A scientific rocket launch to study the Northern Lights almost ended in armageddon after Russian early-warning stations mistakenly identified it as a US missile attack

Daily Mail​

27-04-2025

The world has come close to accidental nuclear war many times – most terrifyingly in January 1995.
That was when a Norwegian rocket launch, carrying scientific equipment to study the Northern Lights, was mistakenly identified by Russian early-warning stations as a US missile attack.
The Norwegian government had notified the Russians about the launch to avoid exactly this kind of confusion, but the Russian foreign ministry had failed to pass this on to the military.
The alert was passed all the way to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who opened his 'nuclear briefcase' containing the launch codes to begin measures for a retaliation, while submarine commanders were put on alert to launch a counter-strike.
However, when satellites failed to detect any follow-up missile launches, it was eventually declared a false alarm.
There have been numerous near-misses since the invention of nuclear weapons in the Second World War. The US military calls such nuclear-related mishaps 'broken arrows' – and just the American list alone makes alarming reading.
One night in June 1980, the US was put on high alert as it appeared the Soviets had launched 2,200 missiles.
It was only as defence officials were preparing to call President Jimmy Carter to get authorisation for the nuclear response that they discovered that the failure of a computer chip costing 50 cents had transferred software simulating a nuclear attack to the regular warning display.
The Norwegian government had notified the Russians about the launch to avoid exactly this kind of confusion, but the Russian foreign ministry had failed to pass this on to the military. The alert was passed all the way to Russian President Boris Yeltsin (pictured), who opened his 'nuclear briefcase' containing the launch codes to begin measures for a retaliation, while submarine commanders were put on alert to launch a counter-strike
Similar incidents took place on the Russian side.
In September 1983, incoming data reported that the US had launched five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles at the Soviet Union.
It turned out the Soviet satellite system had misinterpreted the reflection of the Sun on clouds as missile launches, and the world was saved from Armageddon only by the actions of a Soviet officer who suspected things were not right.
In 2007, six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a US B-52 bomber at Minot air force base in North Dakota and flown to an air force base in Louisiana.
The weapons remained mounted to the aircraft unguarded while the B-52 sat on the tarmac overnight. For 36 hours, no one realised six live nuclear weapons were missing.
Based on our experience of such mishaps and near-misses over just a few decades, I would not put money on us surviving very long into the future.
While I hope we might one day get rid of nuclear weapons, it is important in the short term to get them off the state of hair-trigger alert favoured by both the Americans and Russians.
Also, the US must cancel its posture of 'launch-on-warning' – meaning its nuclear weapons would be out of their silos and in the air almost immediately after the first warning of an incoming missile attack is confirmed.
These changes could happen very quickly and be applied by all parties with international verification, reducing the risk of inadvertent nuclear war.
Yes, I know that achieving something like this might seem hopeless. But we mustn't give up hope, because where we are now reminds me of when I began work on climate change more than 20 years ago.
Even those who believed it was a reality did not think there was much we could do about it.
But today, the risk of civilisation-ending global climate breakdown is gradually being reduced.
We broke the cycle of denial on climate and we must do the same with nuclear weapons with a mobilisation that does not get sidetracked.
The campaign group Global Zero, for example, includes in its list of values the statement: 'We recognise that nuclear violence reinforces oppressive systems of white supremacy and patriarchy.'
Does it really, though? Are North Korea's nukes reinforcing white supremacy? And what has patriarchy got to do with it?
While I care about these issues, I do not think we can allow injustice in other areas to become a roadblock.
If new entrants to the movement must sign up to a roll call of progressive issues in order to participate, fewer people are going to get involved.
We cannot be another movement of hippies, eating vegan food in protest camps with compost toilets and obsessing over women-only spaces. Both wokery and wonkery can destroy a movement from the inside.
We cannot be a 'peace' movement either. We will never get world peace, but we can avoid world war.