As Biden warns of 'Armageddon,' a nuclear expert warns threat could become a reality
Laura Rockwood says we're not on the brink of nuclear war, but Russia and North Korea both pose a threat
Nuclear expert Laura Rockwood says U.S. President Joe Biden's "Armageddon" warnings could become a reality — but we're not on the brink of nuclear war yet.
At a Democratic fundraiser last week, Biden said: "We've not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis."
The warning follows comments by Russian President Vladimir Putin that he would use "all available means" to defend Russian territory — and that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan by the United States during World War II "created a precedent."
Rockwood, former head of the Open Nuclear Network nonprofit and a former senior lawyer with International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to As It Happens host Nil Köksal about Biden's remarks and the risk of nuclear war. Here is part of their conversation,
How worried are you about the nuclear threat?
I think we need to be mindful that it could become a reality.
I think President Biden was speaking to people who understood how straightforward he speaks.
For the general public, it may have ratcheted up concerns to a level where people become more fearful. More fearful isn't a bad idea, but I don't think we are necessarily on the brink right now of the use of nuclear weapons.
It is more likely that President Putin is trying to use these threats to deter engagement by NATO and the U.S. in this conflict. And I think he would stop short of that unless he had perceived himself as having no other option.
WATCH | Russian attacks in Kyiv:
We've certainly seen Russian forces respond sharply to losses [with] just the strikes across Ukraine [Monday] after the destruction of the bridge in Crimea. So what do you think would be that point that Vladimir Putin would make that call?
He has a lot of alternatives to use before he resorts to nuclear weapons — asymmetric warfare, cyber warfare, pipeline warfare, infrastructure warfare. And I think he appreciates that the use of nuclear weapons would be a real game-changer.
So I think it's there, but that's the problem. We don't know his state of mind. We're not getting good readouts on Putin's state of mind.
You mentioned a little bit about the kind of impact that [the word "Armageddon"] has on the rest of us listening outside of that fundraiser. But what kind of impact does it have in this crisis point?
I hope what it does is encourage people that might be, if you will, getting tired of the Ukraine conflict to remind themselves that this is not just about Ukraine. That this is a much bigger conflict and the consequences are much bigger.
So I think the message he's conveying is, let's not step back from Ukraine. Let's step up. Let's continue to support the Ukrainian government, provide them with the arms that they need to every possible extent short of actually entering the war themselves. And I think it is largely directed at the American public.
What message, though, does it send to Vladimir Putin?
That the United States isn't prepared to back down, but that it's taking these threats seriously. And he has to know that if the United States is taking this threat seriously, they are contemplating other ways of dealing with this.
How do you think the United States might respond if it didn't take the nuclear route? You know, "catastrophic consequences" were the words that Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, used. What shape would you see it taking?
An attack on the Russian military, which in the state that it's in right now, doesn't seem like it would take very much to take the legs out from under it.
They're already ragtag. They're in disarray. And surely if the United States decided to enter this war, then it would have the conventional forces to destroy the Russian army. Would there be other alternatives to that as well? Hitting infrastructure? Sure. I would like to think that they would go after military targets and not civilian targets in the way that Putin has done.
I also want to talk about North Korea with you. It's something you've certainly worked on. And I'm wondering how deep a threat North Korea is on the nuclear front?
Certainly an effective threat.
[North Korean Leader] Kim Jong-un has always described his nuclear program as a defensive program. Now that gets a little bit complicated with this new law that they've adopted in which he says not only that, this is going to be a permanent ... non-negotiable program unless something changes with the U.S. And he's also talking about the possible pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.
I think the biggest risk in the case of North Korea is misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of an action taken by either the South Koreans or the Americans.
They are there. They could use them. And I don't think Kim Jong-un is self-destructive … but if he thinks he will be destroyed, he is likely to use them. Probably more likely to use them than Vladimir Putin.
When you began doing this work, did you ever imagine this is the position that the world would find itself in today?
No. We've gone through some really bad times with the Iraq war, with the Iran nuclear program, but to be so close to the precipice on so many different fronts, we have too many fires and too many fronts. It's just globally destabilizing.
Look at what it's done to food, to people being able to get supplies, to the gas prices. We are a much more complicated world. We are much more globalized, much more interconnected.
Before, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, you would have had a horrific situation. It might not have had repercussions in every possible way that a conflict breaking out with Russia and North Korea could have. The implications are just staggering.
Interview with Laura Rockwood produced by Morgan Passi. Q&A edited for length and clarity.
