Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund

A nuclear war, by accident, miscalculation, or deliberate use, could lead to as much carnage in the first few days as all of World War I or II.  Billions more could be threatened by second-order effects: radioactive fallout, the collapse of critical infrastructure, and mass famine. The ensuing chaos could irrevocably destabilise civilization and send humanity down a dark path.

Nuclear weapons may be the domain of governments, but civil society has played a key role in nuclear risk reduction. Analysis and activism helped end nuclear testing, slowed the arms race in the 1980s and created incentives for negotiated reductions. Scientist-to-scientist exchanges and backchannel diplomacy, supported by foundations, drafted the blueprints for government efforts like the Nunn-Lugar initiative, which secured and eliminated vast quantities of weapons and materials after the Soviet Union collapsed. Nongovernmental efforts were credited with helping secure bipartisan Senate ratification for the New START treaty in 2010.

Despite this track record, there is less than $40 million per year in philanthropic spending on nuclear policy. Compare this to climate philanthropy, another serious challenge for humanity, which receives a total of $10 billion, or about $250 for every $1 spent on nuclear policy philanthropy—and still this isn’t enough.

Much work remains to be done. Thousands of nuclear weapons remain on high-alert, ready to launch in minutes. These systems can never be fully failsafe, as nuclear deterrence relies on the manipulation of risk. Cognitive science has shown that people respond poorly to high-stakes decisions under time pressures.  Recent trends are troubling:

• A conventional war in the nuclear shadow: Many experts believe the war in Ukraine marks the highest period of nuclear risk since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• A looming three-way arms race: all nuclear arms control treaties between the U.S. and Russia have ended or been suspended without replacement. China could more than triple its arsenal to 1,500 warheads by 2035. All sides are developing new nuclear delivery systems with destabilising characteristics.
• New risks from new technologies: Advances in the speed and accuracy of weapons systems and increased reliance on digital systems creates entanglement between conventional and nuclear systems. Artificial Intelligence could further complicate the decision making. In a “digital fog of war” leaders will face high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, and may believe their only option is to act first. Technological change is not inherently destabilising but must be better managed to avoid false alarms and inadvertent nuclear escalation.
• Nuclear philanthropy is neglected despite the above trends and key historic role of philanthropy in reducing nuclear risk. In 2020 the board of the largest funder in the field, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation, made a decision to wind down its work.

Longview’s work starts with a recognition that this is a multigenerational challenge. We are unencumbered by a business-as-usual approach and recognize blind spots that have undermined past risk-reduction efforts. With this in mind, we focus on four components to reducing nuclear risk:

1. Understanding the new nuclear risk landscape: Over the past two decades there have been big shifts in global politics and technology related to nuclear weapons, and governments have been slow to adapt. We will fund research that helps leaders (in government, NGOs, and philanthropy) understand what matters most for risk-reduction and what is just noise. Grants here may include:
   • Forecasting and planning exercises to improve escalation management in the context of technological change;
   • Case studies and analysis to learn from historical nuclear close calls, social movements, and efforts to mitigate nuclear risks; and
   • Modelling the systemic effects of nuclear weapons on the climate, governance, and the global economy across different threat scenarios.
2. Reduce the likelihood of accidental and inadvertent nuclear war: Nuclear war can occur through deliberate use or through human or technical error. Work is needed to:
   • Identify how to reduce vulnerabilities in nuclear command, control, and early warning architecture;
   • Improve preparedness of civilian and military staff through education and simulations for military and civilian leaders;
   • Enable dialogues on risk reduction between experts and officials in US, Russia, and China; and
   • Evaluate the comparative risks of different weapons systems to assist decision-makers in identifying which systems carry the greatest risk if deployed.
3. Educate policymakers on these issues: In order for decision-makers to take action, they need sufficient understanding of how to tackle the risks to humanity posed by nuclear weapons.
4. Strengthen fieldwide capacity: The exit of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and other major philanthropists from the field is both a challenge and a call for reinvention. Our fund will redirect resources to high-impact strategies and organisations: our work will focus on cultivating and retaining talented people and helping organisations meet their potential.

Below are a few of the organisations that Longview Philanthropy has been proud to support in the past. Some of these organisations continue to have funding gaps and the Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund may direct further funding to these projects.

• Council on Strategic Risks — The Council on Strategic Risks’ nuclear weapons work focuses on the most extreme nuclear risks (conflict involving the United States and allies, Russia, and/or China). They identify policy actions which would reduce the risk of escalation into nuclear war, ensuring the relevant decision-makers understand them through their strong networks within U.S. national and international security communities.
• Nuclear Information Project — Nuclear-armed powers are not always transparent about the state of their arsenals and their nuclear posture. But up-to-date information is essential for informed policy and sound forecasting. Some of the best public information comes from the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. The information is gleaned from satellite imagery, Freedom of Information Act requests, and other sources.
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — This recommendation was for a project aiming to develop a common understanding about escalation pathways to nuclear war and what policy interventions are most likely to contribute to risk mitigation. Specifically, the project will involve research workshops whereby a diverse range of experts within fields relevant to nuclear security and risk analysis convene to analyse potential escalation pathways, attempt to estimate their likelihood, identify potential levers to reduce or mitigate this risk, and compare these various pathways and levers more holistically.

The Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund is managed by Giving What We Can with recommendations from Longview Philanthropy. Giving What We Can is a fiscally sponsored project of Effective Ventures (UK) (EV UK) and Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc. (EV US). Donations to the Nuclear Weapons Policy Fund are donations to EV US or EV UK. Please see important state disclosures here.