Eliana Johns
@elianajjohns.bsky.social
880 followers 150 following 24 posts
Senior Research Associate with Nuclear Information Project @ Federation of American Scientists & Grad Student @ Georgetown SFS | Talks about nukes and satellite imagery | (views are my own)
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
elianajjohns.bsky.social
Check out @mknight.bsky.social's epic and rather timely report on presidential sole authority in the United States! It has everything you need to know about the history and ongoing debates about this policy -- a must-read!
mknight.bsky.social
The president has sole authority to order nuclear use- How did we get here? How does it work? What’s the issue? Can we solve it?

My new @scientistsorg.bsky.social report on nuclear launch authority in the U.S. - “All the King’s Weapons” - is out! Read it below 👇

fas.org/publication/...
Reposted by Eliana Johns
nukestrat.bsky.social
1/n - China’s military parade as expected was an extreme display off military equipment. This included display of several new nuclear weapons systems, including some modified or entirely new. www.youtube.com/live/-aH6rGs...

This thread includes preliminary descriptions; more later: 👇
Reposted by Eliana Johns
astrokatie.com
Americans Astronomers
watching watching
US politics Betelgeuse
🤝

“It could happen at any time”
Reposted by Eliana Johns
nukestrat.bsky.social
Impressive piece of work by my colleagues @mattkorda.bsky.social and @mknight.bsky.social on the extraordinary mess in the new Sentinel ICBM program: The Two-Hundred Billion Dollar Boondoggle. 👇
mattkorda.bsky.social
An administration that claims to be obsessed with eliminating waste should look no further than the Sentinel ICBM program.

@mknight.bsky.social and I have done a deep dive into the system; we explore why the program is so behind schedule, over-budget, and poorly managed. 👇

fas.org/publication/...
The Two-Hundred Billion Dollar Boondoggle - Federation of American Scientists
Nearly one year after the Pentagon certified the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program to continue after it incurred critical cost and schedule overruns, the new nuclear missile could on...
fas.org
elianajjohns.bsky.social
Summer camp counselor? ❌
FAS OSINT Bootcamp counselor ✅🗺️

I’m at a loss for words to express how thankful and inspired I am by the success of our inaugural FAS Open Source Nuclear Analysis Bootcamp. I'm already looking forward to next year!
elianajjohns.bsky.social
📌 ICYMI, @nukestrat.bsky.social, @mattkorda.bsky.social, @mknight.bsky.social, and I just released a pretty cool report on the targeting strategies of nuclear-armed states.

Check it out!
scientistsorg.bsky.social
🆕 Planning for the Unthinkable: the targeting strategies of nuclear-armed states

Intense secrecy around nuclear targeting means that most individuals—including lawmakers—do not have much understanding of how fateful decisions about what to target during wartime are made.
Planning for the Unthinkable: The targeting strategies of nuclear-armed states The quantitative and qualitative enhancements to global nuclear arsenals in the past decade—particularly China’s nuclear buildup, Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, and NATO’s response—have recently reinvigorated debates about how nuclear-armed states intend to use their nuclear weapons, and against which targets, in what some describe as a new Cold War. 

Details about who, what, where, when, why, and how countries target with their nuclear weapons are some of states’ most closely held secrets. Targeting information rarely reaches the public, and discussions almost exclusively take place behind closed doors—either in the depths of military headquarters and command posts, or in the halls of defense contractors and think tanks. The general public is, to a significant extent, excluded from those discussions. This is largely because nuclear weapons create unique expectations and requirements about secrecy and privileged access that, at times, can seem borderline undemocratic. Revealing targeting information could open up a country’s nuclear policies and intentions to intense scrutiny by its adversaries, its allies, and—crucially—its citizens. 

This presents a significant democratic challenge for nuclear-armed countries and the international community. Despite the profound implications for national and international security, the intense secrecy means that most individuals—not only including the citizens of nuclear-armed countries and others that would bear the consequences of nuclear use, but also lawmakers in nuclear-armed and nuclear umbrella states that vote on nuclear weapons programs and policies—do not have much understanding of how countries make fateful decisions about what to target during wartime, and how. When lawmakers in nuclear-armed countries approve military spending bills that enhance or increase nuclear and conventional forces, they often do so with little knowledge of how those bills could have implications for nuclear targeting plans.
Reposted by Eliana Johns
mknight.bsky.social
My latest in @postopinions.bsky.social - the 5th installment of our @scientistsorg.bsky.social series "The Next Nuclear Age"

How a president might come to launch a nuclear strike

Massive thanks to @sebphilippe.bsky.social for helping us model what a nuclear attack on DC might look like
⬇️⬇️
Opinion | How a nuclear attack on the U.S. might unfold, step by step
A scenario of America’s response to an incoming nuclear attack.
wapo.st
Reposted by Eliana Johns
scientistsorg.bsky.social
🆕 Planning for the Unthinkable: the targeting strategies of nuclear-armed states

Intense secrecy around nuclear targeting means that most individuals—including lawmakers—do not have much understanding of how fateful decisions about what to target during wartime are made.
Planning for the Unthinkable: The targeting strategies of nuclear-armed states The quantitative and qualitative enhancements to global nuclear arsenals in the past decade—particularly China’s nuclear buildup, Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, and NATO’s response—have recently reinvigorated debates about how nuclear-armed states intend to use their nuclear weapons, and against which targets, in what some describe as a new Cold War. 

Details about who, what, where, when, why, and how countries target with their nuclear weapons are some of states’ most closely held secrets. Targeting information rarely reaches the public, and discussions almost exclusively take place behind closed doors—either in the depths of military headquarters and command posts, or in the halls of defense contractors and think tanks. The general public is, to a significant extent, excluded from those discussions. This is largely because nuclear weapons create unique expectations and requirements about secrecy and privileged access that, at times, can seem borderline undemocratic. Revealing targeting information could open up a country’s nuclear policies and intentions to intense scrutiny by its adversaries, its allies, and—crucially—its citizens. 

This presents a significant democratic challenge for nuclear-armed countries and the international community. Despite the profound implications for national and international security, the intense secrecy means that most individuals—not only including the citizens of nuclear-armed countries and others that would bear the consequences of nuclear use, but also lawmakers in nuclear-armed and nuclear umbrella states that vote on nuclear weapons programs and policies—do not have much understanding of how countries make fateful decisions about what to target during wartime, and how. When lawmakers in nuclear-armed countries approve military spending bills that enhance or increase nuclear and conventional forces, they often do so with little knowledge of how those bills could have implications for nuclear targeting plans.
elianajjohns.bsky.social
Want to learn more about who controls one of the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world???

Check out this excellent piece in @postopinions.bsky.social by my good friend and colleague, @mknight.bsky.social!
mknight.bsky.social
Really proud of my new piece on the president’s nuclear launch authority for our team @scientistsorg.bsky.social’s Next Nuclear Age series in @washingtonpost.com ! Unfortunately it turned out to be quite a timely one. Give it a read ⬇️⬇️⬇️
Opinion | Only one American can start a nuclear war: The president
The American president has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike, even if every adviser in the room is against it.
www.washingtonpost.com
Reposted by Eliana Johns
Reposted by Eliana Johns
nktpnd.bsky.social
My latest: @projectsyndicate.bsky.social asked me (and four other analysts) to offer our thoughts on whether US allies should begin thinking about building their own nuclear weapons. My answer: as bad as things look now, proliferation can make things worse. www.project-syndicate.org/magazine/tru...
A New Nuclear Calculus?
Thorsten Benner, et al consider whether America's friends and allies should pursue their own nuclear-weapons capabilities.
www.project-syndicate.org
Reposted by Eliana Johns
postopinions.bsky.social
"To understand how it could all go wrong, it is useful to look at some examples of how it almost did."

@nukestrat.bsky.social, @mattkorda.bsky.social, @elianajjohns.bsky.social and @alliemaloney.bsky.social of @scientistsorg.bsky.social have the latest: wapo.st/4jK0VjO
Reposted by Eliana Johns
scientistsorg.bsky.social
"If a nuclear war happens, it could very well start by accident."

From @nukestrat.bsky.social, @mattkorda.bsky.social, @elianajjohns.bsky.social, and @alliemaloney.bsky.social in @postopinions.bsky.social "How Nuclear War Could Start"

🔗 below
Reposted by Eliana Johns
postopinions.bsky.social
"Humans are imperfect, so nuclear near-misses and accidents are a fact of life for as long as these weapons exist."

@nukestrat.bsky.social, @mattkorda.bsky.social, @elianajjohns.bsky.social and @alliemaloney.bsky.social of @scientistsorg.bsky.social have the latest: wapo.st/4jK0VjO
Reposted by Eliana Johns