Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Nuclear Armaments: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (5)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/02/15

Abstract

Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios. Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of toriqtests.com, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical variant. His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies. He discusses: atomic weaponry for the future trajectory of the world; the story of the Manhattan Project; the Americans reluctant to enter into the war with Germany; the anti-nuclear proliferation movements; main governments with nuclear weapons; the reduction and preventative capacity of nuclear armaments; nuclear arsenals acted as deterrents; historians who specialize; the Treaty on Open Skies; the current context of nuclear issues; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); President Vladimir Putin and (former) President Donald Trump; the implications for international nuclear safety; the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states; some important terms and concepts for future treaties; the main motivation for the treaties; Hypothetical scenario; the opposing case; Einstein; the Doomsday Clock; the systems; nuclear waste; and these nuclear issues likely remain with us.

Keywords: Cold War, Einstein, Franklin D. Roosevelt, genius, Germany, IQ, Manhattan Project, nuclear war, Tor Arne Jørgensen.

Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Nuclear Armaments: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (5)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Next, we’ll talk about the nuclear armaments of the modern world now. With the splitting of the Uranium atom in 1938, the directionality of the world changed forever. The power to destroy en masse with minimal means at the hands of a few became available. Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the civilian centers’ victim to the American atrocities of dropping thermonuclear weaponry on other human beings in the midst of war. What seems like the crucial importance of the creation of atomic weaponry for the future trajectory of the world?

Tor Arne Jørgensen[1],[2]*: If one understands you correctly and I think I do, then the focus hereby is on the ability of each sovereign state to produce weapons of mass destruction in order of increased self-security by means of affirming their targets with higher accuracy, through missiles with longer distances capabilities, more destruction capability, in order of a total fear policy through pure desire to create a feeling as mentioned of self-security by their own want for position of sovereignty.

Jacobsen: A single coerced-into-writing-letter by Einstein to then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt set forth the Manhattan Project. How is the story of the Manhattan Project told in professional political historical circles? Duly note, Einstein was not involved in the Manhattan Project. He was a pacifist or had pacifist tendencies.  

Jørgensen: The letter that Einstein signed came at a time when the war was thrown into a state of total chaos. The world was to face its worst enemy to date, with galloping inconsistencies at any cost and by any means. Germany and their desire to develop nuclear weapons that had potential global dominance that we all at the time witnessed then and up through the ages in terms of what the United States let Japan’s two regions undergo in hope of ending World War II with regards to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in late summer of -45. Racing to be the first to either end or start a war is equally wrong and that is what Einstein knew all too well and should later regret.

Einstein’s voice and fame was a key factor to ensure President Roosevelt’s ear and further ability to follow the advice given for the launch of the Manhattan project. A concerted effort to halt the domination of the Third Reich. Einstein was a pacifist in his belief in the impact of war on peace. But as I previous stated that everyone knows, war never leads to peace. Einstein was all too aware of this, whether they intended in the name of good nor evil. Leo Szilard applied to his former teacher Albert Einstein to get the impact needed in that he and the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner together could carry the signature that would be the fortification of the transition within the nuclear age and thus change the world balance for all time to come. The age of nuclear deterrent in the hope of world peace had now begone.

Jacobsen: Why were the Americans reluctant to enter into the war with Germany? Why did they eventually choose to enter into it?

Jørgensen: There are many reasons why the United States did not go to war against Germany, but what is most clear is the divided opinion after failed policies after WWI. The League of Nations and its outcome, furthermore the Great Depression, the despair of all the lives lost in the aid of other states at their own massive expense of human life, and to add an enormous economy expense made the United States divided in its privates to participate in World War II. The idea is, in short, that the United States takes care of its own interests to secure as well as strengthen itself by way of self-preservation.

Grounds for participatory engagement by the United States are clear, the attack made by Japan on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941.

Jacobsen: In reflection on the aforementioned, this means, still, America is the first and only nation to drop thermonuclear weapons on civilian targets on purpose. That’s a horrifying thought. How has this haunted international relations and politics, and helped the anti-nuclear proliferation movements?

Jørgensen: The devastating force that was confirmed by the United States’ use of nuclear force to end a war against an unjust state that Japan was and still is, the aftermath was all too clear. The memories and images that are burned into all our minds can only be understood as an eternal warning against repeating such a terrible deed to ever be repeated. The terrible destruction is all too clearly documented as the right obstacle to repetition and as a catalyst for the anti-nuclear movement.

The list to repeat this even now almost 80 years later will probably be deterrent enough to follow the current picture for the next 80 years further as well, one must at least choose to believe. The political agenda is then unchanged in its opinion to refrain from all use of nuclear weapons in warfare, and it is further believed that this is also not on the waning front of the world community, no to nuclear weapons will continue to advance for full force against disarmament of this type of mass-destroying weapon. The world has plenty of other material that can more than probably do the same benefit if one can put it that way.

The balance of power throughout the Cold War, the rearmament that was then all too clear and which crippled Russia economically, so that only the United States remained as the one clear superpower and by that changed a worldview that made the United States probably the most feared and the most hated authority, a world police whether the rest of us liked it or not. This has probably driven many of the other states to produce their own nuclear weapons to even out the differences, and possibly face the United States on their own terms. This is clearly not a stabilizing factor for securing world peace, nor the opposite, but it is perhaps what works best for everyone sitting on total power through fear of what the other person may or may not do.

Jacobsen: The main governments with nuclear weapons with readiness capacity known include Russia, the United States, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. What responsibility does this place on those Member States in the United Nations?

Jørgensen: There is a binding agreement or desired agreement on disarmament under the United Nations Convention of; disarmament, manufacturing and/or any testing of nuclear weapons by the member States and non-member states, also a non – aggression act towards any member state by use of nuclear weapons in any sense. This agreement act is being held to a certain extent but as we see today, North Korea is once again in the process of testing launches, not of nuclear weapons but you get the picture.

Jacobsen: What larger international responsibility is placed on all Member States, defined as such, including non-member observer states Palestine and the Holy See, for the reduction and preventative capacity of nuclear armaments?

Jørgensen: International prohibition and common front against all use of nuclear weapons in the application of sanctions against if any member state should take an upgrading path or non -member states that take the same course of action, this to prevent any form of a “final” nuclear war if one can call it that.

Jacobsen: During the Cold War, the nuclear arsenals acted as deterrents via duopoly of military giants locking proverbial ‘horns’ while retaining a mutual want of survival or non-annihilation. In the current era, if a headcount of the aforementioned Member States, we have 9 major national actors. For Russia and America with 90%+ of the global nuclear arsenals, what responsibilities lie with them, in particular?

Jørgensen: The power that lies with Russia and the United States is to focus on disarmament, to be able to be a stabilizing factor for world peace, to be able to act as a champion for bridge building through the re-creation of weapons of mass destruction through a re-creating forum by the renewal of increased clean power for everyone’s best rather than destruction to everyone’s worst. These two countries are responsible for holding both the East and the West in order to maintaining the status quo, i.e. the balance of power, but should in my opinion rather lead the way towards a new world environment of pure clean energy for everyone.

Jacobsen: How do historians who specialize in the matter view the August 2^nd letter of Einstein?

Jørgensen: As I am not an expert according to the specific topics here, it seems to me according to what material is available, that a blurred lines can be removed to ensure transparency between the proper agencies. This can again be applied so that a recommendation from Einstein could again ensure that then President Roosevelt would convey thus present a guarantee that the request is fulfilled as intended.

Jacobsen: What is the Treaty on Open Skies?

Jørgensen: Proposal by Eisenhower in 1955 and expanded later in 1989 by Bush senior, including a joint signature of voluntary participating states, allowing aircraft from other states to fly into one’s own airspace to create transparency of other states’ military activities. There are 33 member countries from NATO and the Warsaw pact that was concluded March 24, 1992. Further comes the agreement on Passive quota which is the number of observations that a state is required to accept from other states, and active quota which are the actual observations to be carried out of by foreign states.

This is a great safeguard with regards to secure evidence to a large extent against the armament of nuclear weapons. Norway has today committed itself to 7 flights in accordance with the terms of agreement thus to ensure that our own military does not put itself in an active rearmament situation. This of course also applies to the extent that we have a lot of NATO exercises towards the border with Russia, something they been known to have repeatedly opposed verbally at top government level. There is also a lot in the media about high level diplomacy between Norway and Russia according to the topics mentioned here.

Jacobsen: What is its relevance to the current context of nuclear issues?

Jørgensen: Will highlight here the obstacle of increased military commitment by the development of nuclear weapons, which has been uncovered in Iran over the past 10 years. Furthermore, it has emerged that North Korea has built up its nuclear arsenal, which is very regrettable for overall world security.

Jacobsen: What is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)?

Jørgensen: The 1987 agreement between the United States and the then Soviet Union and their respective presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, in which the agreement consisted of disarming medium-range missiles armed with nuclear warheads. This made it possible to abolish an entire category of weapon systems towards a safer world, whereby global stability was more aimed at mutual trust through mutual understanding of brotherhood and not through fear spreading propaganda of upscale nuclear arms.

Jacobsen: Why did President Vladimir Putin and (former) President Donald Trump pull out of it?

Jørgensen: The short version is that the United States believed that for several years Russia had violated the agreement signed in 1987, by trial testing regarding missile category thus a clear violation of the signed mutual agreement. This was the reason why the United States withdrew from the agreement. Russia, for its part, has repeatedly denied the allegations in a statement issued stating “Similar, baseless allegations concerning Russia’s intelligence have been made more than once.”

Jacobsen: What are the implications for international nuclear safety given the progress from its inception in 1987 and destruction in 2019?

Jørgensen: The implications of the breach of agreement go back to a kind of “Cold War” scenario that Putin says in the media today with regards to the NATO allies a look back at the uncertainty about nuclear war that covered the world for decades. What is happening today between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable in this context, as war is once again on the doorstep of all of us with unforeseen consequences.

Jacobsen: How important were the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) for global geopolitical stability?

Jørgensen: The idea behind these two programs for testing nuclear weapons in space, on land or under water, and disarmament to change the focus from weapons status to a source of clean energy towards a climate-focused society, is all well and good. The only problem is that some of the most powerful and best equipped states choose to say A but not B, they are initially friendly and shows a hint of partly agreement that these are good programs to join, but when the balance of power is changing, well countries like Pakistan will not nor India join when the other party does not want to.

Furthermore, as I said, the United States has joined part 1, but not part 2 of the agreement program, that is, signed with not committed, and then it carries back to the start again. Letting go of power, thus seeing a possible loss of that power for those countries that look upon themselves as gamechangers on a global scale, or see the profits promoted by the gains of nuclear technology, will not yield the obvious gains in either long term or short term. Finally, this is about power security were to let go of one known scenario outcome to give into a new and unknown one may seem like an insecure draw of cards to make; thus the result is already given in advance.

Jacobsen: For the categories of nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, how might future treaties utilize such terminologies to clarify intents, obligations, responsibilities, and rights?

Jørgensen: By putting pressure from the non-nuclear states onto the states that have nuclear weapons to ratify their plans for the obligation to disarm, limit, transform and secure the waste in safe storage facilities. Will also point out that Norwegian Physicians Against nuclear weapons (NLA) national branch of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) is actively working for the disarmament of nuclear weapons. We are working well in cooperation with the Norwegian authorities to put pressure on the states that are hesitant to commit to a disarmament plan.

This done so that the commitment can enable a reducing unintentional for a safer future. The fact that private organizations in collaboration with non-nuclear states can, to the extent they can, influence enough for change to take place is then the best answer one can give me here about bonds, and active responsibility through pressure from external factors.

Jacobsen: What might be some important terms and concepts for future treaties to consider for improved deterrence capacity frameworks?

Jørgensen: To have a steady balance of power in the world between two dominant actors as during the Cold War between USA and Soviet Union, with the intention that none of the actors was willing to annihilate the world. This balance of fear should not determine the world of tomorrow in the hope that we can continue to live in peace.

The fact that nuclear military power today when we only have this one planet to live on should, in the undersigned opinion, not form the basis for living in peace. The fact that extended use of a missile defense system by the USA as an extended deterrent, and accelerator for the exercise of the terrorist balance. Not to mention terrorist organizations and their role in influencing the current balance of power in any negative direction to end today’s existence.

Jacobsen: What is the main motivation for the treaties? Do these treaties seem to work in increasing the level of safety?

Jørgensen: Self-preservation, and no I do not think so, not as a clear intent of global stability.

Jacobsen: So far, we have talked about the NPT, CTBT, INF, and TOS. There are a bunch of others including SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II, START II Framework, SORT Moscow Treaty), and New START. There are many covering different dynamics of the nuclear issue. Hypothetically, let’s pretend the entire world framework for nuclear deterrence in the form of treaties is shredded, what happens?

Jørgensen: Today, one still sees that the need for protection through deterrence through the possible use of nuclear weapons is as relevant today as during the Cold War. Countries such as North Korea, Russia and China are investing more and more to secure their own national status as a nuclear power to reckon with if any events occur that could possibly shake one’s statuettes.

It is pointed out by various groups that are in favor of disarmament of these types of weapons around the world that today’s society is overdue for a change in security conditions where the nuclear power has lost its role. Finding fully automated weapon systems, we turn our gaze to space and those who may bring this that may threaten our existence as a species. But just look at NATO, which can largely be described as a nuclear alliance, no, the age of nuclear weapons is not in decline, no not in any way, quite the opposite in fact as I see it. So, to sum up, do we need nuclear weapons today, yes maybe more now than ever before? This brings me back to the question of origin, “what happens if all the treaties are shredded”, I guess a complete global fire sale of governing security.

Jacobsen: Let’s take the opposing case, the INF is reinstated, NPT, CTBT, INF, TOS, SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II, START II Framework, SORT Moscow Treaty), and New START remain and others begin to build on them. What happens to the nuclear issue?

Jørgensen: A continuation of the status quo, possibly an increased status of the status quo.

Jacobsen: Ideally, what would happen in regards to the nuclear issue stability as deterrence or elimination of the nuclear option throughout the world, or some other option?

Jørgensen: Some outcomes of what has been mentioned above does not at present time seen as a possible deviation of possible events. But this does not mean that a third alternative cannot arise that has not yet been anticipated and that may or may not tip the scales away from the two mentioned outcome, i.e. an unknown outcome.

Jacobsen: Einstein, unbeknownst to many, was a key player in the prevention of the attempts at manufacturing and stockpiling of nuclear armaments. He argued for a supranational authority as a deterrent because he considered the bomb inevitable. What hasn’t been instituted, which could act as another bulwark against guaranteed mutual annihilation from nuclear war?

Jørgensen: An overarching body. What is meant by that, well today it is left to the nuclear states not to comply with the plan of attack. Where deterrence is the one reason for not attacking and endangering the lives of all of us. If then the UN, or NATO, as a function is in the mindset the overriding body so as not to hand over all responsibility to the individual country.

There are many supreme bodies that can try the individual country’s decisions and at best reverse decisions that violate human rights and so on. What if when it comes to the danger of nuclear war, that the deterrent factor is dropped from the individual country and is overruled by a common union for the preservation of these weapons is set up. Could such a common international body be tested faithfully? It’s the only thing I can think of that power relinquishes – every single country and is protected under a community that most likely does not allow the use of nuclear weapons ever again.

Jacobsen: Human beings made this problem. Human beings must solve this problem piecemeal, probably. What can move the Doomsday Clock dial farther from midnight in the midst of strongmen political gamesmanship, and direct attacks on an international rules-based order and on the rights-based global system of governance?

Jørgensen: Through global cooperation for a safer everyday life, overthrow of standing directives, further by a common front on both sides. Change basic structures through global cooperation, but all this is just utopia.

Jacobsen: There have been a number of instances in which the systems controlling much of the nuclear arsenals have failed with the implied consequence as the annihilation of the human species if not for human intervention. One was the NORAD computer chip malfunction, or more than one in fact. The Cuban Missile Crisis was another. The SACPNORAD communications error yet another. The training tape accident of 1979 was still another. Still another, and on home turf, the Norwegian rocket accident along the northern border of Russia, which plunged into the ocean. Why, if the nuclear are to be kept, should the systems be modernized simply for safety reasons?

Jørgensen: The use of nuclear weapons in any such state is not safe, nor can it be safe. A modernizing condition, or type of upgrade for safety reasons is not advisable due to the release energy potential of the components. The financial gains that follow at both ends advocate the security gain. No, it can be concluded that to modernize to secure, rather to break down or turn into productive environmentally sustainable energy.

Jacobsen: What are some other issues to do with nuclear waste from the stockpile that need some immediate consideration and management?

Jørgensen: Proper storage is a key issue here, storage under water is to some extent what needs to be addressed, it is no longer in extended use for the risk that this poses if leaks should occur for the sea areas in question. What should also be looked at is to move the waste out into space and remove it that way now that Elon Musk and his Space X and or Jeff Bezos` Blue Origin is aiming toward an increase travel schedule for transport into space, also to investigate the use of nuclear reactors as propulsion measures for the space rockets in a much larger extent. But littering in this way is also not, in my opinion, a sustainable solution either. What I am brought back to is transforming the mindset of reintroducing nuclear waste into a resource for environmentally sustainability.

Furthermore, of what should be discussed to a much greater extent than today, let us make use of this clean energy in an innovative and functional way, which is what society is benefited by as a way towards a transition over to a more viable alternative energy source as a direct result with regards to a change of course due to the fossil replacements within a short period of time.

Jacobsen: How will these nuclear issues likely remain with us, even as anthropogenic climate change or human-induced global warming continue to loom over the horizon as two of the three heads of the proverbial Cerberus?

Jørgensen: Today’s thinking is based on additional cost and limitation of visionary implements. Cost must go down, it must be seen as an meaningful act towards key actors within government officials, the feud over military accumulation must change, in anticipation of possible future artificially intelligent forms that can help us naïve mortals to see a new solution to the problem, if then, it is not us as creators of the problem who is the problem and by that is in need of a solution…

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies.

[2] Individual Publication Date: February 15, 2022: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/jorgensen-5; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.