nuclear weapon essay

The Devastating Effects of Nuclear Weapons

What can nuclear weapons do? How do they achieve their destructive purpose? What would a nuclear war — and its aftermath — look like? In the article that follows, excerpted from Richard Wolfson and Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress’s book “ Nuclear Choices for the Twenty-First Century ,” the authors explore these and related questions that reveal the most horrifying realities of nuclear war.

A Bomb Explodes: Short-Term Effects

The most immediate effect of a nuclear explosion is an intense burst of nuclear radiation, primarily gamma rays and neutrons. This direct radiation is produced in the weapon’s nuclear reactions themselves, and lasts well under a second. Lethal direct radiation extends nearly a mile from a 10-kiloton explosion. With most weapons, though, direct radiation is of little significance because other lethal effects generally encompass greater distances. An important exception is the enhanced-radiation weapon, or neutron bomb, which maximizes direct radiation and minimizes other destructive effects.

An exploding nuclear weapon instantly vaporizes itself. What was cold, solid material microseconds earlier becomes a gas hotter than the Sun’s 15-million-degree core. This hot gas radiates its energy in the form of X-rays, which heat the surrounding air. A fireball of superheated air forms and grows rapidly; 10 seconds after a 1-megaton explosion, the fireball is a mile in diameter. The fireball glows visibly from its own heat — so visibly that the early stages of a 1-megaton fireball are many times brighter than the Sun even at a distance of 50 miles. Besides light, the glowing fireball radiates heat.

This thermal flash lasts many seconds and accounts for more than one-third of the weapon’s explosive energy. The intense heat can ignite fires and cause severe burns on exposed flesh as far as 20 miles from a large thermonuclear explosion. Two-thirds of injured Hiroshima survivors showed evidence of such flash burns. You can think of the incendiary effect of thermal flash as analogous to starting a fire using a magnifying glass to concentrate the Sun’s rays. The difference is that rays from a nuclear explosion are so intense that they don’t need concentration to ignite flammable materials.

The intense heat can ignite fires and cause severe burns on exposed flesh as far as 20 miles from a large thermonuclear explosion.

As the rapidly expanding fireball pushes into the surrounding air, it creates a blast wave consisting of an abrupt jump in air pressure. The blast wave moves outward initially at thousands of miles per hour but slows as it spreads. It carries about half the bomb’s explosive energy and is responsible for most of the physical destruction. Normal air pressure is about 15 pounds per square inch (psi). That means every square inch of your body or your house experiences a force of 15 pounds. You don’t usually feel that force, because air pressure is normally exerted equally in all directions, so the 15 pounds pushing a square inch of your body one way is counterbalanced by 15 pounds pushing the other way. What you do feel is overpressure , caused by a greater air pressure on one side of an object.

If you’ve ever tried to open a door against a strong wind, you’ve experienced overpressure. An overpressure of even 1/100 psi could make a door almost impossible to open. That’s because a door has lots of square inches — about 3,000 or more. So 1/100 psi adds up to a lot of pounds. The blast wave of a nuclear explosion may create overpressures of several psi many miles from the explosion site. Think about that! There are about 50,000 square inches in the front wall of a modest house — and that means 50,000 pounds or 25 tons of force even at 1 psi overpressure. Overpressures of 5 psi are enough to destroy most residential buildings. An overpressure of 10 psi collapses most factories and commercial buildings, and 20 psi will level even reinforced concrete structures.

People, remarkably, are relatively immune to overpressure itself. But they aren’t immune to collapsing buildings or to pieces of glass hurtling through the air at hundreds of miles per hour or to having themselves hurled into concrete walls — all of which are direct consequences of a blast wave’s overpressure. Blast effects therefore cause a great many fatalities. Blast effects depend in part on where a weapon is detonated. The most widespread damage to buildings occurs in an air burst , a detonation thousands of feet above the target. The blast wave from an air burst reflects off the ground, which enhances its destructive power. A ground burst , in contrast, digs a huge crater and pulverizes everything in the immediate vicinity, but its blast effects don’t extend as far. Nuclear attacks on cities would probably employ air bursts, whereas ground bursts would be used on hardened military targets such as underground missile silos. As you’ll soon see, the two types of blasts have different implications for radioactive fallout.

How far do a weapon’s destructive effects extend? That distance — the radius of destruction — depends on the explosive yield. The volume encompassing a given level of destruction depends directly on the weapon’s yield. Because volume is proportional to the radius cubed, that means the destructive radius grows approximately as the cube root of the yield. A 10-fold increase in yield then increases the radius of destruction by a factor of only a little over two. The area of destruction grows faster but still not in direct proportion to the yield. That relatively slow increase in destruction with increasing yield is one reason why multiple smaller weapons are more effective than a single larger one. Twenty 50-kiloton warheads, for example, destroy nearly three times the area leveled by a numerically equivalent 1-megaton weapon.

What constitutes the radius of destruction also depends on the level of destruction you want to achieve. Roughly speaking, though, the distance at which overpressure has fallen to about 5 psi is a good definition of destructive radius. Many of the people within this distance would be killed, although some wouldn’t. But some would be killed beyond the 5-psi distance, making the situation roughly equivalent to having everyone within the 5-psi circle killed and everyone outside surviving. The image to the left shows how the destructive zone varies with explosive yield for a hypothetical explosion. This is a simplified picture; a more careful calculation of the effects of nuclear weapons on entire populations requires detailed simulations that include many environmental and geographic variables.

The blast wave is over in a minute or so, but the immediate destruction may not be. Fires started by the thermal flash or by blast effects still rage, and under some circumstances they may coalesce into a single gigantic blaze called a firestorm that can develop its own winds and thus cause the fire to spread. Hot gases rise from the firestorm, replaced by air rushing inward along the surface at hundreds of miles per hour. Winds and fire compound the blast damage, and the fire consumes enough oxygen to suffocate any remaining survivors.

During World War II, bombing of Hamburg with incendiary chemicals resulted in a firestorm that claimed 45,000 lives. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima resulted in a firestorm; that of Nagasaki did not, likely because of Nagasaki’s rougher terrain. The question of firestorms is important not only to the residents of a target area: Firestorms might also have significant long-term effects on the global climate, as we’ll discuss later.

Both nuclear and conventional weapons produce destructive blast effects, although of vastly different magnitudes. But radioactive fallout is unique to nuclear weapons. Fallout consists primarily of fission products, although neutron capture and other nuclear reactions contribute additional radioactive material. The term fallout generally applies to those isotopes whose half-lives exceed the time scale of the blast and other short-term effects. Although fallout contamination may linger for years and even decades, the dominant lethal effects last from days to weeks, and contemporary civil defense recommendations are for survivors to stay inside for at least 48 hours while the radiation decreases.

The fallout produced in a nuclear explosion depends greatly on the type of weapon, its explosive yield, and where it’s exploded. The neutron bomb, although it produces intense direct radiation, is primarily a fusion device and generates only slight fallout from its fission trigger. Small fission weapons like those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki produce locally significant fallout. But the fission-fusion-fission design used in today’s thermonuclear weapons introduces the new phenomenon of global fallout . Most of this fallout comes from fission of the U-238 jacket that surrounds the fusion fuel. The global effect of these huge weapons comes partly from the sheer quantity of radioactive material and partly from the fact that the radioactive cloud rises well into the stratosphere, where it may take months or even years to reach the ground. Even though we’ve had no nuclear war since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fallout is one weapons effect with which we have experience. Atmospheric nuclear testing before the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty resulted in detectable levels of radioactive fission products across the globe, and some of that radiation is still with us.

Fallout differs greatly depending on whether a weapon is exploded at ground level or high in the atmosphere. In an air burst, the fireball never touches the ground, and radioactivity rises into the stratosphere. This reduces local fallout but enhances global fallout. In a ground burst, the explosion digs a huge crater and entrains tons of soil, rock, and other pulverized material into its rising cloud. Radioactive materials cling to these heavier particles, which drop back the ground in a relatively short time. Rain may wash down particularly large amounts of radioactive material, producing local hot spots of especially intense radioactivity. A hot spot in Albany, New York, thousands of miles from the 1953 Nevada test that produced it, exposed area residents to some 10 times their annual background radiation dose. The exact distribution of fallout depends crucially on wind speed and direction; under some conditions, lethal fallout may extend several hundred miles downwind of an explosion. However, it’s important to recognize that the lethality of fallout quickly decreases as short-lived isotopes decay.

Recommended Response to a Nuclear Explosion

The United States government has recently provided guidance on how to respond to a nuclear detonation. One recommendation is to divide the region of destruction due to blast effects into three separate damage zones. This division provides guidance for first responders in assessing the situation. Outermost is the light damage zone , characterized by “broken windows and easily managed injuries.” Next is the moderate damage zone with “significant building damage, rubble, downed utility lines and some downed poles, overturned automobiles, fires, and serious injuries.” Finally, there’s the severe damage zone , where buildings will be completely collapsed, radiation levels high, and survivors unlikely.

The recommendations also define a dangerous fallout zone spanning different structural damage zones. This is the region where dose rates exceed a whole-body external dose of about 0.1 Sv/hour. First responders must exercise special precautions as they approach the fallout zone in order to limit their own radiation exposure. The dangerous fallout zone can easily stretch 10 to 20 miles (15 to 30 kilometers) from the detonation depending on explosive yield and weather conditions.

Electromagnetic Pulse

A nuclear weapon exploded at very high altitude produces none of the blast or local fallout effects we’ve just described. But intense gamma rays knock electrons out of atoms in the surrounding air, and when the explosion takes place in the rarefied air at high altitude this effect may extend hundreds of miles. As they gyrate in Earth’s magnetic field, the electrons generate an intense pulse of radio waves known as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

A single large weapon exploded some 200 miles over the central United States could blanket the entire country with an electromagnetic pulse intense enough to damage computers, communication systems, and other electronic devices. It could also affect satellites used for military communications, reconnaissance, and attack warning. The EMP phenomenon thus has profound implications for a military that depends on sophisticated electronics. In 1962, the United States detonated a 1.4-megaton warhead 250 miles above Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. People as far as Australia and New Zealand witnessed the explosion as a red aurora appearing in the night sky. Hawaiians, only 800 miles from the island, experienced a bright flash followed by a green sky and the failure of hundreds of street lights. In total, the Soviet Union and the United States conducted 20 tests of EMP from nuclear detonations. However, it’s unclear how to extrapolate the results to today’s more sensitive and more pervasive electronic equipment.

Since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 it has been virtually impossible to study EMP effects directly, although elaborate devices have been developed to mimic the electronic impact of nuclear weapons. Increasingly, crucial electronic systems are “hardened” to minimize the impact of EMP. Nevertheless, the use of EMP in a war could wreak havoc with systems for communication and control of military forces.

Many countries are around the world are developing high-powered microwave weapons which, although not nuclear devices, are designed to produce EMPs. These directed-energy weapons , also called e-bombs , emit large pulses of microwaves to destroy electronics on missiles, to stop cars, to detonate explosives remotely, and to down swarms of drones. Despite these EMP weapons being nonlethal in the sense that there’s no bang or blast wave, an enemy may be unable to distinguish their effects from those of nuclear weapons.

Would the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon to produce EMP or the use of a directed-beam EMP weapon be an act of war warranting nuclear retaliation? With its electronic warning systems in disarray, should the EMPed nation launch a nuclear strike on the chance that it was about to be attacked? How are nuclear decisions to be made in a climate of EMP-crippled communications? These are difficult questions, but military strategists need to have answers.

Nuclear War

So far we’ve examined the effects of single nuclear explosions. But a nuclear war would involve hundreds to thousands of explosions, creating a situation for which we simply have no relevant experience. Despite decades of arms reduction treaties, there are still thousands of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. Detonating only a tiny fraction of these would cause mass casualties.

What would a nuclear war be like? When you think of nuclear war, you probably envision an all-out holocaust in which adversaries unleash their arsenals in an attempt to inflict the most damage. Many people — including your authors — believe that misfortune to be the likely outcome of almost any use of nuclear weapons among the superpowers. But nuclear strategists have explored many scenarios that fall short of the all-out nuclear exchange. What might these limited nuclear wars be like? Could they really remain limited ?

Limited Nuclear War

One form of limited nuclear war would be like a conventional battlefield conflict but using low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. Here’s a hypothetical scenario: After its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Russia attacks a Baltic country with tanks and ground forces while the United States is distracted by a domestic crisis. NATO responds with decisive counterforce, destroying Russian tanks with fighter jets, but this doesn’t quell Russian resolve. Russia responds with even more tanks and by bombing NATO installations, killing several hundred troops. NATO cannot tolerate such aggression and to prevent further Russian advance launches low-yield tactical nuclear weapons with their dial-a-yield positions set to the lowest settings of only 300 tons TNT equivalent. The goal is to signal Russia that it has crossed a line and to deescalate the situation. NATO’s actions are based on fear that if the Russian aggression weren’t stopped the result would be all-out war in northern Europe.

This strategy is actually being discussed in the higher echelons of the Pentagon. The catchy concept is that use of a few low-yield nuclear weapons could show resolve, with the hoped-for outcome that the other party will back down from its aggressive behavior (this concept is known as escalate to deescalate ). The assumption is that the nuclear attack would remain limited, that parties would go back to the negotiating table, and that saner voices would prevail. However, this assumes a chain of events where everything unfolds as expected. It neglects the incontrovertible fact that, as the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz observed in the 19th century, “Three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty.” Often coined fog of war , this describes the lack of clarity in wartime situations on which decisions must nevertheless be based. In the scenario described, sensors could have been damaged or lines of communication severed that would have reported the low-yield nature of the nuclear weapons. As a result, Russia might feel its homeland threatened and respond with an all-out attack using strategic nuclear weapons, resulting in millions of deaths.

There is every reason to believe that a limited nuclear war wouldn’t remain limited.

There is every reason to believe that a limited nuclear war wouldn’t remain limited. A 1983 war game known as Proud Prophet involved top-secret nuclear war plans and had as participants high-level decision makers including President Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The war game followed actual plans but unexpectedly ended in total nuclear annihilation with more than half a billion fatalities in the initial onslaught — not including subsequent deaths from starvation. The exercise revealed that a limited nuclear strike may not achieve the desired results! In this case, that was because the team playing the Soviet Union responded to a limited U.S. nuclear strike with a massive all-out nuclear attack.

What about an attack on North Korea? In 2017, some in the U.S. cabinet advocated for a “bloody nose” strategy in dealing with North Korea’s flagrant violations of international law. This is the notion that in response to a threatening action by North Korea, the U.S. would destroy a significant site to “bloody Pyongyang’s nose.” This might employ a low-yield nuclear attack or a conventional attack. The “bloody nose” strategy relies on the expectation that Pyongyang would be so overwhelmed by U.S. might that they would immediately back down and not retaliate. However, North Korea might see any type of aggression as an attack aimed at overthrowing their regime, and could retaliate with an all-or-nothing response using weapons of mass destruction (including but not necessarily limited to nuclear weapons) as well as their vast conventional force.

In September 2017, during the height of verbal exchanges between President Trump and the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, the U.S. flew B-1B Lancer bombers along the North Korean coast, further north of the demilitarized zone than the U.S. had ever done, while still staying over international waters. However, North Korea didn’t respond at all, making analysts wonder whether the bombers were even detected. Uncertainty in North Korea’s ability to discriminate different weapon systems might exacerbate a situation like this one and could lead the North Koreans viewing any intrusion as an “attack on their nation, their way of life and their honor.” This is exactly how the Soviet team in the Proud Prophet war game interpreted it.

What about a limited attack on the United States? Suppose a nuclear adversary decided to cripple the U.S. nuclear retaliatory forces (a virtual impossibility, given nuclear missile submarines, but a scenario considered with deadly seriousness by nuclear planners). Many of the 48 contiguous states have at least one target — a nuclear bomber base, a submarine support base, or intercontinental missile silos — that would warrant destruction in such an attack. The attack, which would require only a tiny fraction of the strategic nuclear weapons in the Russian arsenal, could kill millions of civilians. Those living near targeted bomber and submarine bases would suffer blast and local radiation effects. Intense fallout from ground-burst explosions on missile silos in the Midwest would extend all the way to the Atlantic coast. Fallout would also contaminate a significant fraction of U.S. cropland for up to year and would kill livestock. On the other hand, the U.S. industrial base would remain relatively unscathed, if no further hostilities occurred.

In contrast to attacking military targets, an adversary might seek to cripple the U.S. economy by destroying a vital industry. In one hypothetical attack considered by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, ten Soviet SS-18 missiles, each with eight 1-megaton warheads, attack United States’ oil refineries. The result is destruction of two-thirds of the U.S. oil-refining capability. And even with some evacuation of major cities in the hypothetical crisis leading to the attack, 5 million Americans are killed.

Each of these “limited” nuclear attack scenarios kills millions of Americans — many, many times the 1.2 million killed in all the wars in our nation’s history. Do we want to entertain limited nuclear war as a realistic possibility? Do we believe nuclear war could be limited to “only” a few million casualties? Do we trust the professional strategic planners who prepare our possible nuclear responses to an adversary’s threats? What level of nuclear preparedness do we need to deter attack?

All-Out Nuclear War

Whether from escalation of a limited nuclear conflict or as an outright full-scale attack, an all-out nuclear war remains possible as long as nuclear nations have hundreds to thousands of weapons aimed at one another. What would be the consequences of all-out nuclear war?

Within individual target cities, conditions described earlier for single explosions would prevail. (Most cities, though, would likely be targeted with multiple weapons.) Government estimates suggest that over half of the United States’ population could be killed by the prompt effects of an all-out nuclear war. For those within the appropriate radii of destruction, it would make little difference whether theirs was an isolated explosion or part of a war. But for the survivors in the less damaged areas, the difference could be dramatic.

Consider the injured. Thermal flash burns extend well beyond the 5-psi radius of destruction. A single nuclear explosion might produce 10,000 cases of severe burns requiring specialized medical treatment; in an all-out war there could be several million such cases. Yet the United States has facilities to treat fewer than 2,000 burn cases — virtually all of them in urban areas that would be leveled by nuclear blasts. Burn victims who might be saved, had their injuries resulted from some isolated cause, would succumb in the aftermath of nuclear war. The same goes for fractures, lacerations, missing limbs, crushed skulls, punctured lungs, and myriad other injuries suffered as a result of nuclear blast. Where would be the doctors, the hospitals, the medicines, the equipment needed for their treatment? Most would lie in ruin, and those that remained would be inadequate to the overwhelming numbers of injured. Again, many would die whom modern medicine could normally save.

A single nuclear explosion might produce 10,000 cases of severe burns requiring specialized medical treatment; in an all-out war there could be several million such cases.

In an all-out war, lethal fallout would cover much of the United States. Survivors could avoid fatal radiation exposure only when sheltered with adequate food, water, and medical supplies. Even then, millions would be exposed to radiation high enough to cause lowered disease resistance and greater incidence of subsequent fatal cancer. Lowered disease resistance could lead to death from everyday infections in a population deprived of adequate medical facilities. And the spread of diseases from contaminated water supplies, nonexistent sanitary facilities, lack of medicines, and the millions of dead could reach epidemic proportions. Small wonder that the international group Physicians for Social Responsibility has called nuclear war “the last epidemic.”

Attempts to contain damage to cities, suburbs, and industries would suffer analogously to the treatment of injured people. Firefighting equipment, water supplies, electric power, heavy equipment, fuel supplies, and emergency communications would be gone. Transportation into and out of stricken cities would be blocked by debris. The scarcity of radiation-monitoring equipment and of personnel trained to operate it would make it difficult to know where emergency crews could safely work. Most of all, there would be no healthy neighboring cities to call on for help; all would be crippled in an all-out war.

Is Nuclear War Survivable?

We’ve noted that more than half the United States’ population might be killed outright in an all-out nuclear war. What about the survivors?

Recent studies have used detailed three-dimensional, block-by-block urban terrain models to study the effects of 10-kiloton detonations on Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles. The results settle an earlier controversy about whether survivors should evacuate or shelter in place: Staying indoors for 48 hours after a nuclear blast is now recommended. That time allows fallout levels to decay by a factor of 100. Furthermore, buildings between a survivor and the blast can block the worst of the fallout, and going deep inside an urban building can lower fallout levels still further. The same shelter-in-place arguments apply to survivors in the non-urban areas blanketed by fallout.

These new studies, however, consider only single detonations as might occur in a terrorist or rogue attack. In considering all-out nuclear war, we have to ask a further question: Then what?

Individuals might survive for a while, but what about longer term, and what about society as a whole? Extreme and cooperative efforts would be needed for long-term survival, but would the shocked and weakened survivors be up to those efforts? How would individuals react to watching their loved ones die of radiation sickness or untreated injuries? Would an “everyone for themselves” attitude prevail, preventing the cooperation necessary to rebuild society? How would residents of undamaged rural areas react to the streams of urban refugees flooding their communities? What governmental structures could function in the postwar climate? How could people know what was happening throughout the country? Would international organizations be able to cope?

Staying indoors for 48 hours after a nuclear blast is now recommended. That time allows fallout levels to decay by a factor of 100.

Some students of nuclear war see postwar society in a race against time. An all-out war would have destroyed much of the nation’s productive capacity and would have killed many of the experts who could help guide social and physical reconstruction. The war also would have destroyed stocks of food and other materials needed for survival.

On the other hand, the remaining supplies would have to support only the much smaller postwar population. The challenge to the survivors would be to establish production of food and other necessities before the supplies left from before the war were exhausted. Could the war-shocked survivors, their social and governmental structure shattered, meet that challenge? That is a very big nuclear question — so big that it’s best left unanswered, since only an all-out nuclear war could decide it definitively.

Climatic Effects

A large-scale nuclear war would pump huge quantities of chemicals and dust into the upper atmosphere. Humanity was well into the nuclear age before scientists took a good look at the possible consequences of this. What they found was not reassuring.

The upper atmosphere includes a layer enhanced in ozone gas, an unusual form of oxygen that vigorously absorbs the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation. In the absence of this ozone layer , more ultraviolet radiation would reach Earth’s surface, with a variety of harmful effects. A nuclear war would produce huge quantities of ozone-consuming chemicals, and studies suggest that even a modest nuclear exchange would result in unprecedented increases in ultraviolet exposure. Marine life might be damaged by the increased ultraviolet radiation, and humans could receive blistering sunburns. More UV radiation would also lead to a greater incidence of fatal skin cancers and to general weakening of the human immune system.

Even more alarming is the fact that soot from the fires of burning cities after a nuclear exchange would be injected high into the atmosphere. A 1983 study by Richard Turco, Carl Sagan, and others (the so-called TTAPS paper) shocked the world with the suggestion that even a modest nuclear exchange — as few as 100 warheads — could trigger drastic global cooling as airborne soot blocked incoming sunlight. In its most extreme form, this nuclear winter hypothesis raised the possibility of extinction of the human species. (This is not the first dust-induced extinction pondered by science. Current thinking holds that the dinosaurs went extinct as a result of climate change brought about by atmospheric dust from an asteroid impact; indeed, that hypothesis helped prompt the nuclear winter research.)

The original nuclear winter study used a computer model that was unsophisticated compared to present-day climate models, and it spurred vigorous controversy among atmospheric scientists. Although not the primary researcher on the publication, Sagan lent his name in order to publicize the work. Two months before Science would publish the paper, he decided to introduce the results in the popular press. This backfired, as Sagan was derided by hawkish physicists like Edward Teller who had a stake in perpetuating the myth that nuclear war could be won and the belief that a missile defense system could protect the United States from nuclear attack. Teller called Sagan an “excellent propagandist” and suggested that the concept of nuclear winter was “highly speculative.” The damage was done, and many considered the nuclear winter phenomenon discredited.

But research on nuclear winter continued. Recent studies with modern climate models show that an all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia, even with today’s reduced arsenals, could put over 150 million tons of smoke and soot into the upper atmosphere. That’s roughly the equivalent of all the garbage the U.S. produces in a year! The result would be a drop in global temperature of some 8°C (more than the difference between today’s temperature and the depths of the last ice age), and even after a decade the temperature would have recovered only 4°C. In the world’s “breadbasket” agricultural regions, the temperature could remain below freezing for a year or more, and precipitation would drop by 90 percent. The effect on the world’s food supply would be devastating.

Even a much smaller nuclear exchange could have catastrophic climate consequences. The research cited above also suggests that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, involving 100 Hiroshima-sized weapons, would shorten growing seasons and threaten annual monsoon rains, jeopardizing the food supply of a billion people. The image below shows the global picture one month after this hypothetical 100-warhead nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have devastating effects. Destructive blast effects extend miles from the detonation point of a typical nuclear weapon, and lethal fallout may blanket communities hundreds of miles downwind of a single nuclear explosion. An all-out nuclear war would leave survivors with few means of recovery, and could lead to a total breakdown of society. Fallout from an all-out war would expose most of the belligerent nations’ surviving populations to radiation levels ranging from harmful to fatal. And the effects of nuclear war would extend well beyond the warring nations, possibly including climate change severe enough to threaten much of the planet’s human population.

Debate about national and global effects of nuclear war continues, and the issues are unlikely to be decided conclusively without the unfortunate experiment of an actual nuclear war. But enough is known about nuclear war’s possible effects that there is near universal agreement on the need to avoid them. As the great science communicator and astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “It’s elementary planetary hygiene to clean the world of these nuclear weapons.” But can we eliminate nuclear weapons? Should we? What risks might such elimination entail? Those are the real issues in the ongoing debates about the future of nuclear weaponry.

Richard Wolfson is Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College. Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress is Scientist-in-Residence at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. This article is excerpted from their book “ Nuclear Choices for the Twenty-First Century: A Citizen’s Guide. “

air burst A nuclear explosion detonated at an altitude—typically, thousands of feet—that maximizes blast damage. Because its fireball never touches the ground, an air burst produces less radioactive fallout than a ground burst.

blast wave An abrupt jump in air pressure that propagates outward from a nuclear explosion, damaging or destroying whatever it encounters.

direct radiation Nuclear radiation produced in the actual detonation of a nuclear weapon and constituting the most immediate effect on the surrounding environment.

electromagnetic pulse (EMP) An intense burst of radio waves produced by a high-altitude nuclear explosion, capable of damaging electronic equipment over thousands of miles.

fallout Radioactive material, mostly fission products, released into the environment by nuclear explosions.

fireball A mass of air surrounding a nuclear explosion and heated to luminous temperatures.

firestorm A massive fire formed by coalescence of numerous smaller fires.

ground burst A nuclear explosion detonated at ground level, producing a crater and significant fallout but less widespread damage than an air burst.

nuclear difference Phrase we use to describe the roughly million-fold difference in energy released in nuclear reactions versus chemical reactions.

nuclear winter A substantial reduction in global temperature that might result from soot injected into the atmosphere during a nuclear war.

overpressure Excess air pressure encountered in the blast wave of a nuclear explosion. Overpressure of a few pounds per square inch is sufficient to destroy typical wooden houses.

radius of destruction The distance from a nuclear blast within which destruction is near total, often taken as the zone of 5-pound-per-square-inch overpressure.

thermal flash An intense burst of heat radiation in the seconds following a nuclear explosion. The thermal flash of a large weapon can ignite fires and cause third-degree burns tens of miles from the explosion.

In the 75 years since the first successful test of a plutonium bomb, nuclear weapons have changed the face of warfare. Here, troops in the 11th Airborne division watch an atomic explosion at close range in the Las Vegas desert on November 1, 1951.

• HISTORY & CULTURE

How the advent of nuclear weapons changed the course of history

Many scientists came to regret their role in creating a weapon that can obliterate anyone and anything in its vicinity in seconds.

At 5:30 a.m. on July 16, 1945, a light brighter than the sun radiated over New Mexico. The fireball annihilated everything in the vicinity, then produced a mushroom cloud that billowed more than seven miles high.

In the aftermath, the scientists who had produced the blast laughed and shook hands and passed around celebratory drinks. Then they settled into grim thought about the deadly potential of the weapon they had created. They had just produced the world’s first nuclear explosion. ( Here's what happened that day in the desert. )

The test, code-named “Trinity,” was a triumph; it proved that scientists could harness the power of plutonium fission. It thrust the world into the atomic age, changing warfare and geopolitical relations forever. Less than a month later, the U.S. dropped two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan—further proving it was now possible to obliterate large swaths of land and kill masses of people in seconds.

In August 1945, the United States decided to drop its newly developed nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to end World War II. In this photograph, an unidentified man stands next to a tiled fireplace where a house once stood in Hiroshima on Sept. 7, 1945.

Scientists had been trying to figure out how to produce nuclear fission—a reaction that happens when atomic nuclei are split, producing a massive amount of power—since the phenomenon’s discovery in the 1930s. Nazi Germany was first to try to weaponize such energy, and word of its efforts leaked out of the country along with political dissidents and exiled scientists, many of them German Jews.

In 1941, after emigre physicist Albert Einstein warned President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that Germany might be trying to develop a fission bomb, the United States joined the first nuclear arms race. It launched a secret atomic research project, code-named the Manhattan Project, bringing together the nation’s most eminent physicists with exiled scientists from Germany and other Nazi-occupied countries.

The project was carried out at dozens of sites, from Los Alamos, New Mexico, to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Although it employed an estimated 600,000 people over the life of the project, its purpose was so secret that many of the people who contributed to it had no sense of how their efforts contributed to the larger, coordinated goal. Researchers pursued two paths toward a nuclear weapon: one that relied on uranium and another, more complex path, that relied on plutonium.

For Hungry Minds

After years of research, the Manhattan Project made history in 1945 when the test of “the gadget,” one of three plutonium bombs produced before the end of the war, succeeded. The U.S. had also developed an untested uranium bomb. Despite the obvious potential of these weapons to end or alter the course of the ongoing World War II, many of the scientists who helped develop nuclear technology opposed its use in warfare. Leo Szilard, a physicist who discovered the nuclear chain reaction, petitioned the administration of Harry S. Truman (who had succeeded Roosevelt as president) not to use it in war. But his pleas, which were accompanied by the signatures of scores of Manhattan Project scientists, went unheard .

On August 6, 1945, a B-29 “superbomber” dropped a uranium bomb over Hiroshima in an attempt to force Japan’s unconditional surrender. Three days later, the U.S. dropped a plutonium bomb, identical to the Trinity test bomb, over Nagasaki. The attacks decimated both cities and killed or wounded at least 200,000 civilians. ( For those who survived, memories of the bomb are impossible to forget. )

Japan surrendered on August 15. Some historians argue the nuclear blasts had an additional purpose: to intimidate the Soviet Union. Without a doubt, the blasts kicked off the Cold War .

You May Also Like

The true history of Einstein's role in developing the atomic bomb

How Chien-Shiung Wu changed the laws of physics

What lies beneath Hitler's war lair? Explorers just found out.

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already green-lit a nuclear program in 1943, and a year and a half after the bombings in Japan, the Soviet Union achieved its first nuclear chain reaction. In 1949, the U.S.S.R. tested “First Lightening,” its first nuclear device.

Ironically, the United States leadership believed that building a robust nuclear arsenal would act as a deterrent, helping prevent a third world war by showing that the U.S. could crush the U.S.S.R., should it invade Western Europe. But as the U.S. began investing in thermonuclear weapons with hundreds of times the firepower of the bombs it used to end World War II, the Soviets followed on its heels. In 1961, the Soviet Union tested the “ Tsar Bomba ,” a powerful weapon yielding the equivalent of 50 megatons of TNT and producing a mushroom cloud as high as Mount Everest.

“No matter how many bombs they had or how big their explosions grew, they needed more and bigger,” writes historian Craig Nelson. ”Enough was never enough.”

As additional countries gained nuclear capacity and the Cold War reached a fever pitch in the late 1950s and early 1960s, an anti-nuclear movement grew in response to a variety of nuclear accidents and weapons tests with environmental and human tolls.

Scientists and the public began to push first for a ban on nuclear testing and then for disarmament. Einstein—whose initial warning to Roosevelt had been designed to prevent nuclear war, rather than set it in motion—was among them. In a 1955 manifesto, the physicist and a group of intellectuals pleaded for the world to abandon its nuclear weapons. “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable,” they wrote . “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”

The urgent issue went unresolved. Then, in 1962, reports of a Soviet arms build-up in Cuba led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense standoff between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. that many feared would end in nuclear catastrophe.

In response to activists’ concerns, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (and later Russia) signed a partial test ban treaty in 1963, followed by a nuclear nonproliferation treaty in 1968, and a variety of additional agreements designed to limit the number of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, in early 2020 there were an estimated 13,410 nuclear weapons in the world—down from a peak of around 70,300 in 1986— according to the Federation of American Scientists. The FAS reports that 91 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the U.S. The other nuclear nations are France, China, the United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. Iran is suspected of attempting to build its own nuclear weapon.

Despite the dangers of nuclear proliferation, only two nuclear weapons—the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—have been deployed in a war. Still, writes the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, "The dangers from such weapons arise from their very existence.”

Seventy-five years after the Trinity test, humanity has thus far survived the nuclear age. But in a world with thousands of nuclear weapons, constantly changing political alliances, and continued geopolitical strife, the concerns raised by the scientists who birthed the technology that makes nuclear war possible remain.

Related Topics

• NUCLEAR WEAPONS
• WORLD WAR II
• NAZI GERMANY

80 years after Pearl Harbor, here's how the attack changed history

Pearl Harbor was the only WWII attack on the U.S., right? Wrong.

Hidden details from the Battle of the Bulge come to light

That time the British tried to blow up an island

‘A ball of blinding light’: Atomic bomb survivors share their stories

• Paid Content
• Environment
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• History & Culture
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Nuclear Weapons

By Bastian Herre, Pablo Rosado, Max Roser and Joe Hasell

This page was first published in August 2013 and last revised in February 2024.

The world’s nuclear powers have more than 12,000 nuclear warheads. These weapons can kill millions directly and, through their impact on agriculture, likely have the potential to kill billions .

Nuclear weapons killed between 110,000 and 210,000 people when the United States used them against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. 1 They have come close to being used again more than a dozen times since.

This is why countries have worked to limit the proliferation and number of nuclear weapons.

On this page, you can find writing, visualizations, and data on how many states have nuclear weapons, how many warheads they possess, how many oppose them, and how this has changed over time.

For an overview of the risks of nuclear weapons – and how they can be reduced – you can read the following essay:

Nuclear weapons: Why reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation

The consequences of nuclear war would be devastating. Much more should – and can – be done to reduce the risk that humanity will ever fight such a war

Related topics

Biological and Chemical Weapons

Which countries have pursued, possessed, or used biological and chemical weapons? Which countries have sought to eliminate them?

War and Peace

How common are armed conflict and peace between and within countries? How is this changing over time? Explore research and data on war and peace.

Military Personnel and Spending

How large are countries’ militaries? How much do they spend on their armed forces? Explore global data on military personnel and spending.

See all interactive charts on nuclear weapons ↓

Few countries possess nuclear weapons, but some have large arsenals

Nine countries currently have nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea.

These nuclear powers differ a lot in how many nuclear warheads they have. The chart shows that while most have dozens or a few hundred warheads, Russia and the United States have thousands of them.

The chart also shows that the warheads differ in how — and how quickly — they can be used: some are designed for strategic use away from the battlefield, such as against arms industries or infrastructure, while others are for nonstrategic, tactical use on the battlefield.

And while some warheads are not deployed, or even retired and queued for dismantlement, a substantial share of them is deployed on ballistic missiles or bomber bases and can be used quickly.

A lof of countries have given up obtaining nuclear weapons

The number of countries that possess nuclear weapons has never been higher. Only one country — South Africa — entirely dismantled its arsenal .

But, as the chart shows, many more states considered or pursued nuclear weapons, and almost all of them stopped.

In the late 1970s, more than a dozen countries considered or worked to acquire them. Recently, only Syria has considered nuclear weapons and only Iran has pursued building them .

The number of nuclear weapons has declined substantially since the end of the Cold War

After increasing for almost half a century after their creation in the 1940s, nuclear arsenals reached over 60,000 warheads in 1986.

Since then we have seen a reversal of this trend, as the chart shows. The nuclear powers reduced their arsenals a lot in the following decades, and the number of warheads fell below 20,000 in the 2010s.

The decline has slowed since then, and the total stockpile still consists of more than 10,000 warheads. Some countries have also been expanding their arsenals.

The destructiveness of nuclear arsenals has declined

A simple count of the number of warheads, as shown in the previous chart, does not consider that these weapons differ in their explosive power. It also does not consider that not all of them can be used at once.

The data shown in the following chart attempts to take this into account. It considers the destructiveness and deployment of nuclear warheads to arrive at an estimate of the explosive power of nuclear weapons deliverable in a first strike.

We see that the United States rapidly developed much more powerful warheads in the 1950s. The Soviet Union increased the destructiveness of its weapons more slowly but ultimately reached similar levels.

The destructive potential of first-strike warheads peaked at more than 15,000 Mt in the early 1980s. This amounts to more than a million Hiroshima bombs. At this peak, first-strike weapons could destroy more than 40% of the total urban land worldwide.

However, the destructiveness of first strikes has been steadily declining for decades, for both the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia.

Yet, it has still been more than 2,500 Mt, with the potential to directly destroy almost 7% of the total urban land worldwide.

Nuclear weapons tests have almost stopped

The nuclear weapons states frequently tested their warheads in the past, but tests now have almost ended.

The chart shows that they peaked in 1962 at 178 tests, mostly conducted by the United States and the Soviet Union. These tests harmed the environment and people, especially indigenous communities.

Tests decreased later during the Cold War and have been nearly absent in the last two decades. The only country that has recently tested nuclear weapons is North Korea.

Nuclear weapons have come close to being used a dozen times since World War II

After killing between 110,000 and 210,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear weapons have come close to being used more than a dozen times again. 1

The chart below shows a timeline of such close calls. 2 We can see that some of them have been accidental, while others have been deliberate.

You can learn more in our article on the risks of nuclear weapons.

Many countries want to limit or abolish nuclear weapons

Countries have sought to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons through international cooperation.

Most countries have approved the Partial and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaties, which seek an end to nuclear weapons tests.

The same goes for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Recently, dozens of countries have approved the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty, whose aim is to end the development and existence of nuclear weapons altogether.

Interactive charts on nuclear weapons

You can find the stories of six survivors — Masakazu Fujii, Wilhelm Kleinsorge, Hatsuyo Nakamura, Terufumi Sasaki, Toshiko Sasaki, and Kiyoshi Tanimoto — in John Hersey’s article Hiroshima .

This list is largely based on Toby Ord’s 2020 book The Precipice. His list can be found in Chapter 4 and Appendix C of his book.

Ord in turn relies mostly on a document from the US Department of Defense from 1981: Narrative Summaries of Accidents Involving US Nuclear Weapons (1950–1980).

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Humanitarian impacts and risks of use of nuclear weapons

10th review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I. Introduction

1. On 2 March 2020, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) convened a full-day expert meeting on the humanitarian impacts and risks of the use of nuclear weapons. Based on existing and emerging expert research, the meeting aimed to take stock of the humanitarian and environmental consequences of the use and testing of nuclear weapons, as well as the drivers of nuclear risk.

2. In addition to scientific experts from inter alia Sciences Po, Columbia University, Rutgers University, the Federation of American Scientists, Chatham House, the Gender and Radiation Impact Project and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, representatives from approximately 45 states and a range of UN agencies and civil society organizations took part in the meeting. This paper provides a summary of the discussions and is published by the ICRC and the IFRC. It does not necessarily represent the views of the participants.

II. The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons

3. The horrific devastation and suffering witnessed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 by Japanese Red Cross and ICRC medical staff, as they attempted to help tens of thousands of dying and wounded people, have left an enduring mark on the entire International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and have driven its advocacy of the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons over the last 75 years. [1] A few weeks after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the ICRC and other organizations began documenting the effects of the nuclear explosions on human health, the environment and medical infrastructure. [2]

4. Evidence of the immediate and longer-term impacts of the use and testing of nuclear weapons has been the subject of scientific investigation ever since. In a major 1987 report, the World Health Organization (WHO) summarized existing research into the impacts on health and health services of nuclear detonations. The report noted inter alia that the blast wave, thermal wave, radiation and radioactive fallout generated by nuclear explosions have devastating short- and long-term effects on the human body, and that existing health services are not equipped to alleviate these effects in any significant way. [3] Since then, the body of evidence of the immediate and longer-term humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing, and of the preparedness and capacity of national and international organizations and health systems to provide assistance to the victims of such events, has been growing steadily. [4]

5. In 2013 and 2014, three international conferences were organized by the governments of Norway, Mexico and Austria to comprehensively assess existing knowledge of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. [5] The evidence presented at the three conferences demonstrated inter alia the following:

• A nuclear weapon detonation in or near a populated area would – as a result of the blast wave, intense heat, and radiation and radioactive fallout – cause massive death and destruction, trigger large-scale displacement [6] and cause long-term harm to human health and well-being, as well as long-term damage to the environment, infrastructure, socioeconomic development and social order. [7]
• Modern environmental modelling techniques demonstrates that even a “small-scale” use of some 100 nuclear weapons against urban targets would, in addition to spreading radiation around the world, lead to a cooling of the atmosphere, shorter growing seasons, food shortages and a global famine. [8]
• The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, notably the radioactive fallout carried downwind, cannot be contained within national borders. [9]
• The scale of destruction and contamination after a nuclear detonation in or near a populated area could cause profound social and political disruption as it would take several decades to reconstruct infrastructure and regenerate economic activities, trade, communications, health-care facilities and schools. [10]
• No state or international body could address, in an appropriate manner, the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation in a populated area, nor provide appropriate assistance to those affected. Owing to the massive suffering and destruction caused by a nuclear detonation, it would probably not be possible to establish such capacities, even if attempted, although coordinated preparedness may, nevertheless, be useful in mitigating the effects of an event involving the explosion of an improvised nuclear device. [11]
• Notably, owing to the long-lasting effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, the use or testing of nuclear weapons has, in several parts of the world, left a legacy of serious health and environmental consequences [12] that disproportionally affect women and children. [13]

6. The immediate and longer-term humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons use and testing continue to be subject to scientific scrutiny, with emerging evidence and analysis inter alia of the sex- and age-differentiated impacts of ionizing radiation on human health, [14] the long-term impacts of nuclear weapons testing on the environment, [15] including on mortality and infant mortality rates, [16] the consequences of a nuclear war on the global climate, [17] food security, [18] ocean acidification, [19] as well as evidence and analysis of regional preparedness and response measures to nuclear testing. [20] While there are some aspects of these impacts that are not fully understood and require further study (see paragraph 17), these scientific studies reveal new and compelling evidence of long-term harm to human health and the environment from the use and testing of nuclear weapons.

7. There is a particular need for continued and scaled-up efforts to research and understand the humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing. Communities in former nuclear testing areas – including the Marshall Islands, [21] Kazakhstan, [22] Algeria [23] and the United States [24] – continue to be affected today by the impacts of ionizing radiation released from nuclear tests that occurred decades ago. Many communities report that they do not have sufficient information about their own history of exposure, the current risks of living in a radioactively contaminated area and the intergenerational risks associated with radiation exposure. [25] A lack of transparency and a failure to take the perspectives, lifestyles and needs of communities into account are barriers that need to be overcome in future research efforts.

8. Moreover, while it has been established that women and children are disproportionally affected by ionizing radiation, little is known about the effects of ionizing radiation on reproductive health. Possible questions for further research in this area include: Why is biological sex a factor in radiation harm? Why are the biological sex differences in radiation harm greatest in young children? Is the percentage of reproductive tissue and how it reacts to radiation a contributing factor? [26]

III. The risk of the use of nuclear weapons

9. Evidence of the foreseeable impacts of a nuclear detonation is an integral part of a nuclear weapons risk assessment. Although nuclear weapons have not been used in armed conflict since 1945, there has been a disturbingly high number of close calls in which nuclear weapons were nearly used inadvertently as a result of miscalculation or error. [27] During the three conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons in 2013 and 2014, it was demonstrated that the risks of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, stem notably from:

• the vulnerability of nuclear weapon command-and-control networks to human error and cyberattacks
• the maintaining of nuclear arsenals on high levels of alert, with thousands of weapons ready to be launched within minutes
• the dangers of access to nuclear weapons and related materials by non-state actors.

10. The conferences furthermore observed that international and regional tensions between nuclear-armed states, coupled with existing military doctrines and security policies that give a prominent role to nuclear weapons, increase the risk of nuclear weapons being used, and concluded that, given the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation, the risk of nuclear weapons being used is unacceptable, even if the probability of such an event were considered low. [28]

11. Since the three conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, the risk that nuclear weapons may be used has increased. While there are different ways to conceptualize nuclear risks and the sources of these risks, the increased probability of nuclear weapons being used is driven by the following interconnected developments:

• After decades of significant cuts in the global nuclear arsenal, the trend towards nuclear reductions is now being replaced by a process of modernization and development of new nuclear weapons with novel, “more usable” capabilities. [29]
• Nuclear weapons are acquiring a more important role in the military doctrines and security strategies of nuclear-armed states, marked, most notably, by a return to considerations of “nuclear warfighting” and an expansion of the circumstances in which the use of nuclear weapons may be considered. [30]
• Broader technological developments, new missile technologies, increased activities and reliance on infrastructure in space, as well as the integration of digital technologies in nuclear command, control and communications, increases complexity in decision-making processes, thereby heightening the risk of misinterpretations and misunderstandings that could trigger the use of nuclear weapons. [31]
• The erosion of the nuclear arms control legal framework – indicated, for example, by the abrogation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty – reduces transparency and predictability in policy and decision-making processes, making it more difficult to read the adversary’s intent. [32]
• Broader geopolitical developments, with increasingly tense relationships and the possibility of conflict across several contexts between nuclear-armed and nuclear-allied states, increases the risk of escalation. [33]

12. It is possible to conceptualize the increasing risk of nuclear weapons being used according to the following four risk-of-use scenarios:

a)       doctrinal use of nuclear weapons, i.e. the use of nuclear weapons as outlined and envisaged in declared policies, doctrines, strategies and concepts

b)      escalatory use, i.e. the use of nuclear weapons in an ongoing situation of tension or conflict

c)       unauthorized use, i.e. the non-sanctioned use of nuclear weapons by a non-state actor

d)      accidental use, i.e. the use of nuclear weapons through error, including technical malfunction and human error. [34]

13. When assessing the risks arising from technological developments, it is important to consider these technologies both individually and in combination. New technologies may interrelate and depend on each other, thus affecting decision-making systems in unpredictable ways. For example, increased reliance on digital technologies in decision-making processes may create new sources of error that may be difficult to detect, potentially leading to a misplaced overconfidence in the ability of these technologies to deliver accurate information. The introduction and use of new technologies may also lead a state to misinterpret or misunderstand the behaviour of another state, thereby increasing the likelihood of unnecessary escalation. [35]

14. It is important to note that offering an objective and meaningful quantification of these risks may not be possible and engaging in such quantification may create a sense of overconfidence. Objective probability estimates are based on experience and exclude new and unprecedented paths to nuclear catastrophe. Using the language of risk may therefore create a false sense of controllability and manageability by creating an illusion that all the possible paths to disaster have been anticipated and accounted for. The concepts of “luck” and “vulnerability” may better capture our inability to control and manage the possible use of nuclear weapons and therefore provide a more accurate understanding of the dangers posed by these weapons. [36]

IV. Conclusions

15. Research into the various immediate and long-term impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing is important in itself because it informs us of the unique characteristics of these weapons. Such research also provides a crucial basis for humanitarian preparedness and response, and is important in upholding the rights of the individuals and communities affected. The evidence of the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons is essential to assess the legality of their use under international humanitarian law (IHL) and it gives a fact-based entry point for discussions about nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, more broadly.

16. The evidence of harm caused by the use and testing of nuclear weapons takes on a renewed importance in a world in which the risk of nuclear weapons being used is increasing. From a humanitarian perspective, any measure to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons being used is to be welcomed. Indeed, preventing the use of nuclear weapons is of the utmost urgency. At the same time, nuclear risk reduction cannot become a substitute for the implementation of states’ legally binding obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament, notably those under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. [37] The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again is by prohibiting and eliminating them.

17. Although much is already known about the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons, there is a need for more research in certain areas. In particular, we need to understand more about the long-term humanitarian and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing, as well as the sex- and age-differentiated and, potentially, intergenerational consequences of ionizing radiation.

[1] Linh Schroeder, “The ICRC and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: Working Towards a Nuclear-Free World since 1945”, 2017: https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2018.1450623 , all web addresses accessed 8 July 2020; Jakob Kellenberger, “Bringing the era of nuclear weapons to an end”,statement by the President of the ICRC to the Geneva Diplomatic Corps, Geneva, 20 April 2010: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/statement/nuclear-weapons-statement-200410.htm .

[2] ICRC, “ICRC report on the effects of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima”, 2016: https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/icrc-report-effects-atomic-bomb-hiroshima .

[3] WHO, Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services, 1987: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39199 .

[4] John Borrie and Tim Caughley, An Illusion of Safety: Challenges of Nuclear Weapon Detonations for United Nations Humanitarian Coordination and Response, UNIDIR, 2014, pp. 8–15 for a contextual overview of research into the humanitarian consequences and capacities to respond to nuclear detonations: https://unidir.org/publication/illusion-safety-challenges-nuclear-weapon-detonations-united-nations-humanitarian .

[5] Alexander Kmentt, “The Humanitarian Consequences and Risks of Nuclear Weapons: Taking stock of the main findings and substantive conclusions”, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020 with an overview of the evidence presented at the three conferences; ILPI, “Evidence of Catastrophe: A summary of the facts presented at the three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons”, ILPI, 2015.

[6] Simon Bagshaw, Population Displacement: Displacement in the Aftermath of Nuclear Weapon Detonation Events, ILPI-UNIDIR, 2014: https://unidir.org/publication/population-displacement-displacement-aftermath-nuclear-weapon-detonation-events .

[7] Article 36, “Economic impact of a nuclear weapon detonation”, 2015: http://www.article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Economic-impact.pdf .

[8] Alan Robock et al., “Global Famine after a Regional Nuclear War: Overview of Recent Research”, 2014, presentation to the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons: https://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/Presentations/HINW14_S1_Presentation_Michael_Mills.pdf .

[9] Matthew McKinzie et al., “Calculating the Effects of a Nuclear Explosion at a European Military Base”, 2014, presentation to the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons: https://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/Presentations/HINW14_S1_Presentation_NRDC_ZAMG.pdf .

[10] Neil Buhne, “Social and economic impacts: Structural restoration of lives and livelihoods in and around affected areas”, 2013, presentation to the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, Oslo: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/hum/hum_buhne.pdf .

[11] Dominique Loye and Robin Coupland, “Who will assist the victims of use of nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons – and how?”, 2007: https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/who-will-assist-victims-use-nuclear-radiological-biological-or-chemical-weapons-and-how ; ICRC, “Humanitarian assistance in response to the use of nuclear weapons”, 2013: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/2013/4132-3-nuclear-weapons-humanitarian-assistance-2013.pdf ; John Borrie and Tim Caughley, An Illusion of Safety: Challenges of Nuclear Weapon Detonations for United Nations Humanitarian Coordination and Response, UNIDIR, 2014: https://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/an-illusion-of-safety-en-611.pdf .

[12] John Borrie, A Harmful Legacy: The Lingering Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Testing, ILPI-UNIDIR, 2014: https://unidir.org/publication/harmful-legacy-lingering-humanitarian-impacts-nuclear-weapons-testing ; Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde, Semipalatinks nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2014: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/powell2/docs/vakulchuk.pdf .

[13] Anne Guro Dimmen, Gendered Impacts: The Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons from a Gender Perspective, ILPI-UNIDIR, 2014: https://unidir.org/publication/gendered-impacts-humanitarian-impacts-nuclear-weapons-gender-perspective .

[14] Mary Olson, “Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2019: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2019.1603864 , presented to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020. (In November 2022, Olson corrected an error in one of her visualizations of the degree of difference in cancer outcomes from the exposure of young girls and adult males, respectively: A Correction — Gender + Radiation Impact Project )

[15] Maveric K.I.L. Abella et al., “Background gamma radiation and soil activity measurements in the northern Marshall Islands”,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 2019: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/31/15425.full.pdf ; Emlyn W. Hughes et al., “Radiation maps of ocean sediment from the Castle Bravo crater”, PNAS, 2019: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/31/15420.full.pdf ; Carlisle E. W. Topping et al., “In situ measurement of cesium-137 contamination in fruits from the northern Marshall Islands”, PNAS, 2019: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/31/15414.full.pdf ; R. Giles Harrison et al., “Precipitation Modification by Ionization”, Physical Review Letters, 2020: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.198701 .

[16] Kathleen M. Tucker and Robert Alvarez, “Trinity: “The most significant hazard of the entire Manhattan Project””, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2019: https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/trinity-the-most-significant-hazard-of-the-entire-manhattan-project/ ; Keith Meyers, “Some Unintended Fallout from Defense Policy: Measuring the Effect of Atmospheric Nuclear Testing on American Mortality Patterns”, 2019: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59262540b3db2b0d0d6d7d2b/t/5c81809a419202f922f0cfa4/1551990940274/Fallo%20utMortDraft_3-5-2019.pdf .

[17] Alan Robock et al., “How an India-Pakistan nuclear war could start–and have global consequences”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2019: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/IndiaPakistanBullAtomSci.pdf .

[18] Jonas Jägermeyr et al., “A regional nuclear conflict would compromise global food security”, PNAS, 2020: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/JagermeyrPNAS.pdf .

[19] Nicole S. Lovenduski et al., “The Potential Impact of Nuclear Conflict on Ocean Acidification”, Geophysical Research Letters, 2020: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL086246 .

[20] Beyza Unal, Patricia Lewis and Sasan Aghlani, “The Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Testing: Regional Responses and Mitigation Measures”, Chatham House, 2017: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/humanitarian-impacts-nuclear-testing-regional-responses-and-mitigation-measures .

[21] Susanne Rust, “How the U.S. betrayed the Marshall Islands, kindling the next nuclear disaster”, Los Angeles Times, 2019: https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/ .

[22] Wudan Yan, “The nuclear sins of the Soviet Union live on in Kazakhstan”, Nature, 2019: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01034-8 .

[23] Johnny Magaleno, “Algerians suffering from French atomic legacy, 55 years after nuke tests”, Al Jazeera, 2015: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/1/algerians-suffering-from-french-atomic-legacy-55-years-after-nuclear-tests.html .

[24] Lilly Adams, “The human cost of nuclear weapons is not only a “feminine” concern”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2019: https://thebulletin.org/2019/11/the-human-cost-of-nuclear-weapons-is-not-only-a-feminine-concern .

[25] Masaki Koyanagi, presentation to the Second International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, 2014: https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/nayarit-2014/statements/Hibakusha-Koyanagi.pdf , giving the perspective of a third-generation hibakusha. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) is currently carrying out a research programme on the children of atomic-bomb survivors.

[26] Mary Olson, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020.

[27] Patricia Lewis et al., “Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy”, Chatham House, 2014: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/199200 .

[28] Alexander Kmentt, “The Humanitarian Consequences and Risks of Nuclear Weapons: Taking stock of the main findings and substantive conclusions”, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020. The point was also made in the statement, “Never again: Nagasaki must be the last atomic bombing”, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 2017: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/never-again-nagasaki-must-be-last-atomic-bombing .

[29] Matt Korda, “The Key Drivers of Nuclear Risk”, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020; Wilfred Wan, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020. For an overview of nuclear modernization programmes, see Benjamin Zala, “How the next nuclear arms race will be different from the last one”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2019: https://thebulletin.org/2019/01/how-the-next-nuclear-arms-race-will-be-different-from-the-last-one/ ; Nuclear Notebook: https://thebulletin.org/nuclear-risk/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-notebook/ for updated public information about nuclear weapons programmes.

[30] Ibid. For a discussion about the risk implications of changing doctrines, see Ankit Panda, “Multipolarity, Great Power Competition, and Nuclear Risk Reduction”, chapter three in Wilfred Wan (ed.), Nuclear Risk Reduction: Closing Pathways to Use, 2020: https://unidir.org/publication/nuclear-risk-reduction-closing-pathways-use .

[31] Ibid. Yasmin Afina, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020; For the risk implications of digital technology in nuclear command, see Beyza Unal and Patricia Lewis, “Cybersecurity of Nuclear Weapons Systems: Threats, Vulnerabilities and Consequences”, Chatham House, 2018: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/cybersecurity-nuclear-weapons-systems-threats-vulnerabilities-and-consequences . For the risk implications of technological developments, see John Borrie, “Nuclear risk and the technological domain: a three-step approach”, chapter four in Wilfred Wan (ed.), Nuclear Risk Reduction: Closing Pathways to Use, 2020: https://unidir.org/publication/nuclear-risk-reduction-closing-pathways-use .

[32] Ibid. For a discussion about the risk implications of the evaporation of arms control, see Ankit Panda, “Multipolarity, Great Power Competition, and Nuclear Risk Reduction”, chapter three in Wilfred Wan (ed.), Nuclear Risk Reduction: Closing Pathways to Use, 2020: https://unidir.org/publication/nuclear-risk-reduction-closing-pathways-use .

[34] Wilfred Wan, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020; Wilfred Wan (ed.), Nuclear Risk Reduction: Closing Pathways to Use, 2020, chapter one: https://unidir.org/publication/nuclear-risk-reduction-closing-pathways-use .

[35] Yasmin Afina, presentation to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020; Beyza Unal and Patricia Lewis, “Cybersecurity of Nuclear Weapons Systems: Threats, Vulnerabilities and Consequences”, Chatham House, 2018: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/cybersecurity-nuclear-weapons-systems-threats-vulnerabilities-and-consequences ; James M. Acton, “Escalation Through Entanglement: How the Vulnerability of Command-and-Control Systems Raises the Risks of an Inadvertent Nuclear War”, International Security, 2018: https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/08/08/escalation-through-entanglement-how-vulnerability-of-command-and-control-systems-raises-risks-of-inadvertent-nuclear-war-pub-77028 .

[36] Benoît Pelopidas, “The unbearable lightness of luck: Three sources of overconfidence in the manageability of nuclear crises”, European Journal of International Security, 2017: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/unbearable-lightness-of-luck-three-sources-of-overconfidence-in-the-manageability-of-nuclear-crises/BDE95895C04E7E7988D15DB4F217D1E4 ; Benoît Pelopidas, “Power, luck, and scholarly responsibility at the end of the world(s),” International Theory, 2020: https://spire.sciencespo.fr/notice/2441/2gpssdhlp88r38vuhhl2h9et2v ; Papers presented to the ICRC and IFRC expert meeting in Geneva on 2 March 2020.

[37] UN, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Article VI: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/ ; International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons”, ICJ, 8 July 1996, paras. 99–101: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/7497.pdf .

83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nuclear weapon topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy nuclear weapon essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on nuclear weapon, ❓ research questions about nuclear weapons.

• Was the US Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb? In addition to unleashing catastrophic damage upon the people of Japan, the dropping of the bombs was the beginning of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
• Means of Destruction & Atomic Bomb Use Politics This information relates to the slide concerning atomic energy, which also advocates for the participation of the Manhattan Project’s researchers and policy-makers in the decision to atomic bombing during World War II.
• Truman’s Decision the Dropping an Atomic Bomb The operations planned for late 1945 and early 1946 were to be on mainland Japan, and the military fatalities on both sides, as well as civilian deaths, would have very certainly outweighed the losses caused […]
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb? The fact is that a nuclear reactor is not designed in the same way as an atomic bomb, as such, despite the abundance of material that could cause a nuclear explosion, the means by which […]
• Ethics and Sustainability. Iran’s Nuclear Weapon The opponents of Iran’s nuclear program explain that the country’s nuclear power is a threat for the peace in the world especially with regards to the fact that Iran is a Muslim country, and its […]
• The Decision to Drop the Atom Bomb President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision of unprecedented complexity and gravity and, without a doubt, the most difficult decision of his life.
• E. B. Sledge’s Views on Dropping the A-Bomb There is a pointed effort to present to the reader the reality of war in all its starkness and raw horror. However, in the case of a war veteran like E.B.
• The Atomic Bomb of Hiroshima The effects of the bombing were devastating; the explosion had a blast equivalent to approximately 13 kilotons of TNT. Sasaki says that hospitals were teaming with the wounded people, those who managed to survive the […]
• Middle East: Begin Doctrine and Nuclear Weapon Free Zone This happens to be the case despite the fact that many countries and different members of the UN have always been opposed to the validity and applicability of this foreign doctrine or policy.
• Atomic Bomb as a Necessary Evil to End WWII Maddox argued that by releasing the deadly power of the A-bomb on Japanese soil, the Japanese people, and their leaders could visualize the utter senselessness of the war.
• Nuclear Weapon Associated Dangers and Solutions The launch of a nuclear weapon will not only destroy the infrastructure but also lead to severe casualties that will be greater than those during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
• Why the US Decided to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan? One of the most notable stains on America’s reputation, as the ‘beacon of democracy,’ has to do with the fact that the US is the only country in the world that had used the Atomic […]
• The Marshallese and Nuclear Weapon Testing The other effects that the Marshallese people suffered as a result of nuclear weapon testing had to do with the high levels of radiations that were released.
• Was the American Use of the Atomic Bomb Against Japan in 1945 the Final Act of WW2 or the Signal That the Cold War Was About to Begin Therefore, to evaluate the reasons that guided the American government in their successful attempt at mass genocide of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one must consider not only the political implications behind the actions […]
• Leo Szilard’s Petition on the Atomic Bomb The group of scientists who created the weapon of mass destruction tried to prevent the usage of atomic bombs with the help of providing the petition to the President.
• Atomic Audit: Nuclear Posture Review Michael notes that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear bombs, tends to qualify the infiltration of security threats in the United States and across the world.
• The Use of Atomic Bomb in Japan: Causes and Consequences The reason why the United States was compelled to employ the use of a more lethal weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan has been at the heart of many scholarly writings.
• The Tradition of Non Use of Nuclear Weapon It is worth noting that since 1945 the concept of non use of nuclear weapons have occupied the minds of scholars, the general public and have remain the most and single important issues in the […]
• Was it Necessary for the US to Drop the Atomic Bomb? When it comes to discussing whether it was necessary to drop atomic bombs on Japan’s cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, it is important to take into account the specifics of geopolitical […]
• Iran and Nuclear Weapon However, whether world leaders take action or not, Iran is about to get the nukes, and the first target will be Israel followed by American and the rest of the world.
• An Analysis of the United States’ Nuclear Weapon and the Natural Resources Used to Maintain it
• The Rise Of The Nuclear Weapon Into A Political Weapon
• Iran: Nuclear Weapon and United States
• Military And Nuclear Weapon Development During The Cold War
• Nuclear Weapons And Responsibility Of A Nuclear Weapon
• The Trinity Project: Testing The Effects of a Nuclear Weapon
• An Analysis of the First Nuclear Weapon Built in 1945
• The Problem With Nuclear Weapons Essay – Nuclear weapon
• The Soviet Union Tested A Nuclear Weapon
• An Argument in Favor of Nuclear Weapon Abolition
• An Analysis of the Major Problem in Nuclear Weapon in World Today
• WWII and the Lack of Nuclear Weapon Security
• The Controversy Of Indivisible Weapons Composition – Cold War, Nuclear weapon
• The Never Ending Genocide : A Nuclear Weapon, Stirring Debate
• Nuclear Weapon Should Be Destroyed from All Countries
• Atomic Dragon: Chinese Nuclear Weapon Development and the Risk of Nuclear War
• The Nuclear Weapon Of Mass Destruction
• Nuclear Weapon Programmes of India and Pakistan: A Comparative Assessment
• Use of Hydroelectric Dams and the Indian Nuclear Weapon Problem
• Detente: Nuclear Weapon And Cuban Missile Crisis
• The Danger Of Indivisible Weapons – Nuclear weapon, Cool War
• Terrorism: Nuclear Weapon and Pretty High Likelihood
• The United States and Nuclear Weapon
• Nuclear Weapon And Foreign Policy
• The Environmental and Health Issues of Nuclear Weapon in Ex-Soviet Bloc’s Environmental Crisis
• Science: Nuclear Weapon and Supersonic Air Crafts
• Justified Or Unjustified: America Builds The First Nuclear Weapon
• The Controversial Issue of the Justification for the Use of Nuclear Weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to End World War II
• Using Of Nuclear Weapon In Cold War Period
• Nuclear Weapon Funding In US Defense Budget
• Nuclear Weapon: Issues, Threat and Consequence Management
• An Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantage of Nuclear Weapon
• The Repercussion Of The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon Threat On Globe
• A History of the SALT I and SALT II in Nuclear Weapon Treaties
• Free Hiroshima And Nagasaki: The Development And Usage Of The Nuclear Weapon
• The World ‘s First Nuclear Weapon
• The Effects Of Nuclear Weapon Development On Iran
• What Nuclear Weapons and How It Works?
• Can Nuclear Weapons Destroy the World?
• What Happens if a Nuclear Bomb Goes Off?
• Why Do Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?
• What Food Would Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why North Korea Should Stop It Nuclear Weapons Program?
• How Far Underground Do You Need to Be to Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned?
• Why Is There Such Focus on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as Opposed to Other Kinds of Weapons?
• How Long Would It Take for Earth to Be Livable After a Nuclear War?
• What Are the Problems With Nuclear Weapons?
• How Have the Threats Posed by Nuclear Weapons Evolved Over Time?
• How Would the World Be Different if Nuclear Weapons Were Small Enough and Easy Enough to Make to Be Sold on the Black Market?
• How Big Is the Probability of Nuclear Weapons During Terrorism?
• Why Are Nuclear Weapons Important?
• Why Have Some Countries Chosen to Pursue Nuclear Weapons While Others Have Not?
• How Far Do You Need to Be From a Nuclear Explosion?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Keep Peace?
• Can a Nuclear Weapon Be Stopped?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Expire?
• What Do Nuclear Weapons Do to Humans?
• What Does the Case of South Africa Tell Us About What Motivates Countries to Develop or Relinquish Nuclear Weapons?
• Should One Person Have the Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons?
• Does the World Need Nuclear Weapons at All, Even as a Deterrent?
• Will Most Countries Have Nuclear Weapons One Day?
• North Korea Titles
• Global Issues Essay Topics
• Third World Countries Research Ideas
• US History Topics
• Cold War Topics
• Evacuation Essay Topics
• Hazardous Waste Essay Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/

"83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

16 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons

How does one keep a society safe at a national level?

In the past, city-states would build walls to protect the population. As technologies advanced, nations rushed to develop deadlier weapons than their enemies so that the threat of loss was greater than the reward of taking territory.

Those technologies have now developed into nuclear weapons. The destructive power of a nuclear weapon is just one threat to consider. The radioactive fallout from such a weapon can cause long-term consequences for a population that was close to the explosion. Radiated soil, weapon debris, and radioactive particles falling from the sky are all threats that must be taken seriously, which means a nation with nuclear weapons provides a great threat to a potential invader.

If enough nuclear weapons are launched and allowed to detonate, however, then life as we know it on our planet will cease to exist. Any survivors would be forced to endure unthinkable conditions.

Here are the essential pros and cons of nuclear weapons to consider.

The Pros of Nuclear Weapons

1. It is a deterrent for starting a major conflict. Only a handful of nations are armed with nuclear weapons. The US and Russia have the most weapons, but France, China, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan all have more than 100 weapons. The presence of these weapons and their immense destructive capabilities is a major deterrent for starting a major conflict, like the two world wars that are fought in the first half of the 20th century. Even when both nations have nuclear weapons, their mutually assured destruction is enough to cause diplomacy to rule the day.

2. It reinforces national borders. Our society is becoming ever-more global. Because of the internet, communications improvements, and other technological advances, we can talk with anyone, anywhere, with a simple data connection. New transportation technologies are in development that can provide long-distance transportation at speeds which were unthinkable just a generation ago. By reinforcing national borders, a global society of cooperation can be built through negotiation and diplomacy instead of warfare.

3. It changes the power and status of a nation. Countries with nuclear weapons are treated different on the global stage than countries without those weapons. North Korea may only have a dozen or so nuclear weapons at best estimate, but their demands are taken with an extra level of seriousness and scrutiny because they have developed rudimentary nuclear weapon technology. Because there is a desire to avoid such a devastating conflict, most nations with nuclear weapons can generally get what they want on-demand.

4. They can be fired without a direct threat to personnel. The nuclear weapons dropped in Japan were carried by bombers, staffed with a flight crew. Rockets can be fired remotely from stations and intercontinental ballistic technologies can let someone manage the weapon from thousands of miles away. Nuclear weapons do not require a battlefield presence in the same way a conventional weapon may require.

5. Nuclear weapons can be positioned in a variety of locations. Submarines and naval craft can be outfitted with nuclear weapons so that they can be fired from any ocean-based location on the planet. Storage silos, buried underground, can fire ICBM-outfitted nuclear weapons. They can be fired from remote trucks, put into aircraft missiles, or still be dropped by bombers like they were in the 1940s. The versatility of positioning that a nuclear weapon offers is quite profound.

6. They provide the foundations for other technologies. The technologies that have helped to create nuclear weapons have fostered other technologies that have benefited society in many ways. Nuclear power provides a relatively clean source of energy that is used to power hundreds of thousands of homes around the world. Nuclear reactors have been used to build naval vessels. Many types of nuclear-powered propulsion have been proposed for future spacecraft.

7. It is a highly reliable technology. As a power source, nuclear energy can run uninterrupted for more than a year without disruption, even during difficult weather conditions. The refinement of a nuclear weapon is similar to this advantage. Once installed, the delivery platform reliability of the weapon is strong. Even if the warheads are not modernized, the surety of the weapon and its readiness make it a consistent threat that cannot be ignored.

The Cons of Nuclear Weapons

1. They have added development and maintenance costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States spends an estimated $34.8 billion per year to maintain, operate, and upgrade its nuclear weapons arsenal. Estimates from Nuclear Threat Initiative suggest the figures may be a little lower, but still costing the US up to $25 billion per year. To put that in perspective, an investment into food products at that level would provide up to 75 billion meals for those living in poverty.

2. Detonation has a major ethical impact. Only two cities have ever been directly affected by nuclear weapons in history. Both were in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just two bombs caused the death of over 129,000 people, with many of them being civilians. Acute effects from the bombs may have contributed to the deaths of over 250,000 additional people in the following decades. Even if military complexes are struck with a nuclear weapon, there will be civilian casualties.

3. There are environmental concerns which must be considered with a detonation. Since 1945, the testing of nuclear weapons has caused more than 2,100 detonations that have happened around the globe. Some have occurred underwater, while others have occurred underground. Every detonation creates radiation that, if someone were exposed to it, could create grave consequences. The threat of multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations could create a prolonged winter that would ravage the planet and potentially cause all life to cease.

4. It provides a major terror threat. The size of a nuclear weapon is relatively small. With terrorism on the rise around the world, the threat of a “dirty bomb” cannot be ignored. A terrorist group with a nuclear weapon could cause immense and immediate damage that could change the path of an entire society. The Patriot Act of 2001 was in response to airplanes being flown into buildings. Imagine would the aftermath of a nuclear explosion could be.

5. Waste from the development of nuclear weapons must be stored somewhere. The challenges of storing nuclear waste are evident at the Hanford Site in Washington State. It was the location of the world’s first plutonium production reactor. Up to 9 nuclear reactors and 5 plutonium processors were operating at once, creating 60,000 weapons for the US nuclear arsenal. Now the radioactive waste is stored in 177 storage tanks. Breaches and leaks are still a very real threat, despite the lack of production that occurs there today.

6. It is a non-renewable resource. Nuclear fuels are plutonium and uranium, which are radioactive metals. This means it is a resource that is non-renewable. Even if the all the nuclear energy from weapons was transitioned into usable energy that wouldn’t produce carbon dioxide, any accident could create a threat to human health that could potentially last for thousands of years. In many ways, nuclear technologies are much like fossil fuels, but with a different threat to the environment.

7. A nuclear weapon can fail because of a degraded delivery system. Even if the nuclear weapon is viable, the delivery system for the weapon may not be viable. Many nuclear weapons are being maintained with delivery systems that have not been modernized. In the US, the current stock of ICBM nuclear weapons is expected to remain in service until 2032. Submarine-based nuclear weapons are expected to remain in service until 2042. Unless delivery systems are upgraded and maintained in the same way as their weapon counterparts, they may not be an effective deterrent.

8. They require a skilled workforce to operate. Although nuclear weapons can be operated from a distance, a skilled workforce is required to make them a useful tool. Scientists, engineers, and operators are critical to the viability of any nuclear weapon. Without a skilled workforce in support, the safety and security of the nuclear weapons becomes doubtful and that doubt can be enough to make the weapons less of a deterrent.

9. Testing must require a detonation at some point. Computer simulations can show the effects of a nuclear weapon and what an expected fallout happens to be. To determine if the technology is viable, however, an actual detonation must take place. Since July 1945, the United States has fired over 1,100 nuclear weapon as part of the testing process. No tests have been conducted, however, since September 1992.

The pros and cons of nuclear weapons show that they can serve as a deterrent and support “positive” technologies. There is just one question that continues to remain unanswered: what will happen if someone finally calls the bluff and attacks a nation with nuclear capabilities? It is the potential answer to that questions which should cause everyone to pause and consider the continued need for these weapons.

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are explosive devices that create a destructive force due to the fission or fusion reactions it creates upon detonation. There are several names for this technology, including atom bombs, nukes, a-bombs, and nuclear warheads, but it all works to describe the same technology.

There have only been two times when nuclear weapons were deployed in war. Both of the incidents were initiated by the United States against Japan near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945, the Army Air Forces detonated a fission bomb that was nicknamed Little Boy over the city of Hiroshima. Three days later, the implosion-type Fat Man was detonated over the city of Nagasaki. These two incidents caused injuries that resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 civilians and military personnel, along with several Americans and Allied troops in the area.

Since these two wartime incidents, there have been over 2,000 detonations of nuclear weapons for demonstration and testing purposes. Despite this high number, only a few countries possess these weapons or are suspected of seeking them. South Africa is the only country on the planet to have independently developed this technology and then renounced and dismantled what they created.

List of the Advantages of Nuclear Weapons

1. It reinforces the idea of nationalism from a border-based perspective. The reality of human existence is that people tend to go toward the areas of the planet where the most resources are available. This pattern of behavior dates all of the way back to the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. When governments take action to defend their borders, then they are creating a method of organization that allows for the effective distribution of needed items to their citizens and the world beyond.

Even though a borderless world seems like it could be an excellent idea, borders create an environment where cooperation between cultures becomes a requirement for survival. It forces us to develop an approach that seeks diplomacy first instead of launching missiles whenever someone does something that isn’t liked.

2. Nuclear weapons do serve as a deterrent to a global conflict. One of the primary reasons why there hasn’t been another global war since the 1940s is because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Only a handful of countries possess or share this technology with others, and most nations that do have access to this technology have fewer than 100 weapons. The destructive capabilities in the hands of the military were put on full display over Japan at the end of World War II, and no one wants to go through something like that again. The threat of being over-powered or having mutually-assured destruction is enough to prevent the world’s superpowers from escalating a conflict to the point that a military confrontation becomes necessary.

3. This technology creates a bargaining chip for countries that need it. Israel is believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons, but their government does not officially report this status. North Korea has independently developed this technology since then end of the Korean War, giving it a seat at the negotiation table to the point that President Donald Trump has visited with the leadership of the country on multiple occasions. The threat of devastation from this tech is so great that it forces other nations to listen to what the other has to say. Since there is a desire to avoid the outcomes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is not unusual for concessions to be made to those with the greatest power.

4. Nuclear weapons reduce the threat to a country’s military forces. Today’s nuclear weapons have the ability to fly over 1,000 miles to strike a target with precision. Even the nations with “subpar” technology in this area, such as North Korea, can fly their missiles are enough to impact the sovereignty of another nation. The Skyfall project in Russia presents the idea of equipping a small nuclear reactor to a missile so that it can operate almost indefinitely. Because the deployment of these weapons can occur remotely, there is less of a threat of casualties or loss if an order comes through to launch. It’s not like the 1940s when bombers carried the weapons with an entire flight crew.

5. Governments can position nuclear weapons to a variety of launch locations. Portable launch vehicles make it possible to locate nuclear weapons at almost any point on land. Government installations allow for underground storage and launch capabilities at numerous development sites across their country. Naval tech, including submarines, can support this firepower as well.

Nuclear weapons provide just as much flexibility as their conventional counterparts with this support technology. One can even drop them from a bomber as they did in the 1940s if that is preferred or issue a remote command. This versatility is a definite advantage when considering the overall scope of what this tech can do.

6. Nuclear weapons helped us to create new technologies in other sectors. Even though the destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, the concepts of fission and fusion have helped us to develop a variety of technologies over the year in several different industries. Approximately 10% of the electricity the world uses every year comes from nuclear reactors. Medical practices that use nuclear techniques can help to diagnose and treat diseases when conventional options may not be available or useful. We use nuclear engines on naval craft, and we are exploring this option for space travel as well.

Many people around the world are using the power of nuclear technology to read this content right now. The idea of using it as a weapon may be incomprehensible, but it at least allows us to do good things for the human race too.

7. The reliability of nuclear weapons is one of its greatest attributes. Nuclear fission can operate for up to three years without disruption, which is why it is such a useful option for power generation. When we use the refinement processes with nuclear weapons, this advantage presents itself as well. You can install a missile on a delivery platform, and then have it ready to launch for years on standby mode with a minimum amount of maintenance. It is a technology that increases the readiness factor of a government and its protective capacity while still reducing the threat of war because of the principles of mutually assured destruction.

List of the Disadvantages of Nuclear Weapons

1. There will always be moral and ethical debates about the use of nuclear weapons. We can point to the two cities in Japan that experienced a direct detonation to speak to this advantage. The mass loss of civilian life from nuclear weapons would go far beyond what any mass shooter in the United States would create.

We must also look at the more than 2,000 test explosions that researchers generated in their quest to develop this technology. The primary human-made contribution to the exposure of the world’s population to radiation has come from testing these weapons in the atmosphere from 145-1980. Each test resulted in the unrestrained release into the environment of radioactive materials that dispersed and deposited everywhere on the planet.

2. Nuclear weapon detonations are directly connected to cancer development. Ionizing radiation is a scientifically-proven carcinogen in humans. It is directly linked to most forms of leukemia, thyroid cancer, and cancers in the breast and lungs. The time that can elapse between the exposure to the radiation and the development of a malignancy can be anywhere between 10-40 years. When we look at the degrees of exposure that scientists thought were tolerable in the 1950s, it is clear to see that they were unsafe – and that position is now backed by international recognition of what nuclear weapons can cause.

3. There are direct costs attributed to a government’s nuclear weapons program. The United States spends about $35 billion every year to build, upgrade, operate, and maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile it owns. Figures from Russia where there are a similar number of weapons are about equal. Even third-party estimates of the expense to maintain an entire portfolio of these explosive devices place the expense at $25 billion or higher. That means we could take the money that we spend on these destructive devices, switch it to food development, and cure global hunger overnight with that amount of money.

The figures in this disadvantage don’t include the potential medical costs of over 2.7 million people who may develop cancer over the years because of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

4. Nuclear weapons devastate the environment. The United States tested a massive hydrogen bomb on Bikini Atoll in 1954. It’s more than 65 years later, but this location in the Marshall Islands chain is still not livable. Some of the exiled families say that they are too fearful ever to go back. The U.S. government declared that it was safe to resettle some residents in the 1970s, but they were removed in 1978 after officials discovered that the foods grown on the island contained high levels of radiation. The Nuclear Claims Tribunal has awarded more than $2 billion in land damage and personal injury claims over the years, but it has stopped paying since its compensation fund is entirely exhausted.

There was a total of 67 tests conducted on the Marshall Islands, with the last one occurring in 1958. A 2012 report from the United Nations found that the conditions there are still not livable. This devastation means that the land around a test site or detonation event remains unusable unless there is a targeted and expensive cleanup effort that takes place.

5. The use of nuclear weapons creates a significant threat of terrorism. The Nuclear Threat Initiative works to create a better world from Washington, D.C. by working to prevent terrorism with these harmful weapons. The number of countries that are storing the dangerous materials that could lead to atomic weaponization has decreased from 52 in 1992 to a little over 30 today. Terrorist organizations now have easier access to the materials and knowledge needed to build these weapons as well. Some have even declared their intent to seek the necessary materials to create mass destruction.

If we have nuclear weapons, then we will always have the threat of loss that terrorism could provide. In February 2003 in Tennessee, the final testing of a new saltless uranium processing method created a small explosion and fire. Several incidents that date to the 1940s involve missiles exploding, bombs being accidentally dropped, and similar incidents where it would be possible for a terrorist organization to get their hands on this material if they were to act quickly enough.

6. The development of nuclear weapons creates hazardous waste. There are more than 14,000 metric tons of nuclear waste managed in the United States because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Washington State, at the Hanford Site, once at five plutonium processors and nine nuclear reactors operating simultaneously to produce over 60,000 weapons for the American arsenal. The hazardous waste from these activities is still in storage there in almost 200 tanks, where the threat of a leak can still create health problems for workers more than 50 years later.

The United States does not have a nuclear waste repository where the materials can be safely stored. That means that local storage takes place, requiring extensive management techniques that can create its own set of problems in the future.

7. Degraded delivery systems can cause a nuclear weapon to fail. The storage time for a nuclear weapon may not cause it to degrade as much as conventional devices, but the delivery systems for them to not contain the same advantages. It is possible for the detonation to fail in a variety of ways because the supportive tech does not have the same lifespan benefits. The American stock of intercontinental ballistic missiles is expected to remain in service until at least the year 2032, while naval-based installations on submarines have an additional decade of protective support. Once those deadlines are reached, then the deterrent power of the tech will not have the same impact that it does today.

8. We create nuclear weapons from non-renewable resources. We typically create nuclear weapons from uranium or plutonium, which are both radioactive elements that we harvest from the planet. A third option, called thorium, can come from the waste of nuclear reactors. If we were to transition all of the energy potentials from these destructive devices to provide an emissions-free result, there would still be the risk of a meltdown or reactor explosion that could adversely impact the planet in a variety of ways.

Since the half-life of the radiation produced by some of these technologies can be as much as 5,000 years, the problems that we create today are going to be an issue for future generations long after anyone who reads this content is forgotten.

9. It requires a specific skill set to develop or maintain nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have the capability of remote use, but it requires a skilled workforce to pull the trigger on this advantage. Engineers and scientists are necessary to ensure the viability of this technology throughout its lifetime. Military personnel can be trained to launch, operate, or direct the explosives, but they are not typically responsible for the upkeep work that they require. If the people who know how to manage this tech were to disappear for any reason, in any country, then there would be a significant increase in risk for that region and the rest of the world.

10. We are still dealing with the after-effects of nuclear weapons testing. The United States is responsible for over 50% of the total nuclear weapons tests that have taken place since the 1940s. This fact persists even though the American government last tested this technology in 1992. One example from this disadvantage comes from Project Rulison, which was an underground 40-kiloton nuclear test project that took place between the small towns of Rifle and Parachute in Colorado.

This project is unique because the goal was to study the impact of a nuclear weapon for the release of energy resources. The work found that it could liberate high levels of natural gas, but it also contaminated the fuel so that it was unsuitable for heating homes or cooking with it. A bugger zone is still in place around the site.

The issue with mutually-assured destruction is that it always leaves a lingering threat to the general population. If two superpowers decide to trade launches, such as Russia and the United States, then there would be global consequences to that decision. The life of a single human is more valuable than all of the nuclear weapons in stockpiles around the globe right now.

When we look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear weapons, the idea of a threat deterrent is not genuine peace. It is a race to create something bigger or more defensive in an arms battle that never seems to end. The use of significant conventional weapons without the threat of radiation exposure and the severe loss of civilian life could accomplish a similar goal.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay as a threat. We might not think about the idea of a missile falling from the sky every day, but history does teach us that we must continue to be vigilant about protecting ourselves and our families from the dangers these weapons create.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts essay sample 36 - the threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, the threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy. the benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages..

• IELTS Essay

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

Home — Essay Samples — War — Nuclear Weapon

Essays on Nuclear Weapon

Nuclear weapon essay topics for college students.

As a college student, choosing the right essay topic is crucial to the success of your assignment. This webpage is designed to provide you with a variety of nuclear weapon essay topics to spark your creativity and personal interest. By selecting a topic that resonates with you, you can produce a compelling and engaging essay that showcases your unique perspective and critical thinking skills.

Essay Types and Topics

Argumentative essay topics.

• The Ethical Implications of Nuclear Weapons
• Nuclear Proliferation and International Relations
• The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Modern Warfare

Example Paragraph: The development and use of nuclear weapons has been a controversial topic for decades. As the world grapples with the ethical considerations surrounding these powerful weapons, it is essential to explore the implications and consequences of their existence.

Example Paragraph: The ethical implications of nuclear weapons are complex and multifaceted. It is crucial for policymakers and global leaders to consider the long-term effects of nuclear proliferation on international relations and the future of warfare.

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• Nuclear Weapons vs. Conventional Weapons: A Comparative Analysis
• The Cold War and Modern Nuclear Threats: A Comparative Study
• Nuclear Weapons in Fiction vs. Reality

Example Paragraph: The comparison of nuclear weapons and conventional weapons reveals significant differences in their destructive capabilities and strategic implications. By examining these differences, we can gain a deeper understanding of the impact of nuclear weaponry on global security.

Example Paragraph: In comparing nuclear weapons to conventional weapons, it becomes evident that the unique characteristics of nuclear arms pose distinct challenges and risks in modern warfare. Understanding these differences is essential for shaping effective international security policies.

Engagement and Creativity

Essay writing is not only an academic exercise but also an opportunity for you to engage with topics that interest you and develop your critical thinking and writing skills. As you explore the diverse essay topics provided, consider how you can infuse your personal creativity and perspective into your writing to make your essay compelling and thought-provoking.

Educational Value

Each essay type offers unique learning opportunities. Argumentative essays allow you to develop your analytical thinking and persuasive writing skills, while compare and contrast essays help you hone your ability to critically analyze and draw meaningful connections between different subjects. By exploring these essay topics, you can cultivate a versatile set of skills that will serve you well in your academic and professional endeavors.

The Dangers and Moral Implications of Nuclear Weapons

The threat of global nuclear war, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Movement Against Nuclear Weapon and Power Plants

The role of nuclear non-proliferation in determining world affairs, discussion of whether hiroshima and nagasaki bombing is justifiable, weapons of mass destruction, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Race of Nuclear Weapons Continues Today

Japan after hiroshima and nagasaki bombing in 1945: economical and political effects, treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons: a mirage, the consequences nuclear war, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Communist Threat: Atomic Bomb & Cold War

Great inventions of the world war ii, nuclear technology developments and its impact on warfare, the continuity and change of nuclear policy, changes in the world: the atomic bomb, nuclear industry: history of invention & consequences, the issue of north korea's denuclearization, anticommunist ideology in american history: "duck and cover", us-russia nuclear modernization – possible threat to security, the creation of the first atomic bomb, nato and its members' economic stance on weapons of mass destruction, the possibility of iran to start a nuclear war by getting nuclear weapons, how the atomic bomb invention contributed to the ww2 and the cold war, iran nuclear negotiation, what does the nature of the cnd us about the pressures of cold war, sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals, self-victimisation' of japan during world war ii, the atomic bomb, the atomic bomb's impression on scientific history, building the atomic bomb: history of atomic warfare, relevant topics.

• Vietnam War
• Israeli Palestinian Conflict
• Syrian Civil War
• Atomic Bomb
• The Spanish American War
• Treaty of Versailles

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Death of Iran’s President Could Change the World

By John Ghazvinian

Dr. Ghazvinian is executive director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

The uncertainty ushered in by the death of Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, in a helicopter crash, just weeks after an unprecedented exchange of military attacks with Israel, has brought a chilling question to mind: Is 2024 the year that Iran finally decides it can no longer take chances with its security and races to build a nuclear bomb?

Up to now, for reasons experts often debate, Iran has never made the decision to build a nuclear weapon, despite having at least most of the resources and capabilities it needs to do so, as far as we know. But Mr. Raisi’s death has created an opportunity for the hard-liners in the country who are far less allergic to the idea of going nuclear than the regime has been for decades.

Even before Mr. Raisi’s death, there were indications that Iran’s position might be starting to shift. The recent exchange of hostilities with Israel, a country with an undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal, has provoked a change of tone in Tehran. “We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine,” Kamal Kharrazi, a leading adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, said on May 9.

In April, a senior Iranian lawmaker and former military commander had warned that Iran could enrich uranium to the 90 percent purity threshold required for a bomb in “half a day, or let’s say, one week.” He quoted the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that the regime will “respond to threats at the same level,” implying that Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities would cause a rethinking of Iran’s nuclear posture.

Iran’s relationship with nuclear technology has always been ambiguous, even ambivalent. Both during the regime of the pro-western Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the 1960s and 1970s and the anti-American Islamic Republic that has held power since 1979, Iran has kept outside powers guessing and worrying about its nuclear intentions. But it has never made the decision to fully cross the threshold of weaponization. There are several important reasons for this, ranging from religious reservations about the morality of nuclear weapons to Iran’s membership in the global Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). But the biggest reason has been strategic.

Historically, Iran’s leaders have repeatedly concluded that they have more to gain from “playing by the rules” of the international nonproliferation order than they do from racing for the bomb. To do so, they would have to first withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty, which would immediately signal their intentions to the world and could invite American military intervention. At the same time, the revolutionary government has been reluctant to cave into Western demands and dismantle their program altogether, as that would demonstrate a different kind of weakness. Iran’s leaders are no doubt keenly aware of the example of Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, who agreed in 2003 to abandon his country’s nuclear program, only to find himself overthrown eight years later following military intervention by a NATO-led coalition.

That strategic happy medium has worked well for the Islamic Republic — until now. Two decades of dysfunctional U.S. nuclear policy toward Iran have created a dangerous dynamic, in which Iran enriches more uranium than it otherwise might, either as a defensive posture or a negotiating tactic, and gradually inches its way toward being able to make a weapon that it might not even really want.

When the U.S.-Iran nuclear dispute first emerged in the early 2000s, Iran had only 164 antiquated centrifuges and little real appetite for a weapons program. But the Bush administration’s unrealistic insistence that Iran agree to “zero enrichment” turned it into a matter of national pride. During the years that the Obama administration spent negotiating with Iran, the regime kept enriching uranium and adding to its stockpile, in part as a hedge against future concessions. And of course, President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018 and subsequent campaign of maximum pressure only added to Iran’s defiance.

Today, Iran has thousands of advanced centrifuges and a large stockpile of enriched uranium. This, in turn, has provoked some camps inside Iran to adopt a “might as well” argument for nuclear weaponization. If we’ve already come this far, the argument goes, then why not just go for a bomb?

Under Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran has remained adamant that it is better off demonstrating to the world its willingness to stay within the nonproliferation treaty. But in recent years, as Western sanctions have piled up and Iran’s economy has been strangled, hard-liners have occasionally suggested that the country has gained nothing from this posture and might be better off following the “North Korea model”— that is, pulling out of the nonproliferation treaty and racing for a bomb as North Korea did in 2003. Until now, these voices have been quickly marginalized, as it’s clear the supreme leader does not share the sentiment. An early 2000s fatwa, or religious ruling, by Ayatollah Khamenei declared nuclear weapons to be “forbidden under Islam” and decreed that “the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.”

Mr. Raisi’s death has quickly and dramatically shifted the landscape. A regime that had already begun to drift into militarism and domination by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (I.R.G.C.) now risks moving more firmly into this camp. Some in the I.R.G.C. see the fatwa as outdated: One senior former regime official recently told me that the top brass of the corps is “itching” to engineer the fatwa’s reversal — and will most likely do so at the first opportunity.

Regardless of who wins the snap presidential election that now must be held by early July, the ultimate succession battle will be for the role of supreme leader, and the I.R.G.C. is likely to play a decisive role in the transition. The late president was seen as a front-runner to succeed the 85-year-old ayatollah. Now, other than Ayatollah Khamenei’s son, there are few strong contenders. Whoever prevails is likely to rely heavily on the I.R.G.C. for his legitimacy.

Historically, Iran has felt a nuclear hedging strategy is its best defense against external aggression and invasion. And Tehran may continue to calculate that racing for a bomb would only invite more hostility, including from the United States. Then again, an increasingly distracted and unpredictable Washington might not be in a position to react forcefully against a sudden and rapid Iranian rush for a bomb, especially if Iran chooses its moment wisely.

Between the war in Gaza, a possible change in American leadership, and a domestic power vacuum that the I.R.G.C. could step into, it is not difficult to imagine a brief window in which Iran could pull out the stops and surprise the world by testing a nuclear device.

Would I bet the house on this scenario? Perhaps not. But from the perspective of a historian, the possibility of an Iranian rush for a bomb has never felt more real than it does today.

John Ghazvinian is executive director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present.” He is working on a book on the history of Iran’s nuclear program.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Take the Quiz: Find the Best State for You »

What's the best state for you ».

Russia Fails in Rival UN Bid on Nuclear, Other Weapons in Space

FILE PHOTO: The sun shines behind the United Nations Secretariat Building at the United Nations Headquarters, in New York City, New York, U.S., June 18, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -A Russian-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution that called on all countries to prevent "for all time" the placement, threat or use of any weapons in outer space failed on Monday with the 15-member body split over the move.

The draft failed to get the minimum nine votes needed: seven members voted in favor and seven against, while one abstained. A veto can only be cast by the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France if a draft gets at least nine votes.

Russia put forward the text after it vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution last month that called on countries to prevent an arms race in outer space. The Russian veto prompted the United States to question whether Moscow was hiding something.

"We are here today because Russia seeks to distract global attention from its development of a new satellite carrying a nuclear device," deputy U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood told the Security Council before the vote.

He also accused Russia of launching a satellite on Thursday into low Earth orbit that the U.S. "assesses is likely a counterspace weapon presumably capable of attacking other satellites in low Earth orbit."

"Russia deployed this new counterspace weapon into the same orbit as a U.S. government satellite," said Wood, adding that the May 16 launch followed Russian satellite launches "likely of counterspace systems to low Earth orbit" in 2019 and 2022.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia responded: "I didn't even fully understand what he was talking about."

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty already bars signatories – including Russia and the United States – from placing "in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction."

Washington has accused Moscow of developing an anti-satellite nuclear weapon to put in space, an allegation that Russia has denied. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow was against putting nuclear weapons in space.

Nebenzia said the Russian draft resolution covered both weapons of mass destruction and all forms of other weapons and was aimed at stopping an arms race in outer space.

But, when pressed by Nebenzia, Wood took issue with language in the draft seeking "a lengthy binding mechanism that cannot be verified," saying, "I've seen this movie before."

The Russian draft had language echoing a 2008 proposal by Moscow and Beijing for a treaty banning "any weapons in outer space" and threats "or use of force against outer space objects," but the diplomatic effort did not find international support.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Photos You Should See - May 2024

Join the Conversation

Tags: United Nations , Russia , United States , Asia , Europe , space

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

The White House Hosts Kenya

Laura Mannweiler May 23, 2024

New Homes Sales Tumble

Tim Smart May 23, 2024

Trump 'Reich' Repost Falls in Line

Lauren Camera May 22, 2024

What to Know: Human Cases of Bird Flu

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 22, 2024

Louisiana’s Abortion Pill Bill

Nations Recognizing a Palestinian State

Elliott Davis Jr. and Julia Haines May 22, 2024

Russia begins nuclear drills in an apparent warning to West over Ukraine

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Russia’s military has begun drills involving tactical nuclear weapons that were announced by Russian authorities earlier this month in an apparent warning to senior Western officials who had spoken about the possibility of deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine.

It was the first time Russia has publicly announced drills involving tactical nuclear weapons , although its strategic nuclear forces regularly hold exercises.

According to a statement by the Defense Ministry released Tuesday, the first stage of the new drills envisioned “practical training in the preparation and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons,” including nuclear-capable Kinzhal and Iskander missiles.

The maneuvers are taking place in the Southern Military District, which consists of Russian regions in the south, including on the border with Ukraine; Crimea, illegally annexed from Ukraine in 2014; and four Ukrainian regions that Russia illegally annexed in 2022 and partially occupies.

The drills were announced on May 6, with the Defense Ministry saying in a statement that they would come in response to “provocative statements and threats of certain Western officials regarding the Russian Federation.”

Tactical nuclear weapons include air bombs, warheads for short-range missiles and artillery munitions and are meant for use on a battlefield. They are less powerful than the strategic weapons — massive warheads that arm intercontinental ballistic missiles and are intended to obliterate entire cities.

The announcement came after French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated that he doesn’t exclude sending troops to Ukraine, and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron said Kyiv’s forces will be able to use British long-range weapons to strike targets inside Russia. The Kremlin branded those comments as dangerous, heightening tension between Russia and NATO.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on May 6 that Macron’s statement and other remarks by British and U.S. officials had prompted the nuclear drills, calling the remarks “a new round of escalation.”

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Explosion at a sugar factory in eastern Tanzania kills 11 workers, including 3 foreigners

Police say an electric short at a sugar factory in Tanzania set off an explosion that killed 11 workers, including three foreign nationals

Brazil’s Rio Grande do Sul faces economic woes after floods, and an unclear path to rebuilding

Flooding in Brazil’s Rio Grande do Sul state ravaged nearly everything needed for economic activity, from local shops to factories, farms and ranches

Former South African president Jacob Zuma criticizes top court over election disqualification

Former South African President Jacob Zuma has criticized the country’s highest court and his former allies in the ruling African National Congress over his disqualification from next week’s election

Baltimore’s Catholic archdiocese will cut parishes as attendance falls and infrastructure ages

The Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore will cut the number of parishes in the city and nearby suburbs by about two-thirds

Pennsylvania Rep. Dwight Evans says he’s recovering from a minor stroke

Congressman Dwight Evans of Philadelphia says he’s in a rehabilitation facility recovering from a minor stroke, and plans to return to voting in Washington in about six weeks

Pakistan says United Arab Emirates to invest $10 billion in Pakistan

The Pakistani government says that the United Arab Emirates has committed to investing up to $10 billion in Pakistan during a meeting in the UAE capital between that country’s president and the Pakistani prime minister