Disclaimer: “Beyond astro-ph” articles are not necessarily intended to be representative of the views of the entire Astrobites collaboration, nor do they represent the views of the AAS or all astronomers. While AAS supports Astrobites, Astrobites is editorially independent and content that appears on Astrobites is not reviewed or approved by the AAS.
Scientists have a long history with the military. From Archimedes to Oppenheimer, the desire for weapons of war has been the driver of some of our greatest scientific achievements. As science continues to be funded by the military, we must not ignore our interwoven trajectories and instead advocate for how we want our science to be used. Today I sat down with Dr. Curtis Asplund to discuss the current landscape of nuclear weapons, and why the scientific community should work together to prevent them from ever being used again.
Dr. Curtis Asplund is a theoretical physicist and professor at San José State University (SJSU). He has long been interested in the role of science in society, and during the Covid-19 pandemic he began to think especially critically about scientists’ roles in shaping public policy. After hearing a talk from Dr. Robert Goldston, an astrophysicist at Princeton and a member of the Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction (hereafter referred to as the Coalition), Curtis decided to join the Coalition through their Next-Generation Fellowship program. He is now a member of the Coalition’s Project Team, and continues to advocate for nuclear disarmament by educating the public through op-eds, articles, and lectures, meeting with his congressional representatives, and teaching classes on the intersection of physics and policy at SJSU.
The Current State of Nuclear Weapons
There are 9 UN recognized countries that host nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea (with Russia and the US currently hoarding over 5,000 nuclear weapons each). Nuclear weapons have been detonated in warfare twice: when the US detonated two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing an estimated 110,000-210,000 people and devastating the infrastructure, the environment, and entire communities in those two cities, with effects that have lasted for generations. Despite the undeniable horror of what a nuclear bomb can do, a nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union began shortly after World War 2, with other countries soon following. At its peak in the late 1980s, our planet was home to over 60,000 nuclear warheads, many of them magnitudes more destructive than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the world grew wary of these nuclear arsenals, mitigation efforts led by scientists and other activists strengthened, culminating in a series of treaties between the US and the Soviet Union pledging them to reduce their nuclear arsenals. And it worked… at first. Though the number of nuclear warheads dropped significantly, many experts, including Curtis, fear that a new arms race has begun.
“The state of nuclear arms control hasn’t been this bad since the Cold War,” says Curtis, “Almost all of the bilateral arms control treaties between the US and Russia have dissolved or been suspended, making them much freer to return to arms racing.” According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, the US–Russia bilateral arms control regime is in an incredibly weakened state. After the START I and INF treaties between the US and Russia expired (in 2009 and 2019, respectively), the new START treaty remains the only treaty limiting Russian and US nuclear forces, but it too is on the verge of collapse. This has allowed the US, Russia, and the other nuclear weapon hosting countries to continue the development of new nuclear weapons at an alarming and costly rate. The Sentinel program – a proposed US-based project to replace the current land based ICBMs with the next generation of ICBMs – is currently being discussed in Congress. This project, though in its infancy, is already projected to cost 81% over its approved budget (nearly $141 billion) and to be delayed by several years. Despite this, the project was recently recertified by the military. Over 700 scientists have recently called for the cancellation of new land-based nuclear missiles in the United States, and a congressional hearing on this program and its troubles is scheduled for tomorrow (July 24th, 2024).
Curtis believes that the confluence of a degraded state of arms control policy, an increase of weapons manufacturing, and a state of global political unrest has thrust the world into a perilous state. Despite these increasing dangers, the voices of nuclear weapon supporters persist, rejecting the previous consensus in the 1960s and the continued official commitment by the US, Russia, and all five permanent members of the UN Security Council that we all must work towards a state of global disarmament. Supporters of nuclear weapons argue that the presence of our nuclear weapons will deter other states from attacking with their nuclear weapons, but many experts like Curtis find fault with this logic. “Nuclear weapons are prone to many modes of failure and accident, and there have been many close calls,” Curtis states, “deterrence entails risking civilization-level threat at all times.” Supporters of nuclear weapons often ignore or downplay these risks, as it is the most disenfranchised communities with the least amount of say in nuclear policy with the most to lose. Since 2023, the Doomsday Clock has stood at 90 seconds to midnight, which is the closest to midnight (and total global catastrophe) it has ever been (see Figure 1). It is now more important than ever for scientists to be critical of those who push for more nuclear weapons manufacturing.

The Role of A Scientist
Whether we like it or not, science is political. The choices we make in our research may impact the global community in ways we did not originally foresee. Because of this, Curtis believes that astronomers, physicists, and all scientists alike all have a collective responsibility to explore the wide reaching impacts of the knowledge we create, and act as a loud and clear voice on how it is used. Though this large responsibility may seem daunting, Curtis suggests starting out local. Is your research supported by the military? Does your university help build nuclear weapons? Do you live near a nuclear weapons lab? Start by educating yourself, your department, and your community and looking for any local organizations already working on these issues. For further action, consider joining an advocacy organization such as the Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction or Union of Concerned Scientists, or advocate through your school’s graduate labor union.
With the Doomsday clock lingering precariously close to midnight, it is our duty to ensure that our science does not push it any further. To reiterate the words of Dr. Curtis Asplund from his recent op-ed, “together, we can choose to join with the majority of nations and build a safer world, without nuclear weapons.”
Astrobite edited by Magnus L’Argent
Featured image credit: Federation of American Scientists