The nuclear year in review: Welcome to the antechamber of the next nuclear crisis

This past year, there has not been a single week without a reminder of the danger posed by nuclear weapons. Nuclear noise and signaling were evident; officials made implicit or explicit references to nuclear weapons and their possible use—seeming, for some observers, to call almost everything a nuclear threat. But the biggest change this year in international security is, arguably, the instability now at the doors of nuclear powers, and the looming possibility of a nuclear crisis.

The country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal—Russia—is still ferociously waging its war against Ukraine and has now brought in North Korean troops to support its effort. Russia also updated its nuclear doctrine, expanding the conditions under which it might use nuclear weapons.

In another major development, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France authorized Ukraine to use their missile systems to strike targets inside Russia. A few days later, Russia responded by using a new intermediate-range missile against Ukraine. This new missile can reach European capitals in less than 15 minutes and can be loaded with one of several nuclear warheads, significantly increasing the risk of a potentially catastrophic misunderstanding.

In the Middle East, Iran launched large barrages of ballistic missiles against Israel—an undeclared nuclear-weapon state—on two occasions. The faceoff prompted fears that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear sites in retaliation—a move that could have ripple effects on nuclear proliferation in the region. Several weeks ago, the United States reportedly also discussed plans to strike Iran’s nuclear sites should Tehran rush to build a nuclear weapon before the presidential inauguration on January 20.

Most recently, South Korean president made an out-of-the-blue decision to impose martial law without notifying the United States. This could have created a crisis had North Korea seized this moment of political chaos to take action against its neighbor. A longstanding mutual defense treaty binds South Korea and the United States. This year, North Korea and Russia signed their own mutual defense treaty, opening another front for a potential conflict between the two great powers.

I want to make special mention of a nuclear story from 2024 that met, in extraordinary fashion, the Bulletin’s mission by providing expertly crafted, timely information and, thereby, contributing to the reduction of nuclear risk in a crisis.

Iran vs. Israel redux: The enormous difficulties and ramifications if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites
By Darya Dolzikova, Matthew Savill
This article was originally published in April, after an Iranian attack on Israel and Israel’s military response. It was republished in October because of its relevance to Iran’s second massive missile attack against Israel and the near-certainty of some sort of Israeli retaliation at the time. In this article, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) experts Darya Dolzikova and Matthew Savill explain how an Israel attack against Iran’s nuclear sites would not only be enormously difficult but could be counterproductive, pushing the Iranian regime even closer to the actual weaponization of its nuclear program.

Here are five other Bulletin nuclear stories that stood out in 2024—and that you should read.

Trump has a strategic plan for the country: Gearing up for nuclear war
By Joe Cirincione
For this piece, nuclear policy analyst and author Joe Cirincione went through the 900-page book “Mandate for Leadership” of Project 2025, which is widely seen as the template for the incoming Trump administration. The document reveals how President Trump might put nuclear weapons programs on steroids, trash what remains of the global arms control regime, and trigger new nuclear weapons programs in more other nations than we have seen at any time since the early 1960s.

The new red line: Why a prolonged conflict in Ukraine makes a nuclear attack more likely
By Phillips P. O’Brien
There should have been a nuclear war by now—at least if the wargames and academic models of state behavior are to be believed. For the last two-and-a-half years, Ukraine has repeatedly and in an escalatory fashion continued to flout the warnings of nuclear-armed Russia. Assumptions on reaching the threshold of nuclear weapons were overwrought, but those assumptions have made a nuclear conflict far more likely, professor and historian Phillips P. O’Brien argues.

Why a substantive and verifiable no-first-use treaty for nuclear weapons is possible
By Li Bin
Successive US administrations have failed to formally adopt a “sole-purpose” nuclear policy, nor have they responded positively to China’s no-first-use proposals. Chinese professor and expert Li Bin explains the many benefits of a no-first-use policy and why the next US administration should respond positively to China’s invitation to negotiate a no-first-use treaty on nuclear weapons.

The fallout never ended
By Robert Alvarez
Decades of nuclear weapons tests and other radioactive experiments injured or killed scientists, soldiers, and innocent bystanders. Many of them, and their relatives, have never been compensated, but new efforts may change that. In this special report, former Senate staffer and expert on the US nuclear program Robert Alvarez looks back at its harmful effects, and how the government addressed them—or didn’t.

AI goes nuclear
By Dawn Stover
Big tech is turning to old reactors (and planning new ones) to power the energy-hungry data centers that artificial intelligence systems need. In this feature article, Bulletin’s contributing editor Dawn Stover explains how the downsides of nuclear power—including the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation—have been minimized or simply ignored.