A Nuclear Saudi Arabia?

Early this week, March 3^rd, the AP reported that Iran had tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As the potential of a Nuclear Iran becomes likely, the Middle East is possessed to see a proliferation of nations seeking nuclear weapons. Besides Israel, Saudi Arabia is likely most apprehensive of a Nuclear Iran.  The two nations have engaged in proxy wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria: Each competing for hegemonic influence over the region. Possession of a nuclear bomb would shift the balance of power in Iran’s failure; it would be reasonable for Saudi Arabia to seek a nuclear counterbalance of their own.

Such efforts began two years ago; Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBD) was in negotiations with the US Department of Energy and the Department of State to get US designs for nuclear power plants. There was one catch, MBD insists on producing nuclear fuel within his country. Such fuel could be diverted into a covert weapons program, precisely what the US and its allies fear Iran is doing. The Trump Administration has privately argued that if the US does not sell Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons, MBD will go to Russia or China instead. Just last March, the US approved the selling of nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia. There is little doubt that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will not be far behind.

              There is much debate regarding whether a middle east full of nuclear powers—Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia—would quickly descend into nuclear war or if a détente would take shape. If Saudi Arabia were to possess nuclear weapons, are they competent enough to secure and maintain such weapons? The answer is probably no. The Saudi Arabian military—though well equipment by the US and other Western nations—obtuse, inadequately organized, and insufficiently trained. Additionally, Saudi officers are promoted not by merit but by family status and connections. Finally, there is much distrust within the military due to tribal divisions. Such factors do not bode well the kind competent command structure necessary for nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, many mistakes were made—by the highly competent US and Soviet—that nearly brought nuclear war. It is with significant doubt and apprehension that a nuclear standoff between Iran and Saudi Arabia would not end in a catastrophe by either incompetence or recklessness.  

12 Movies About Nuclear War

Nothing goes better with popcorn than plutonium, except possibly uranium. The inherent danger of nuclear weaponry has given it a central place in film history. Nuclear weapons mean drama, high stakes, and big explosions that any audience can understand immediately. It's a well-mined area for Hollywood and international filmmakers over the last 75 years.

Here's a dozen movies that are either directly about nuclear war or use a nuclear threat as a plot device. We've listed realism scores and entertainment scores on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most realistic and most entertaining. Movies are listed alphabetically.

Broken Arrow
Realism: 3/10
Entertainment: 4/10
It gets better, folks. We promise. The idea of an American bomber pilot going rogue and stealing a nuclear weapon is unlikely. But the idea of an American nuclear weapon going unaccounted for after being involved in a crash is something that has happened.

Crimson Tide
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 7/10
It's not the best nuclear missile submarine movie, but it'll do. Viggo Mortensen, James Gandolfini, and Steve Zahn all have supporting roles in this Denzel Washington/Gene Hackman showdown, making it worth your time.

The Day After
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 3/10
This made-for-TV movie in 1983 so panicked Ronald Reagan, according to lore, that it changed his outlook on nuclear weapons. It's not a fun movie by any means, but was important for the impact it had on the American public in its time.

Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 9/10
Some realism, some absurdism, but still one of the most important films in history. It holds up remarkably well, though it certainly wouldn't be considered an action movie.

Fail-Safe (1964)
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 6/10
The updated edition in 2000 is also worth viewing. This can almost be seen as the more serious version of Strangelove, produced at about the same time and with a very similar presence.

Godzilla (1954)
Realism: 1/10
Entertainment: 8/10
The Godzilla monster and the kaiju phenomenon was born out of Japanese fear of nuclear weapons in the postwar period. Godzilla's origin story is that its growth was stunted by US weapons testing in the Pacific, and it came to attack Japan. It's a fascinating premise to emerge from the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack.

The Hunt for Red October
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 9/10
The idea of a Soviet submarine commander turning over a brand-new Typhoon is far-fetched, but large pieces of this movie are plausible enough to cover up that fact. The Soviets try to convince the Americans that their rogue captain is intent on starting a nuclear war, while the Americans want to steal the high-tech submarine.

The Peacemaker
Realism: 4/10
Entertainment: 4/10
It's not completely implausible that Russian nuclear warheads in the post-Soviet era might fall into the wrong hands, but the rest of the movie is pretty light on plot. If you want to revisit George Clooney's "ER" era without watching re-runs, this is a decent option.

Planet of the Apes
Realism: 0/10
Entertainment: 8/10
It isn't until the final scene of the original 1968 movie that you realize what has happened, and isn't until the second movie (Beneath the Plant of the Apes) that a nuclear weapon makes an appearance. We'll leave the rest of this one in the dark to avoid spoilers if you aren't familiar with the premise.

The Sum of All Fears
Realism: 4/10
Entertainment: 6/10
This movie, about fascist terrorists setting off a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl, finished filming in summer 2001 but wasn't released until 2002. Its timeliness, in the run-up to the war on Iraq, is worth remembering as context if you view it. It's a weaker entry in the Jack Ryan universe but still decent.

The Terminator
Realism: 1/10
Entertainment: 7/10
Don't forget that the Terminator universe isn't just about humans vs. machines, but about self-aware machines using nuclear weapons to attempt to wipe out the human race. It's not the only film to explore the dangers of technology and nuclear weapons, but it's maybe the most iconic.

Thirteen Days
Realism: 9/10
Entertainment: 8/10
Don't confuse Hollywood with history, but this movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis is largely historically accurate. It's a strong cast, and compelling story. This is worth your time if you haven't seen it yet.

WarGames
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 7/10
A young Matthew Broderick (co-starring Ally Sheedy before her John Hughes turn) hacks into the NORAD computer system to play a game of "Global Thermonuclear War," and in doing so accidentally sets off a countdown to Armageddon. It's more fun than it sounds, and it's currently free on YouTube. Like "The Day After," it also came out in 1983, and like "The Day After," it reportedly frightened Ronald Reagan into asking his aides how realistic it was.

The World is Not Enough
Realism: 2/10
Entertainment: 6/10
Plenty of James Bond movies have used nuclear weapons as plot devices. Only one has had the audicity to make Denise Richards into a nuclear engineer. It's a fun Brosnan-era bond movie, but has few distinguishing features.

The Paradox of Aggressive Deterrence

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper oversaw a tabletop war game exercise two weeks ago where Russian military forces used a “tactical” nuclear weapon against NATO territory during a conflict in Europe, prompting the US to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. The exercise prompted a flurry of reactions from Russia and US allies alike.

Russian politicians expressed anger at the exercise and accused the Pentagon of “reckless nuclear fear-mongering”, The Moscow Times reported. Members of the Russian Defense Committee argued that American actions were intended to intimidate European populations and justify the presence of American bases as security guarantors for their allies.

Democratic lawmakers in American have also criticized the action, likening the Trump administration’s decision to add new nuclear weapons to their arsenal as akin to the Cold War nuclear arms race. To be fair, it is a sharp turnabout from the Obama administration’s attempts to stabilize and preserve our arsenal without driving the development of new nuclear weapons.

The Defense Department defended its actions as a necessary response to Russian buildup of nuclear weapons – though this reasoning does not assuage fears of a new arms race. The disparity between Russian and American capabilities recently led the Trump administration to develop and deploy the first new US nuclear weapon in decades, a submarine-launched low yield weapon known as the W76-II.

The weapon arguably promotes deterrence by demonstrating American retaliation capabilities. However, European allies are concerned that the weapon would merely lower the threshold of nuclear weapons use and encourage their deployment.

As the recent strategic plays exemplify, American military strategy is still fundamentally dependent on escalatory doctrine. Though nuclear policy has at times diverged into deterrence, and there is significant support for disarmament, it will require a fundamental shift of American military policy to comprehensively. Though its urgency has faded in recent decades, the perennial question of balancing nuclear power remains pertinent today.

Nuclear Wargaming

On February 20, 2020, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper participated in a military simulation exercise at the headquarters of US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha, Nebraska. The classified exercise "simulated a 'limited' nuclear exchange with Russia" upon the launch of a Russian attack on a US target in Europe, and Esper acted in his own capacity as Secretary of Defense alongside other officials roleplaying the scenario. The US military conducts exercises in this vein fairly regularly in order to practice warfare mechanics and simulate potential crises, but Pentagon officials surprised journalists with their announcement of the exercise and certain details only a day later.

What Does the Death of the INF Treaty Mean for the Future of New START?

In August 2019, the U.S. formally withdrew from the INF treaty, arguing that Russia violated its regulations by developing the 9M729/SSC-8 intermediate range missile system. The INF treaty bans land-based ballistic and cruise missiles are short and intermediate ranges (500-5500 km). Short and intermediate range missiles have lower warning times and can reach their target within 10 minutes.

With the dissolution of the INF treaty, the New START treaty remains one of the only remaining nuclear arms agreement between the US and Russia. Signed in 2010, the New START Treaty limits the number of deployed and non-deployed Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and the amount of deployed warheads (CRS).

What does this mean for New Start? The US and Russia have given public statements that blur the future of New START, which expires in 2021 unless both states extend the treaty. President Trump has stated that New START is a “bad deal”, and that the treaty is not suited to the current international environment because it does not consider China. Similarly, Russia has complained about New START measures that are meant to verify denuclearized US launchers, and argued in 2019 that it was too late for the US and Russia to renegotiate the agreement before its expiration in 2021. Russia has also made statements expressing willingness to extend New START immediately, with Trump expressing willingness to work with Russia to achieve an agreement.

In light of contradictory statements, the future of New START is not a sure thing--but there is reason to hope that its future is brighter than that of the INF Treaty.

Planes, Trains, and…Flying Automobiles?

          The Air Force has pushed forward on its Agility Prime program in its search for electronic vertical-takeoff-and-landing technologies (eVTOL). These eVTOLs are complicated in name and innovative in design, but their inspiration hearkens back to old cartoons and their emblematic flying cars. Starting this Tuesday, the Air Force will now be accepting proposals from private sector companies for prototypes of eVTOL aircraft, however the Air Force has noted that “alternatives will be considered”.

            

          Will Roper, the Air Force acquisition executive, stated on Tuesday that “now’s the perfect time to make Jetsons cars real”, but flying cars aren’t all the Air Force has envisioned for these aircraft. Although the Air Force has emphasized its interest in these aircraft being capable of transporting up to eight troops, the possible applications of this technology also range from the delivery of small logistics like ammunition and provisions to weapon resupplies for aircraft.

               

          The technology is not the only novel aspect of this program. Instead of offering funding for the R&D of these aircraft, the Air Force is modeling its Agility Prime program as a kind of competition between companies. The technology will be put through an array of payload and flight duration tests. Companies that perform well will be rewarded with safety and airworthiness certifications from the Air Force for their aircraft, which could help boost these companies’ presence in the commercial sector. There will also be the possibility of procurement contracts with the Air Force further down the line. 

          By taking proactive steps like these in an emerging technology, the Air Force is attempting to divert the offshoring of development to countries like China. Whether the Agility Prime programs proves successful or not in its goals, it is reassuring to see the Air Force taking steps to secure supply chains that are essential for the development of emerging technologies like these.

              

Air Launched, C-130 Recoverable Drones?

The US Air Force carried out a test in late November showing off the capabilities of their new low-cost, reusable unmanned aerial systems (UASs), or “Gremlins.” The X-61A vehicle can be carried aboard a C-130, bomber, or other preexisting aircraft, and launched in flight and sustain its own free flight lasting a little over an hour and a half. Upon completion of free flight, the drones can rendezvous with, and be recovered by a C-130. According to Aerospace and Defense News, “The team met all objectives of the test in November, including gathering data on operation and performance, air and ground-based command and control systems, and flight termination.” The Gremlin has a limited lifetime - around twenty uses - which provides many cost and maintenance advantages due to the reduced payload and air frame costs. As the program introducing the Gremlin enters its third phase, the team hopes that the new UASs will be able to successfully employ intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and other modular, non-kinetic payloads in an affordable manner. 

During the latest test, one of the drones crashed leaving four of the five intact for future tests and demonstrations. Dynetics, the team responsible for the construction of the X-61As, say that the tests with the remaining four UASs are set to resume sometime this spring. This test will determine whether the Gremlins can be recovered successfully by a C-130 after free flight. Dynetics, “characterized this test as critical for proving that the Gremlins can be reused over multiple missions…” It is hoped that the low cost and recoverability of these UASs will provide benefits over traditionally expensive UAVs. 

The main concern for the upcoming tests is the recoverability aspect of the Gremlins. During the recovery process, Defense News reports, “the C-130 will lower a towed capture device that will mate with the Gremlins drone… Once the drone is stabilized by the capture device, an engagement arm deploys, docking with the X-61A and bringing it inside the C-130 cargo bay to be stowed.” The UASs would then be brought back to refuel and be ready for another use within twenty four hours. 

The next step for the team working on developing the capabilities of the X-61A is troubleshooting why the one drone that crashed malfunctioned. The main parachute did not deploy properly from the drone. As testing continues later this year, the Air Force has high hopes that recovery of the UASs by a C-130 is within their abilities.