In the noteworthy article ‘Preventing Nuclear War,’ circulated through the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists back in 1981, the then Harvard law professor, Roger Fisher proposed an uneasy solution to help reduce the risk of nuclear war. Fisher’s career spanned a multitude of high-stake situations, including active contributions to the pivotal Camp David Accords, mediation during the Iran hostage crisis, and his instrumental role in formulating the Gorbachev-Reagan summit in 1985. One of the gravest threats that consumed much of his professional attention both then and potentially in the present era was the looming peril of nuclear conflict. His experience as a wartime pilot in World War II further heightened his understanding of the gravity of war-time decisions.
Fisher’s proposition was shockingly simple yet thought-provoking: to curb any hasty decisions to launch nuclear attacks, the necessary code needed for the attack should be encased in a capsule implanted next to a willing participant’s heart. This system would be comparable to the existing rotation of military personnel who are entrusted with the ‘nuclear football’ a briefcase containing the crucial launch codes. This designated individual would be required to stay in close proximity to the President to ensure swift action if necessary. Back then, this radical idea was coined as the Fisher Protocol.
The premise of the Fisher Protocol strove to highlight the gut-wrenching reality of nuclear warfare, often concealed underneath layers of strategical and tactical discussions. However, despite the theoretical severity, its practical implementation never saw the light of day. Even a symbolic adoption of the protocol was avoided, perhaps due to the disturbing physical implications.
Meanwhile, the United States Department of Defense has embarked on a $1.5 trillion mission to rejuvenate and revamp the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The department passionately champions the principle of nuclear deterrence, mounting the nation with enough firepower that potential adversaries would reconsider initiating their own nuclear assaults. The continued existence and proliferation of formidable nuclear powers reinforce the department’s justification for such strategies.
In a worrying development, leading nuclear nations are ramping up their nuclear capabilities. China has reportedly more than doubled its arsenal in merely half a decade. Further, Russia, which has been sustainedly modernizing its nuclear capabilities for decades, has launched what the US military believes to be a space-based anti-satellite weapon equipped with nuclear potential, informally termed ‘Sput-nuke’. In the recent past, Russia has also taken the drastic step to lower the bar for the use of nuclear weapons.
In the midst of this, the New START treaty, a remaining nuclear nonproliferation agreement binding the US and Russia, is perilously close to its expiration date. As the geopolitical landscape evolves and long-cherished international alliances fray at the edges, previously non-nuclear nations may consider pursuing nuclear armament as a safeguard. Countries like South Korea, Germany, and Saudi Arabia, each situated perilously close to nuclear-armed neighbours, might feel the urge to take into consideration such drastic measures.
The recent onslaught on Iran’s nuclear weapon development facilities might ironically fuel their nuclear ambitions rather than quench them. After all, North Korea presents a glaring example of an unscathed nuclear nation. Harking back to history, it’s been 80 years since the first and hopefully last instance when nuclear weapons practically wreaked havoc during wartime.
While the Department of Defense’s Nuclear Matters Handbook insists that the policy of deterrence has proven its worth, luck cannot be ruled out as a significant factor in nuclear safety. Over the years, access to nuclear weapons has been at the discretion of individuals of varying psychological stability, posing a nerve-wracking challenge to global nuclear security. To underscore this concern, the Cold War scenario comes to the forefront, particularly the US radar installation in Greenland.
During the epoch of the Cold War, as an anticipatory measure against Soviet aggression, the U.S. maintained a B-52 aircraft carrying nuclear ordnance flight-ready in the vicinity of Greenland’s US radar setup. One fateful day in January 1968, extra seat cushions stowed near a heating vent by a crew member triggered a fire, culminating in the crew’s dramatic evacuation, the plane’s ensuing crash, and an explosion. It was mere fortune that prevented the disaster from escalating into a nuclear calamity.
Another pathway potentially leading to unintended nuclear disasters is the scare of surprise attacks, inciting the victim nation to deliberate a preemptive strike. This unwanted escalation could drag two unintentionally belligerent nations into the quagmire of warfare. Though gravely risky, this mindset has provoked nations like China and India to lay down ‘no first use’ policies, promising not to be the initiator of nuclear engagement.
Apart from the threat of intentional provocation of nuclear warfare, there are other chilling possibilities such as accidental errors or misinterpretations. History is strewn with such instances, like a radar mystery in Greenland in 1960 mistaking a moonrise for a Soviet missile launch, or a mechanical error causing an explosion in a missile silo, as in Damascus, Arkansas, in 1980. Such was the case of an accidental loading of nuclear-armed missiles onto an Air Force bomber mistaken for dummy missiles in North Dakota back in 2007.
Despite the numerous near-misses, it has often been basic human relationships that have acted as the safeguard. Take, for instance, the Cuban missile crisis wherein secret meetings between U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin helped avert a catastrophic escalation.
The process involved in arms control isn’t merely focused on armament reduction. Perhaps an even significant aspect is the maintenance of an open dialogue, fostering relationships, and keeping the conversation flowing. Even in the absence of definitive agreements, the practice of discussions and negotiations must persist to ensure a measure of understanding and control in these high-stakes realms.
Through his Fisher Protocol, Fisher emphasized additionally on some human tendencies that ramp up the dangers in a situation like this – the instinctive will to prevail. A mindset more appropriate for a game of football can significantly muddy the waters when applied to the specter of nuclear warfare. Fisher’s words resonated, ‘We desire supremacy, power, and peace; detonating nuclear weapons will serve none of these.’
Despite this prophetic vision, Fisher faced difficulty in gaining traction for his ideas. The vivid image of the President having to resort to a fatal act to access nuclear codes stirred tremendous apprehension – an act that could prove colossal on a leader’s decision-making, but perhaps that was exactly the eerie reality that Fisher wished to convey. Nuclear warfare is no game, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Each move made has the potential to profoundly impact not just the players but innumerable innocent bystanders. Ensuring the button remains untouched should be the utmost priority, and Fisher’s extreme Protocol was an attempt to convey just that.
The post Revisiting the Fisher Protocol: A Shocking Solution to Prevent Nuclear War appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
