, and that gives everybody time to stop and think. A major degree of “de- alerting” would go some way towards achieving the same result. These things can be done quickly, and are verifiable. Fixing all possible computer bugs is going to take much longer than the 15 months that are left, or however long they may have been working on it, and can never be guaranteed.

We need an international campaign based on well-informed statements. The question was discussed by SfP Board last week, and we plan to talk to Pugwash for a start. Physicians for Global Survival will discuss it with International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War and affiliates in many countries.

To make the NWS governments change policies needs a strong public and NGO movement. For a start we need a powerful statement by respected computer experts. David Parnas, former SfP president, has given a private opinion that there is a real problem, with no guaranteed computer solution. Are there other computer experts in SfP, or colleagues of readers of this note, who would be willing to correspond with me or SfP Board on this matter? Please contact the Science for Peace Board at sfp@physics.utoronto.ca or Dr. Alan Phillips at aphil@icom.ca.

Recent Posts

See All
SfP Bulletin archive

SfP Bulletin February 2017 The President’s Corner: Science for Peace as a Foreign Language Metta Spencer Report of the Working Group on...

 
 
 

Comments


E-7705 

An important e-petition about Canada peacekeepers headcount

Science for Peace believes the UN peacekeeping mission program is an important tool for minimizing conflicts around the world. Guided by impartiality and undertaken only with the consent of warring parties, missions under this program are critical in the efforts to transition violent societies to peace.

 

We know that Canada has a long history of supporting these missions and has earned a significant reputation for its expertise in this area. Thus we have been dismayed by the fact that the actual number of Canadian peacekeepers has been drastically reduced over the last decade. Despite the paucity of our country’s contribution, we know that Canada is nonetheless recognized for its leadership and know-how.

 

We want to dramatically enlarge the contingent of Canadian Peacekeepers and play our part in the worthy project of reducing violence in this turbulent world. As well, in light of ongoing changes in Peacekeeping technology, we believe Canada should invest majorly in tech training and support for our Peacekeepers, and at the same time furnish such skill development to countries less able to provide this for their own contingents.

 

To focus public attention on this critical issue, we have created an e-petition to the government and are seeking your support.

Please have a look and sign e-7705 if you agree.

 

www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7705

 

 

Gilles Fecteau

Treasurer, Science for Peace

Science for Peace

A Peace Education NGO

Based in Toronto

 

​355-15 King’s College Circle
Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H7 Canada

Follow Us:

Emailinfo@scienceforpeace.org

Registered Charity: 893240861 RR 0001

  • BlueSky
  • X
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Get Monthly Updates

bottom of page