THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR

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.

The shockwave and heat that the detonation of a single nuclear weapon creates can end the lives of millions of people immediately. But even larger is the devastation that would follow a nuclear war.

The first reason for this is nuclear fallout. Radioactive dust from the detonating bombs rises up into the atmosphere and spreads out over large areas of the world from where it falls down and causes deadly levels of radiation.

The second reason is less widely known. But this consequence- 'nuclear winter' and the worldwide famine that would follow- is now believed to be the most serious consequence of nuclear war.

Cities that are attacked by nuclear missiles burn at such intensity that they create their own wind system, a firestorm: hot air above the buring city ascends and is replaced by air that rushes in from all directions. The storm-force winds fan the flames and create immense heat. From this firestorm large columns of smokes and soot rise up above the burining cities and travel all the way to the stratosphere. There it spreads around the planet and blocks the sun's light. At that great height- far above the clouds- it cannot be rained out, meaning that it will remain there for years, darkeing the sky and thereby drying and chilling the planet.

The nuclear winter that would follow a large-scale nuclear war is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celcius in many of the world's agricultural regions- including much of Eurasia and North America. Nuclear winter would cause a 'nuclear famine'. The world's food production would fail and billions of people would starve.

These consequences- nuclear fallout and nuclear winter leading to famine- mean that the destruction caused by nuclear weapons is not contained to the battlefield. It would not just harm the attacked country. Nuclear war would devastate all countries, including the attacker.

The possibility of global devastation is what makes the prospect of nuclear war so very terrifying. And it is also why nuclear weapons are so unattractive for warfare. A weapon that can lead to self-destruction is not a weapon that can be used strategically.

There are still almost ten thousand nuclear weapons distributed among nine countries on our planet, at least. Each of these weapons can cause enormous destruction; many are larger than the ones that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Collectively these weapons are immensely destructive. The nuclear scenario outlined above would kill billions of people- billions- in the years that follow a large-scale nuclear war, even if it was fought 'only' with today's stockpiles.

It is unclear whether humanity as a species could possibly survive a full-scale nuclear war with the current stockpiles. A nuclear war might well be humanity's final war.

The 'balance of terror' is the idea that all involved political leaders are so scared of nuclear war that they never launch a nuclear attack.

If this is achievable at all, it can only be achieved if all nuclear powers keep their weapons in check. This is because the balance is vulnerable to accidents: a nuclear bomb that detonates accidentally- or even just a false alarm, with no weapons even involved- can trigger nuclear retaliation because several countries keep their nuclear wepons on 'launch on warning'; in response to a warning, their leaders can decide within minutes whether they want to launch a retaliatory strike.

For the balance of terror to be a balance, all parties need to be in control at all times. This however is not the case.

The risk of nuclear war might well be low- because neither side would want to fight such a war that would have such awful consequences for everyone on the planet. But there is a risk that technical errors and accidents could lead accidentally to the use of nuclear weapons, as a nuclear power can incorrectly come to believe that they are under attack.

This is why false alarms, errors, and close calls are so crucial to monitor: they are the incidents that can push the 'balance of terror' out of balance and into war.

Accidents and errors are of course not the only possible path that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. There is the risk of a terribly irresponsible person leading a country possessing nuclear weapons. There is the rik of nuclear terrorism, possibly after a terrorist organization steals weapons. There is the possibility that hackers can take control of the nuclear chain of command. And there is the possibility that several of these factors play a role at the same time.

An escalating conflict between nuclear powers- but also an accident, a hacker, a terrorist, or an irresponsible leader- could lead to the detonation of nuclear weapons.

Those risks only go to zero if all nuclear weapons are removed from the world. This is what humanity should work towards, but it is exceedingly hard to achieve, at least in the short term. It is therefore important to see that there additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war.

Note

1. Non Proliferation Treaty- designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America)

2. Other states with nuclear weapons (India, North Korea, Pakistan)

3. Other states presumed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

4. Nato members nuclear weapons sharing status (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey)

5. States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine)