<h2>APT 38</h2>
<p>North Korea boasts an elite group of hackers, known as APT 38, that stole $1 billion from online banks and cryptocurrency exchanges last year.</p>
<p>The hacker team, which has <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/north-korea-hackers-apt38-cryptocurrency">according to <em>Wired</em></a> established fraudulent cryptocurrencies and targeted digital money exchanges, is responsible for funneling money straight into the country&#8217;s military — and even helping it fund nuclear weapons.</p>
<h2>Resourceful Workaround</h2>
<p>To prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, various nations have imposed sanctions and restricted imports. In response, <em>Wired</em> reports that APT 38 is going out and targeting <a href="https://futurism.com/hackers-stole-20-million-mexican-bank">banks with weak security</a> and setting up crypto scams to get more money into military pockets.</p>
<p>&#8220;Security analysts are unanimous in assessing that the funds stolen by APT 38 – a significant percentage of North Korean GDP – are channeled into the DPRK&#8217;s missile and nuclear development programs,&#8221; an anonymous security expert told <em>Wired</em>.</p>
<h2>Decentralized Nukes</h2>
<p>North Korea&#8217;s APT 38 raises the stakes of cybercrime — now it&#8217;s not just a matter of lost dollars but the possibility of new nuclear threats being funded by gullible crypto investors.</p>
<p>&#8220;We need to ask ourselves,&#8221; another anonymous security expert told <em>Wired</em>, &#8220;when North Korea tests their next missile, is it really okay that they paid for it with bitcoin?&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>READ MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/north-korea-hackers-apt38-cryptocurrency">North Korea&#8217;s elite hackers are funding nukes with crypto raids</a> [<em>Wired</em>]</p>
<p><strong>More on cybersecurity: </strong><em><a href="https://futurism.com/banks-sophisticated-hackers">Banks Are Under Siege by Sophisticated Hackers</a></em></p>


"We need to ask ourselves – when North Korea tests their next missile, is it really okay that they paid for it with bitcoin?"

North Korea is using hackers to steal money for nuclear bombs

Bit-pocalypse

North Korea's hacking division, APT 38, stole $1 billion from online banks and crypto exchanges in 2018. All that money is helping fund nuclear weapons.

North Korea Is Using Hackers to Steal Money for Nuclear Bombs

The hack could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

<h2>Nuclear Option</h2>
<p>Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates issued a grave warning Monday, comparing advanced artificial intelligence to nuclear weapons — and arguing that the United States is losing its edge in the global AI research race.</p>
<p>&#8220;The world hasn&#8217;t had that many technologies that are both promising and dangerous,&#8221; Gates said during an event at Stanford, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-says-ai-should-improve-education-and-medicine/">according to <em>CNET</em></a><em>. </em>He added that &#8220;I won&#8217;t say there are that many&#8221; examples of AI having improved society.</p>
<h2>Peril and Promise</h2>
<p>At the same time, Gates expressed hope that the tech could be used to improve health and medicine around the world. But he also warned that the United States&#8217; grip on AI research is starting to slip compared to other countries.</p>
<p>&#8220;The US was in this totally unique position for most of these breakthrough technologies,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Now the US is still very much the leader, but not [in the] same dominant, dominant way.&#8221;</p>
<h2>AI Overlord</h2>
<p>In the past, Gates has also expressed concern about how humanity might grapple with an AI super intelligence – as <em>CNET </em>pointed out.</p>
<p>&#8220;I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence,&#8221; Gates <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-is-worried-about-artificial-intelligence-too/">said in 2015</a>. &#8220;First, the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that, though, the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>READ MORE: </strong><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-says-ai-should-improve-education-and-medicine/">Bill Gates says AI should improve education and medicine</a> [<em>CNET</em>]</p>
<p><strong>More on Bill Gates: </strong><a href="https://futurism.com/trump-china-tariffs-bill-gates-nuclear-power"><em>China Tariffs Blocked Bill Gates’ Plan for Safe Nuclear Power</em></a></p>


"I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence."

Bill Gates compares artificial intelligence to nuclear weapons

Dire Warning

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates issued a grave warning Monday, comparing advanced artificial intelligence to nuclear weapons.

Bill Gates Compares Artificial Intelligence to Nuclear Weapons

Gates called AI "both promising and dangerous" — and compared the tech to nuclear weapons.

<h2>Nuclear Upgrade</h2>
<p>Russia is about to start testing the &#8220;Belgorod,&#8221; a nuclear submarine that will be the largest in the world — and capable of launching <a href="https://futurism.com/this-is-what-nuclear-warfare-will-do-to-our-planet">six thermonuclear warheads</a>.</p>
<p>When the Belgorod was <a href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2017/05/russias-new-military-research-submarine-arctic-waters-will-be-worlds-largest">first reported</a><strong> </strong>back in 2017, it was expected that the vessel would undergo research missions, <a href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/03/russias-most-secret-sub-soon-be-launched-terrifying-weapon">according to <em>The Barents Observer</em></a>. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin <a href="http://tass.com/defense/1045598">announced last month</a> that the submarine will carry six deep-sea Poseidon drones — each of which, terrifyingly<em>,</em> can shuttle a nuclear missile across the ocean deep under the surface.</p>
<h2>Sub Space</h2>
<p>Last month, the Russian military <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySZuRs3DxK4">posted a video</a> of the submarine Sarov launching a Poseidon drone, though <em>The Barents Observer</em> reports that it&#8217;s unknown exactly where the test took place.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ySZuRs3DxK4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>The Belgorod will first be deployed before <strong>s</strong>ummer 2019, <a href="https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6189795">according to Russian media</a>, after which it will undergo a year&#8217;s worth of tests to enter active duty in 2020. Meanwhile, a second submarine dubbed &#8220;Khabarovsk&#8221; will begin tests in 2020 with the goal of being target ready by 2022.</p>
<h2>M.A.D.</h2>
<p>The Poseidon drone can travel a full kilometer beneath water level, making it difficult to detect and stop once its deployed. And that level of stealth — especially when it&#8217;s tipped with a deadly nuclear bomb — has other nations concerned.</p>
<p>&#8220;It is worrying that countries are developing new nuclear capabilities,&#8221; Ine Eriksen Søreide, Foreign Minister of Norway, told <em>The Barents Observer</em>.</p>
<p><strong>READ MORE:</strong> <a href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/03/russias-most-secret-sub-soon-be-launched-terrifying-weapon">Russia&#8217;s most secret sub soon to be launched with this terrifying weapon</a> [<em>The Barents Observer</em>]</p>
<p><strong>More on nuclear weapons:</strong> <em><a href="https://futurism.com/us-report-confirms-russia-developing-worlds-most-powerful-nuclear-weapon">US Report Confirms Russia Is Developing the World’s Most Powerful Nuclear Weapon</a></em></p>


"It is worrying that countries are developing new nuclear capabilities."

New Russian submarine can launch nuke-carrying drones

Bomber Drones

The Russian military is poised to begin testing Belgorod, a submarine that can launch six thermonuclear warhead-carrying deep sea drones.

New Russian Submarine Can Launch Nuke-Carrying Drones

The "Belgorod" will carry six thermonuclear warhead-carrying Poseidon drones.

<p>During Vladimir Putin&#8217;s state of the nation address this week, the Russian president revealed a nuclear-powered, <a href="https://futurism.com/us-report-confirms-russia-developing-worlds-most-powerful-nuclear-weapon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nuclear-armed missile</a> that can apparently deliver a warhead to anywhere on Earth.</p>
<p>&#8220;I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our country&#8217;s development&#8230; you have failed to contain Russia,&#8221; said Putin, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/vladimir-putin-set-state-union-speech-election-looms-n852211" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to a report by <em>NBC News</em></a>.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JL4Kqfxg2KU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Experts are, needless to say, taken aback by this development.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m still kind of in shock,&#8221; said Edward Geist, a researcher specializing in Russia at the Rand Corp, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/01/590014611/experts-aghast-over-russian-claim-of-nuclear-powered-missile-with-unlimited-rang" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speaking to <em>NPR</em></a>. &#8220;My guess is they&#8217;re not bluffing, that they&#8217;ve flight-tested this thing. But that&#8217;s incredible.&#8221;</p>
<p>But what makes this weapon just so surprising? Here are four factors that, <em>if they&#8217;re true</em>, would leave experts astounded.</p>
<h2>It Was Tested in Secret</h2>
<p>Putin stated that Russia already tested its new weapon, performing a missile launch as well as ground tests. An <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/420157-russia-new-hypersonic-icbm/">accompanying video</a> seemed to show a cruise missile being propelled into the sky, though <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putins-video-next-generation-nuclear-missiles-used-10-year-old-828683"><em>Newsweek</em> noted</a> that the missile depicted in the video might be a decade old.</p>
<p>U.S. intelligence agencies have not made it known whether they knew about those tests before Putin&#8217;s speech, or if the tests themselves are real.</p>
<h2>It Boasts an Unlimited Range</h2>
<p>The missile supposedly uses a <a href="https://futurism.com/nasas-cheap-alternative-reaching-mars-atomic-rockets/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nuclear propulsion system</a> similar to what aircraft carriers and submarines use to travel long distances without refueling. This would make it possible for the missile to strike anywhere on Earth. <em>Just coincidentally</em>, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/world/europe/russia-putin-speech.html">sample target in Putin&#8217;s video demonstration</a> was President Trump&#8217;s Mar-a-Lago resort.</p>
<h2>It Has a Dangerous Nuclear Propulsion System</h2>
<p>In his interview with <em>NPR, </em>Geist said that the missile is likely powered by what&#8217;s known as a &#8220;fast reactor.&#8221; It&#8217;s riskier than most other types of nuclear reactors. If the missile were to crash, or the reactor failed, it would cause a major nuclear incident.</p>
<h2>It Can Dodge Missile Defenses</h2>
<p>An animation accompanying Putin&#8217;s remarks also showed how such a weapon could dodge terrain and missile defenses while flying towards its intended target.</p>
<p>U.S. defense strategies typically assume that nuclear missiles will fly high above the Earth, making it possible to shoot them down before they reach their target. Putin promises that Russia&#8217;s new missiles will stay close to the ground and travel too quickly for ground defenses to react. If he&#8217;s right, the U.S. military might have to tweak its  current defense strategy, and fast.</p>
<p><a href="https://futurism.com/trumps-budget-renewable-energy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Trump&#8217;s recent budget </a>suggested increasing missile defense spending by 25 percent, or an additional $1.91 billion, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/trump-s-defense-plan-boosts-navy-missile-defense-boeing-plane-jdkgs7wa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report from <em>Bloomberg</em></a>. Russia is likely none too thrilled with that development, but Putin seems confident his country&#8217;s new weapon could stymie U.S. defenses, regardless of what the military adds with its expanded budget.</p>
<p>Is Russia bluffing? Some experts suspect they aren&#8217;t. &#8220;They&#8217;re willing to go full Strangelove on us,&#8221; Geist told <em>NPR</em>. But we have yet to see proof other than what Putin said during his address. Regardless, the Russian president&#8217;s message was loud and clear: Russia is a technologically advanced nation, and one to be reckoned with.</p>


The video demonstration showed Mar-A-Lago as the hypothetical target.

4 astounding things about Russia's (supposed) new weapons

Future Society

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently unveiled the country's new advanced weapons. Experts don't think Russia is bluffing--it means business.

4 Astounding Things About Russia's (Supposed) New Weapons

"My guess is they're not bluffing, that they've flight-tested this thing...”

4 Astounding Things About Russia’s (Supposed) New Weapons

<h2>Controversial policy shift</h2>
<p>The White House may be changing <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/01/12/nuclear-posture-review-draft-leaks-new-weapons-coming-amid-strategic-shift/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">its previous policy on nuclear weapons</a>, according to recent reports quoting a former U.S. government official, who has seen the draft of the nuclear posture review (NPR) prepared by the Pentagon.</p>
<p>Jon Wolfsthal, an Obama administration special assistant on arms control and nonproliferation, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen-nuclear-weapons-policy-and-develop-more-usable-warheads" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told </a><i><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen-nuclear-weapons-policy-and-develop-more-usable-warheads" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a></i> that the draft NPR would loosen constraints on nuclear weapons use, as well as provide for a low-yield nuclear warhead for the Trident D5 submarine-launched missiles. The NPR, which is the first of its kind in eight years, is expected to be published after president Donald Trump&#8217;s State of the Union speech towards the end of January.</p>
<figure class="wp-caption"><img class="wp-image-119699 size-large aligncenter" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/01/nuclear-weapons-test-nuclear-weapon-weapons-test-explosion-73909-1200x630.jpeg" alt="Image credit: WikiImages/Pixabay" width="798" height="380" /></p>
<p> Image credit: WikiImages/Pixabay</figure>
<figure class="wp-caption">
Arms control advocates and nuclear weapons&#8217; critics have been alarmed by the news. They are worried about the message the draft policy could send, especially in light of recent efforts towards<a href="https://futurism.com/the-un-passes-the-first-ever-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-worldwide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> a global nuclear weapons ban</a>. Critics also argue that the draft, particularly its provisions for developing smaller nuclear weapons, could easily lead to the Trump government finding reasons to use them. Such outcome, they say, is not beyond the realm of possibility, especially with <a href="https://futurism.com/us-plans-spend-trillion-nuclear-weapons-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plans to fund the nuclear weapons arsenal </a>of the U.S. with $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years. Futurism reached out to some experts on the issue. Here&#8217;s what they had to say.</p>
<hr />
<p><b><i><a href="https://www.worldaffairs.org/event-calendar/speaker-directory/rasha-abdul-rahim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rasha Abdul-Rahim</a>, Advocate and Adviser on Arms Control, Security Trade, &amp; Human Rights, Amnesty International:</i></b></p>
<p>In general terms, Amnesty International is opposed to the use, possession, production and transfer of nuclear weapons by any country, including permanent members of the UN Security Council.</p>
<p>Nuclear arms are the most destructive and indiscriminate weapons ever created, and are capable of causing utterly catastrophic harm. Their use would invariably violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law, therefore they should never be used under any circumstances.</p>
<p>Because the humanitarian and environmental consequences of using nuclear weapons would be global and catastrophic, eliminating such dangers is the responsibility of all governments in accordance with their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. The Trump administration must therefore work [towards] eliminating nuclear weapons, rather than expanding the circumstances under which they can be used.</p>
<p><b><i><a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/person/nickolas-roth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nickolas Roth</a>, Research Associate, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School of Government:</i></b></p>
<p>If the draft NPR currently being circulated is the same as what the Trump administration plans to publish, there is reason for concern. The policies endorsed in this document increase the likelihood nuclear weapons would be used in conflict and signal that the United States is backing away from its international nuclear nonproliferation commitments.</p>
<p>President Trump’s NPR emphasizes the dangerous myth of limited nuclear war. Even Ronald Reagan, once considered a hawkish Republican, understood this idea was a fantasy, arguing “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The Trump administration proposes placing more usable, lower yield (though still very powerful) nuclear weapons on submarines under the misguided assumption it’s possible to use nuclear weapons to control escalation with other countries.</p>
<p>President Trump’s NPR paints a false picture that the United States has been disarming while other countries have been modernizing their nuclear weapons. This is not true. Not only does the United States possesses the second largest (second to Russia) and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal in the world, but in 2013 the Pentagon stated that it could reduce its deployed nuclear weapons further by a third without adversely impacting the US nuclear deterrent.</p>
<p>Even if many of the proposals in this NPR do not come to fruition, the Trump administration’s endorsement of new nuclear weapons will have harmful international repercussions. This NPR will further demonstrate that nuclear weapons states are not serious about their international obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.</p>
<p><b><i><a href="http://government.cornell.edu/sarah-kreps" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sarah E. Kreps</a>, Associate Professor of Government, Cornell University:</i></b></p>
<p>Obviously, the decision would be at odds with the push for a global nuclear weapons ban, although I think the Obama Administration &#8216;s commitment to $1 trillion in modernization made it clear that the United States had abandoned its Global Zero pledge. Those funds included financing a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new long-range bomber, upgrades to existing nuclear weapons, and a new type of cruise missile, among other things. Even if all this spending is to create a credible deterrent, academic research has long shown that even seemingly defensive moves can produce an arms race because intentions are not always obvious to other parties.</p>
<p>Trump does appear to be continuing with these commitments, but so far, I would say that the big difference is in the language that the two have used.  President Obama seemed to want to fly under the radar with the modernization, so as not to alienate his constituency on the left. President Trump has no such reticence, and has more bombastically embraced the virtues of nuclear weapons in the service of deterring war.</p>
<p>Even if the main differences are cosmetic, the question is whether differences in style can have appreciable differences in outcome.  The types of language Trump has used could clarify and dissuade potential adversaries from challenging the United States.  However, international politics is always about subtleties and nuance amidst the prospect for miscalculation, and the worry is that Trump&#8217;s bellicose language could inadvertently escalate rather than defuse tensions.  Given the stakes&#8211;the prospect for catastrophic nuclear exchanges&#8211;the fast-and-loose verbal style that Trump has deployed is more dangerous even if the underlying policies are not entirely dissimilar.</figure>
<div class="post-content module">
<div class="summary module">
<p><em>Responses have been edited for brevity and clarity. </em></p>
</div>
</div>


Experts are alarmed by the proposal to use small nukes as a deterrent.

Experts weigh in on the US government's plans to loosen nuclear weapon constraints

USA, Arizona, Tucson, Titan missile in underground silo at Titan Missile Museum

The White House may be changing its previous policy on nuclear weapons, loosening constraints and proposing the use of lower yield nukes on submarines.

Experts Weigh in on the U.S. Government's Plans to Loosen Nuclear Weapon Constraints

There may be reasons to worry. 

Experts Weigh in on the U.S. Government’s Plans to Loosen Nuclear Weapon Constraints

The exponential increase of the destructive power of nuclear weapons is almost unimaginable.

The most powerful nuclear weapons could kill millions in just seconds.

This animation shows how terrifyingly powerful nuclear weapons have become

Hard Science

The power of nuclear weapons have grown exponentially since the first were dropped at the end of World War 2. Now, these weapons could decimate miles.

A New Animation Shows Just How Powerful Nuclear Weapons Have Become

<h2>Nuclear Option</h2>
<p>A new <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/10/31/americas-nuclear-weapons-will-cost-12-trillion-over-the-next-30-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> released by the <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Congressional Budget Office</a> claims the U.S. will need to spend a total of $1.2 trillion over the next three decades in order to properly maintain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. Two thirds of the nation&#8217;s nuclear weapons budget will be spent on the operation and maintenance of existing weaponry, while the remaining third will go toward modernizing the technology.</p>
<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-difference-between-a-hydrogen-bomb-and-an-atom-bomb/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/01/A-BOMBvH-BOMB__Home_v2-900x600.jpg" alt="The Difference Between a Hydrogen Bomb and an Atom Bomb" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><strong><a href="https://futurism.com/images/the-difference-between-a-hydrogen-bomb-and-an-atom-bomb/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></strong></figure>
<p>The report breaks down the $1.2 trillion cost, noting that $352 billion will be dedicated to the <a href="https://futurism.com/the-doe-is-giving-berkeley-lab-3-million-annually-for-quantum-computing-research/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Department of Energy</a> and $890 billion to the Department of Defense. $445 billion will be spent on factories, labs, and other infrastructure, while $25 billion will go toward delivery systems that facilitate short-range strikes.</p>
<p>$772 billion will be dedicated to operating and updating weaponry and <a href="https://futurism.com/potential-nuclear-war-north-korea/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">long-range nuclear delivery systems</a>, and of that, the CBO notes that $313 billion will be spent on nuclear submarines, $266 billion on bombers, $149 billion on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and $44 billion on other systems.</p>
<p>The report states that the nuclear weapons budget could be cut in half simply by sticking with the arsenal that&#8217;s currently in place. However, <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/10/31/americas-nuclear-weapons-will-cost-12-trillion-over-the-next-30-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defense News claims</a> the Pentagon has rejected the idea repeatedly based on the belief that the U.S.&#8217;s existing weapons will only be effective deterrents for the next 20 years or so.</p>
<h2>Big Spender</h2>
<p>As for specific plans for this money, details on several contracts have been released in recent months that shed some light on the U.S.&#8217;s goals for its nuclear program.</p>
<p>The Minuteman III missile has long been a major component of the U.S. nuclear program, but it was introduced in the 1970s and is now beginning to show its age. In August 2017, the U.S. Air Force offered <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/08/21/pentagon-narrows-competition-for-the-next-big-u-s-nuclear-missile-deterrent/?utm_term=.bb4c6fec9bc1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Boeing and Northrop Grumman</a> contracts worth $349.2 million and $328.6 million, respectively, to continue their efforts to develop a successor to the Minuteman <a href="https://futurism.com/meet-satan-2-russias-new-icbm-nuke-capable-of-leveling-france-or-texas-in-one-hit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ground-based ICBM</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the program to replace the missiles could cost in excess of $100 billion.</p>
<p>Shortly after word of this research was made public, the Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin and Raytheon each a $900 million contract to fund the continued development of a nuclear-armed cruise missile known as the <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a27925/america-stealthy-nuclear-cruise-missile/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Long Range Stand Off</a> (LRSO) weapon.</p>
<p>The appeal of the weapon is its ability to keep an older craft like a B-52H Stratofortress relevant despite a limited capacity for stealth. The B-2A Spirit and the upcoming B-21 Raider bomber will also be equipped with LRSOs once development is completed.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dn5mNNpbCkY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Some have questioned whether the $1.2 trillion nuclear weapons budget outlined in the CBO&#8217;s report is realistic.</p>
<p>Despite it only making up 6 percent of anticipated spending on <a href="https://futurism.com/the-house-passed-a-bill-that-could-create-a-branch-of-the-military-for-space-defense/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national defense</a> from now until 2046, Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, told Defense News he is concerned that such expenditure could come at the detriment of other national security programs.</p>
<p>“If the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review by the administration does not scale-back current nuclear weapons spending plans ― or worse, accelerates or expands upon them ― expenditures on nuclear weapons will threaten other high priority national security programs,” said Reif.</p>


Maintaining an up-to-date nuclear arsenal isn't cheap.

The US plans to spend $1.2 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next 30 years

Robots & Machines

A new report states that the U.S. will need to dedicate $1.2 trillion to its nuclear weapons budget over the next 30 years.

The US Plans to Spend $1.2 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons Over the Next 30 Years

A new report breaks down the nation's nuclear weapons budget.

<h2>Eliminating Nuclear Weapons</h2>
<p>The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Established in 2007, the organization works to ensure that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is observed and enforced.</p>
<p>ICAN is comprised of non-governmental groups from approximately a hundred countries. It has been deeply influential in convincing states to agree to the terms of the Humanitarian Pledge, which serves to promote the continued stigmatization and eventual <a href="https://futurism.com/the-un-passes-the-first-ever-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-worldwide/" target="_blank">elimination of nuclear weaponry</a>. To date, 108 countries have committed to the pledge.</p>
<p>There are currently 15,000 known nuclear weapons scattered around the world. Some countries are in the process of modernizing their arsenal, while others are producing these weapons for the first time.</p>
<p>&#8220;The disarmament of nuclear weapons never goes out of date,” said ICAN&#8217;s executive director Beatrice Fihn in an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/2017-nobel-peace-prize-awarded-international-campaign-abolish-nuclear-weapons-n808281" target="_blank">interview with NBC News</a>. “I do think that there is a popular belief among the people all over the world that the world has become more dangerous and that…the <a href="https://futurism.com/this-is-what-nuclear-warfare-will-do-to-our-planet/" target="_blank">threat of nuclear conflict</a> has come closer.”</p>
<h2>Making a Stand</h2>
<p>Even while honoring ICAN&#8217;s accomplishments, the committee responsible for handing out the prize made sure to reiterate that there is still <a href="https://futurism.com/3000-of-the-worlds-smartest-minds-have-come-together-to-ban-nuclear-weapons/" target="_blank">plenty of work to be done</a> when it comes to nuclear disarmament.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/swUA33FGXZU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>&#8220;The Norwegian Nobel Committee is aware that an international legal prohibition will not in itself eliminate a single nuclear weapon, and that so far neither the states that already have nuclear weapons nor their closest allies support the nuclear weapon ban treaty,&#8221; read the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2017/press.html" target="_blank">press release</a> announcing the winner of the 2017 prize. &#8220;The Committee wishes to emphasize that the next steps towards attaining a world free of nuclear weapons must involve the nuclear-armed states.&#8221;</p>
<p>The committee went on to express a desire for the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to spur further action from states currently in possession of nuclear weapons.</p>


This is sending a powerful political message.

International campaign to abolish nuclear weapons receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

This international group has won the Nobel Peace Prize for their hard work stigmatizing the development and possession of nuclear weapons.

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

Many hope this act will lead those in power to discuss nuclear disarmament.

<h2>A Call for Restraint</h2>
<p>Foreign relations experts Jeffrey Bader and Jonathan D. Pollack have jointly called for Congress to restrict the President&#8217;s power to launch a nuclear attack on his own authority. Bader served a senior adviser to President Barack Obama on Asia from 2009 to 2011. Pollack is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who specializes in Korea and China. Pollack was also a professor at the United States Naval War College, one of the premiere centers of strategic and operational thought in the US.</p>
<p>Bader and Pollack are focusing on the particular situation presented by dynamics between President <span class="detrumpified" title="was trump">Trump</span> and Kim Jong-un of North Korea: “Mr. <span class="detrumpified" title="was trump"><span class="detrumpified" title="was trump">Trump</span></span> and Mr. Kim appear to believe that bombast serves their domestic needs. . . . However, words can easily have consequences that neither leader seems to grasp.” They point out that while the cooperation of international allies may be able to defuse the actions of the North Korean leader, it&#8217;s telling that even the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, has publicly<a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/08/17/544230949/gop-senator-trump-lacking-stability-competence-to-succeed"> called President <span class="detrumpified" title="was trump"><span class="detrumpified" title="was trump">Trump</span></span>&#8216;s stability into question</a>. He&#8217;s <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/24/senator-markey-wants-strip-president-trump-power-launch-nuclear-weapons-without-congress-approval/05VUgh7yAorVlAU1q88SCL/story.html">not the first senator</a> to do so, suggesting that the time for a legislative remedy is here.</p>
<figure style="width: 640px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="wp-image-100866 size-large aligncenter" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/09/trump-02.jpg" alt="Image Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr" width="640" height="380" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Image Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr</figcaption></figure>
<p>Article I of the Constitution provides that only Congress can declare war, but since World War II, American presidents have soberly possessed maximum flexibility to respond to possible nuclear strikes; the thinking has been that involving Congress would cause too much delays in times of crisis. For this reason, at this point in history the president has the unchecked power to launch a nuclear strike, without approval from Congress.</p>
<p>“Once he gives the command, he cannot be overruled,” Joe Cirincione, president of the anti-nuclear proliferation Ploughshares Fund, <a href="https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/11/16126770/trump-north-korea-nuclear-launch-code-steps" target="_blank">said to Vox</a>. “The president can order a nuclear strike in about the time it takes to write a tweet.”</p>
<h2>Collaborative Decision-Making</h2>
<p>The proposed action would be an amendment of the War Powers Act by Congress to cover the possibility of either preventive or pre-emptive nuclear strikes — not responsive strikes. This change would ensure that the president could never simply use his codes to launch a nuclear attack on his own authority. Instead, the amendment would provide for a small group to unanimously consent to such a strike; the group Bader and Pollack suggest include the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate.</p>
<p>“[This] would ensure that multiple sets of eyes, equipped with stable emotions and sound brains, would be able to prevent such a nuclear strike undertaken without appropriate deliberation,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/time-to-restrict-the-presidents-power-to-wage-nuclear-war.html?_r=1&amp;mtrref=spidermonkey.futurism.com&amp;assetType=opinion" target="_blank">Bader and Pollack wrote</a> in <i>The New York Times</i>.</p>
<p>“The United States should in no way diminish its ability to respond to a nuclear or conventional attack by North Korea against United States territory or the territory of an ally,&#8221; they said. &#8220;However, we should put in place a system of constraints to ensure that a preventive or pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States must be evaluated through a careful, deliberative process.”</p>


Two leading policy experts have called for Congress to amend the War Powers Act.

Experts say we must "restrict the president's power to wage nuclear war"

Two leading policy experts have called for Congress to amend the War Powers Act to ensure the president cannot launch a nuclear strike on his own authority. They instead recommend a unanimous decision by a small bipartisan team.

Experts Say We Must “Restrict the President’s Power to Wage Nuclear War”

“A preventive or pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States must be evaluated through a careful, deliberative process.”

<h2>Growing Concerns</h2>
<p>President Donald Trump&#8217;s recent comments directed at North Korea have us all wondering if we&#8217;re slowly building up to nuclear war. While politics occupies most of that discussion, it&#8217;s worth knowing exactly what nuclear warfare would do to our planet, from the horrific impact to the prolonged fallout and famine the aftermath brings.</p>
<p>As it stands, there are nearly 15,000 nukes spread across nine nations. They are: The United States, Russia, The United Kingdom, North Korea, France, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel. According to tables and graphs from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-weapons-stockpiles-world-map-2017-8" target="_blank">Business Insider</a> and <a href="https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/" target="_blank">the Federation of American Scientists</a> (FAS), Russia and the U.S. own a majority of the nukes available, and have also deployed the most throughout their respective histories—over 1,900 by Russia, and nearly 1,700 by the U.S. As for North Korea, it&#8217;s largely unknown how many nukes the country has, though The Washington Post reports the country <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.a0eacfa02fca" target="_blank">may have around 60 nukes</a>, and has managed to produce a miniaturized warhead capable of fitting inside of a missile.<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/warfare-2040-the-future-of-military-technology-infographic/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/11/HomeThumb-1.jpg" alt="Warfare 2040: The Future of Military Technology [INFOGRAPHIC]" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><strong><a href="https://futurism.com/images/warfare-2040-the-future-of-military-technology-infographic/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></strong></figure></p>
<p>Tactically speaking, U.S. nuclear warheads are designed less for maximum yield than for incisive accuracy. This includes bombs like the B61-12, with a yield of 50 kilotons. That is equivalent to 50,000 tons of TNT. The most destructive American bomb in service since October 2011 is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons (1,200 kilotons). By contrast, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.</p>
<p>The FAS notes that, while numbers for the U.S. are based on &#8220;real&#8221; numbers, the statistics for the rest of the world are not as accurate. Most information related to a nuclear weapons are a widely held secret, and as such, it becomes difficult to know specifics about a nation&#8217;s military power.</p>
<h2>One Small Exchange</h2>
<p>The very idea of nuclear warfare is worrying enough on its own, but it becomes more terrifying when you realize how little it takes to affect the entire world. A 2014 study published in an American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal reveals that it <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full">would only take a small conflict between India and Pakistan</a> to cause near-irreparable levels global devastation.</p>
<p>&#8220;A limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15 kilotons (kt) weapons could produce about 5 teragrams (Tg) of black carbon (BC),&#8221; reads the journal. &#8220;This would self-loft to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, producing a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of the stratosphere.&#8221;</p>
<figure class="wp-caption">
<figure id="attachment_95330" style="width: 542px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img class="size-full wp-image-95330" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2017/08/eft224-fig-0010.png" alt="" width="542" height="464" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Change in surface temperature (in Celsius) following the model nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Image Credit: Michael J. Mills</figcaption></figure>
<h2>The Aftermath</h2>
<p>In less than 10 years, our ozone layer would degrade by 20-50 percent, leaving us more vulnerable than ever to the Sun&#8217;s radiation; surface temperatures would drop to the coldest they&#8217;ve been in the last thousand years. The combined loss of the ozone and reduced temperatures would lead to a global nuclear famine.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a horrific scenario to imagine, but there are a few things to keep in mind: The bombs used in the journal&#8217;s example are smaller than the nukes of today, and much less powerful. It&#8217;s also unlikely that any conflict involving nuclear weapons would employ maximum-yield warheads. Furthermore, the strength of North Korea&#8217;s arsenal is unknown to us, though <em>The Washington Post</em> story linked above says the country&#8217;s last recorded test was for a 20-30 kiloton nuke, which is less powerful that those stored by the U.S. and Russia. Regardless, the point of the AGU journal wasn&#8217;t to compare past powers to the present, but to shed some light on the damage such weapons can cause, no matter now many are used at once.</p>
<p>Of course, steps are being taken to prevent such conflict and their ramifications. Last month, the United Nations came together <a href="https://futurism.com/the-un-passes-the-first-ever-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-worldwide/" target="_blank">to announce a nuclear weapons ban</a>, following discussions that included the possibility of global nuclear disarmament. 122 member states voted in favor of the negotiations, and of the nine nuclear powers, only North Korea passed on voting. The U.S., alongside Britain and France, however, took a stance to not sign the finalized treaty, arguing that security-of-state concerns necessitate a minimal stockpile for nuclear deterrence, an objection unaddressed by the ban.<figure style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a href="https://futurism.com/images/these-are-the-worst-nuclear-disasters-in-history-infographic/"><img src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2016/05/Homepage-Thumbnail-13.jpg" alt="These Are The Worst Nuclear Disasters in History (Infographic)" ></a><figcaption class="wp-caption-text center"><strong><a href="https://futurism.com/images/these-are-the-worst-nuclear-disasters-in-history-infographic/" target="_blank">Click to View Full Infographic</a></figcaption></strong></figure></p>
<p>Although the objection is understandable, many could argue that embracing the ban would lead to the lion&#8217;s share of nuclear countries eventually supporting the cause. It hasn&#8217;t been that long since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if <a href="https://futurism.com/doomsday-clock-moves-closer-to-midnight-amid-climate-and-nuclear-concerns/" target="_blank">the last adjustment of the Doomsday Clock</a> is a valid signifier, we need to take effective action soon, lest we go gentle into that good (mid)night.</figure>


It doesn't even take an exchange between major nuclear powers to devastate the Earth.

Earth & Energy

The president's bellicose threats of nuclear retaliation to North Korea are a known factor. But what would happen to the Earth if we let the worst happen?

/Nuclear Weapons

Bit-pocalypse

North Korea Is Using Hackers to Steal Money for Nuclear Bombs

Dire Warning

Bill Gates Compares Artificial Intelligence to Nuclear Weapons

Bomber Drones

New Russian Submarine Can Launch Nuke-Carrying Drones

Future Society

4 Astounding Things About Russia’s (Supposed) New Weapons

Future Society

Experts Weigh in on the U.S. Government’s Plans to Loosen Nuclear Weapon Constraints

Hard Science

A New Animation Shows Just How Powerful Nuclear Weapons Have Become

Robots & Machines

The US Plans to Spend $1.2 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons Over the Next 30 Years

Future Society

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

Future Society

Experts Say We Must “Restrict the President’s Power to Wage Nuclear War”

Earth & Energy

This Is What Nuclear Warfare Will Do To Our Planet

Load More