Despite the end of the Cold War over two decades ago, humanity still has over 15,000 nuclear weapons.
Some of these are hundreds of times more powerful than those that
obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they may be able to create a
decade-long nuclear winter that could kill most people on Earth. Yet
the superpowers plan to invest over a trillion dollars upgrading their
nuclear arsenals, which many experts believe increases the risk of
nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and accidental nuclear war.
What do the experts worry about?
Common concerns span the spectrum from a nuclear terrorist attack against a single city, potentially killing millions of people, to all-out global nuclear war, potentially killing billions. Most experts agree that the average person is more likely to succumb to nuclear war than nuclear terrorism. Nuclear war can potentially kill 1000 times more people than a nuclear terrorist attack (billions rather than millions), but it is certainly not 1000 times less likely than nuclear terrorism. Plus, given the many near-misses that have already occurred, a nuclear war is more likely than many people realize.
How many people would all-out nuclear war kill?
Scientists continue to discover new lethal effects of nuclear war, so it is hard to be confident that we now know them all. First, the radiation risks were underestimated. Victims in the US have received over $2 billion in compensation for radiation exposure that resulted from nuclear testing and uranium handling. Then it was discovered that the electromagnetic pulse from a high-altitude detonation could potentially damage electronics and power grids across thousands of kilometers. A 1979 report by the US Government estimated that all-out war would kill 28%-88% of Americans and 22%-50% of Soviets (150-450 million people with today’s populations), but this was before the risk of nuclear winter was discovered in the 1980’s.
What do the experts worry about?
Common concerns span the spectrum from a nuclear terrorist attack against a single city, potentially killing millions of people, to all-out global nuclear war, potentially killing billions. Most experts agree that the average person is more likely to succumb to nuclear war than nuclear terrorism. Nuclear war can potentially kill 1000 times more people than a nuclear terrorist attack (billions rather than millions), but it is certainly not 1000 times less likely than nuclear terrorism. Plus, given the many near-misses that have already occurred, a nuclear war is more likely than many people realize.
How many people would all-out nuclear war kill?
Scientists continue to discover new lethal effects of nuclear war, so it is hard to be confident that we now know them all. First, the radiation risks were underestimated. Victims in the US have received over $2 billion in compensation for radiation exposure that resulted from nuclear testing and uranium handling. Then it was discovered that the electromagnetic pulse from a high-altitude detonation could potentially damage electronics and power grids across thousands of kilometers. A 1979 report by the US Government estimated that all-out war would kill 28%-88% of Americans and 22%-50% of Soviets (150-450 million people with today’s populations), but this was before the risk of nuclear winter was discovered in the 1980’s.
Average cooling (in °C) during the first two summers after a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia (from Robock et al 2007).
Researchers realized that regardless of whose cities burned, massive
amounts of smoke could spread around the globe, blocking out sunlight
and transforming summers into winters, much like when asteroids or
supervolcanoes caused mass extinctions in the past. However, today’s
climate models are far more accurate than those run on the
supercomputers of the 1980’s, and we now know that the reports from the
80s significantly underestimated the impact of an extended nuclear
winter. The map above published by
Robock (2007) shows cooling by about 20°C (36°F) in much of the core
farming regions of the US, Europe, Russia and China (by 35°C in parts of
Russia) for the first two summers, and about half that even a full
decade later. Years of near-freezing summer temperatures would eliminate most of our food production. It
is hard to predict exactly what would happen if thousands of Earth’s
largest cities were reduced to rubble and global infrastructure
collapsed, but whatever small fraction of all humans don’t succumb to
starvation, hypothermia or epidemics would need to cope with roving,
armed gangs desperate for food.
Self-Assured Destruction (SAD)
There are large uncertainties in Nuclear Winter predictions. For example how much smoke is produced and how high up it rises would determine its severity and longevity. Given this uncertainty, there is no guarantee that most people would survive. It has therefore been argued that the traditional nuclear doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) be replaced by Self-Assured Destruction (SAD): even if one of the two superpowers were able to launch its full nuclear arsenal against the other without any retaliation whatsoever, nuclear winter would still assure the attacking country’s self-destruction.
Recent Developments
The nuclear freeze movement, the discovery of nuclear winter, and the end of the Cold War led countries to slash the global nuclear stockpile by about 75%. The superpowers pledged to continue nuclear disarmament in §6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the last decade has seen little progress, and deteriorating US-Russian relations have recently triggered talk of a second cold war.
The nuclear freeze is thawing. The US, Russia and other powers now plan to invest over $1 trillion to build new, more modern nuclear weapons. Many experts argue that thousands of nuclear warheads are more than enough for effective deterrence, while building new ones weakens national security, makes accidental war more likely and more devastating, encourages additional nations to go nuclear, and gives terrorists easier access to bomb-making materials.
We at FLI agree with these experts, and we therefore oppose the production of new nuclear weapons. We also support the removal of nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, which further increases the risk of accidental war.
Self-Assured Destruction (SAD)
There are large uncertainties in Nuclear Winter predictions. For example how much smoke is produced and how high up it rises would determine its severity and longevity. Given this uncertainty, there is no guarantee that most people would survive. It has therefore been argued that the traditional nuclear doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) be replaced by Self-Assured Destruction (SAD): even if one of the two superpowers were able to launch its full nuclear arsenal against the other without any retaliation whatsoever, nuclear winter would still assure the attacking country’s self-destruction.
Recent Developments
The nuclear freeze movement, the discovery of nuclear winter, and the end of the Cold War led countries to slash the global nuclear stockpile by about 75%. The superpowers pledged to continue nuclear disarmament in §6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the last decade has seen little progress, and deteriorating US-Russian relations have recently triggered talk of a second cold war.
The nuclear freeze is thawing. The US, Russia and other powers now plan to invest over $1 trillion to build new, more modern nuclear weapons. Many experts argue that thousands of nuclear warheads are more than enough for effective deterrence, while building new ones weakens national security, makes accidental war more likely and more devastating, encourages additional nations to go nuclear, and gives terrorists easier access to bomb-making materials.
We at FLI agree with these experts, and we therefore oppose the production of new nuclear weapons. We also support the removal of nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, which further increases the risk of accidental war.
“…if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”
–Barack Obama, 2009
–Barack Obama, 2009
