"Just as the threat of the new coronavirus must be met by cooperation, common-sense and solidarity among peoples and nations," write the authors, "so must the danger of a nuclear war." (Photo: CC)
The Novel Coronavirus and Nuclear Weapons
As with viruses, containment of atomic weapons may be good, but eradication is best.
The entire international community is justifiably concerned and disturbed with the serious consequences of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Thousands have already died and many more are in danger. Local and national governments find it increasingly difficult to deal adequately with the sanitary and social emergency deriving from the spread of the virus. It will take many months before the situation can come back to normal.
What has this to do with nuclear weapons?
In the current climate of fear, uncertainty and helplessness, it is impossible not to think about what would happen in the case of a different and more ominous disaster: a nuclear conflagration, albeit of limited proportions. The possessors of nuclear weapons are relentlessly increasing the destructive power of their arsenals and seem willing to use them as they see fit to respond to their perceived security concerns. This, in fact, brings insecurity to all. Command and control systems are not immune against cyber viruses and accidents, nor are they protected against whimsical or emotionally unstable rulers.
An all-out nuclear exchange would turn whole cities and vast areas into a flaming inferno. Hundreds of millions of people would perish instantly and many more would die in the following days and weeks from radiation and other harmful effects. The consequences, however, would not be confined to the immense loss of lives, destruction of buildings and transportation networks and disruption of medical, financial and communications systems, as well as other vital structures.
"Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival."
The current year will mark 75 years since the razing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the use of just two relatively small explosive devices. Today, the detonation of a mere fraction of the nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons existing in the world would spread millions of tons of smoke, soot and debris throughout the stratosphere and create a dense layer that would surround the planet for many years, perhaps for decades, blocking and absorbing sunlight. This so-called "nuclear winter" would cause extremely low temperatures and other climatic changes, destroying agriculture. The collapse of land and marine ecosystems would make food production impossible. Survivors of such bombings would simply starve.
Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival.
Three international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, in 2013 and 2014, concluded that irrespective of its cause, the impact of nuclear detonations will not be limited to national boundaries but would cause deep, lasting and potentially irreversible harm to the environment, human health and well-being, as well as to socioeconomic development and social order, threatening the very survival of our species. Furthermore, no country, group of countries or international organization would be able to deal adequately with the humanitarian emergency resulting from an atomic explosion in an inhabited region.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, the danger of their use will also exist. The only guarantee against such use is the complete elimination of these weapons.
Just as the threat of the new coronavirus must be met by cooperation, common-sense and solidarity among peoples and nations, so must the danger of a nuclear war. In order to help avert such a disaster a comprehensive prohibition of all nuclear test explosions (CTBT) was concluded in 1996, but its full entry into force still awaits signature or ratification by eight states. More recently, in 2017, 122 countries negotiated and adopted a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons (TPNW). 81 states already signed and 36 have ratified it. Fourteen more ratifications are necessary for it to take effect. As the current emergency inspires us to reflect more soberly about survival risks and threats, the full entry into force of these instruments loom large as urgent unfinished business.
Both those Treaties uphold and reinforce the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), usually considered the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. It is fair to say that the NPT has truly contributed to limit actual and prospective proliferators to the current overall number of nine. However, the highest goal that inspires the Treaty--a world free from nuclear weapons--remains unfulfilled.
It may well be impossible to eliminate all disease-causing viruses; yet nuclear disarmament is not only possible, but a legally binding obligation embedded in Article VI of the NPT. Fifty years after the Treaty's inception, it is high time for the possessors of nuclear weapons to effectively comply with this obligation. As with viruses, containment may be good, but eradication is best.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The entire international community is justifiably concerned and disturbed with the serious consequences of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Thousands have already died and many more are in danger. Local and national governments find it increasingly difficult to deal adequately with the sanitary and social emergency deriving from the spread of the virus. It will take many months before the situation can come back to normal.
What has this to do with nuclear weapons?
In the current climate of fear, uncertainty and helplessness, it is impossible not to think about what would happen in the case of a different and more ominous disaster: a nuclear conflagration, albeit of limited proportions. The possessors of nuclear weapons are relentlessly increasing the destructive power of their arsenals and seem willing to use them as they see fit to respond to their perceived security concerns. This, in fact, brings insecurity to all. Command and control systems are not immune against cyber viruses and accidents, nor are they protected against whimsical or emotionally unstable rulers.
An all-out nuclear exchange would turn whole cities and vast areas into a flaming inferno. Hundreds of millions of people would perish instantly and many more would die in the following days and weeks from radiation and other harmful effects. The consequences, however, would not be confined to the immense loss of lives, destruction of buildings and transportation networks and disruption of medical, financial and communications systems, as well as other vital structures.
"Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival."
The current year will mark 75 years since the razing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the use of just two relatively small explosive devices. Today, the detonation of a mere fraction of the nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons existing in the world would spread millions of tons of smoke, soot and debris throughout the stratosphere and create a dense layer that would surround the planet for many years, perhaps for decades, blocking and absorbing sunlight. This so-called "nuclear winter" would cause extremely low temperatures and other climatic changes, destroying agriculture. The collapse of land and marine ecosystems would make food production impossible. Survivors of such bombings would simply starve.
Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival.
Three international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, in 2013 and 2014, concluded that irrespective of its cause, the impact of nuclear detonations will not be limited to national boundaries but would cause deep, lasting and potentially irreversible harm to the environment, human health and well-being, as well as to socioeconomic development and social order, threatening the very survival of our species. Furthermore, no country, group of countries or international organization would be able to deal adequately with the humanitarian emergency resulting from an atomic explosion in an inhabited region.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, the danger of their use will also exist. The only guarantee against such use is the complete elimination of these weapons.
Just as the threat of the new coronavirus must be met by cooperation, common-sense and solidarity among peoples and nations, so must the danger of a nuclear war. In order to help avert such a disaster a comprehensive prohibition of all nuclear test explosions (CTBT) was concluded in 1996, but its full entry into force still awaits signature or ratification by eight states. More recently, in 2017, 122 countries negotiated and adopted a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons (TPNW). 81 states already signed and 36 have ratified it. Fourteen more ratifications are necessary for it to take effect. As the current emergency inspires us to reflect more soberly about survival risks and threats, the full entry into force of these instruments loom large as urgent unfinished business.
Both those Treaties uphold and reinforce the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), usually considered the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. It is fair to say that the NPT has truly contributed to limit actual and prospective proliferators to the current overall number of nine. However, the highest goal that inspires the Treaty--a world free from nuclear weapons--remains unfulfilled.
It may well be impossible to eliminate all disease-causing viruses; yet nuclear disarmament is not only possible, but a legally binding obligation embedded in Article VI of the NPT. Fifty years after the Treaty's inception, it is high time for the possessors of nuclear weapons to effectively comply with this obligation. As with viruses, containment may be good, but eradication is best.
The entire international community is justifiably concerned and disturbed with the serious consequences of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Thousands have already died and many more are in danger. Local and national governments find it increasingly difficult to deal adequately with the sanitary and social emergency deriving from the spread of the virus. It will take many months before the situation can come back to normal.
What has this to do with nuclear weapons?
In the current climate of fear, uncertainty and helplessness, it is impossible not to think about what would happen in the case of a different and more ominous disaster: a nuclear conflagration, albeit of limited proportions. The possessors of nuclear weapons are relentlessly increasing the destructive power of their arsenals and seem willing to use them as they see fit to respond to their perceived security concerns. This, in fact, brings insecurity to all. Command and control systems are not immune against cyber viruses and accidents, nor are they protected against whimsical or emotionally unstable rulers.
An all-out nuclear exchange would turn whole cities and vast areas into a flaming inferno. Hundreds of millions of people would perish instantly and many more would die in the following days and weeks from radiation and other harmful effects. The consequences, however, would not be confined to the immense loss of lives, destruction of buildings and transportation networks and disruption of medical, financial and communications systems, as well as other vital structures.
"Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival."
The current year will mark 75 years since the razing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the use of just two relatively small explosive devices. Today, the detonation of a mere fraction of the nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons existing in the world would spread millions of tons of smoke, soot and debris throughout the stratosphere and create a dense layer that would surround the planet for many years, perhaps for decades, blocking and absorbing sunlight. This so-called "nuclear winter" would cause extremely low temperatures and other climatic changes, destroying agriculture. The collapse of land and marine ecosystems would make food production impossible. Survivors of such bombings would simply starve.
Humankind cannot remain oblivious of this persisting danger to its own survival.
Three international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, in 2013 and 2014, concluded that irrespective of its cause, the impact of nuclear detonations will not be limited to national boundaries but would cause deep, lasting and potentially irreversible harm to the environment, human health and well-being, as well as to socioeconomic development and social order, threatening the very survival of our species. Furthermore, no country, group of countries or international organization would be able to deal adequately with the humanitarian emergency resulting from an atomic explosion in an inhabited region.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, the danger of their use will also exist. The only guarantee against such use is the complete elimination of these weapons.
Just as the threat of the new coronavirus must be met by cooperation, common-sense and solidarity among peoples and nations, so must the danger of a nuclear war. In order to help avert such a disaster a comprehensive prohibition of all nuclear test explosions (CTBT) was concluded in 1996, but its full entry into force still awaits signature or ratification by eight states. More recently, in 2017, 122 countries negotiated and adopted a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons (TPNW). 81 states already signed and 36 have ratified it. Fourteen more ratifications are necessary for it to take effect. As the current emergency inspires us to reflect more soberly about survival risks and threats, the full entry into force of these instruments loom large as urgent unfinished business.
Both those Treaties uphold and reinforce the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), usually considered the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. It is fair to say that the NPT has truly contributed to limit actual and prospective proliferators to the current overall number of nine. However, the highest goal that inspires the Treaty--a world free from nuclear weapons--remains unfulfilled.
It may well be impossible to eliminate all disease-causing viruses; yet nuclear disarmament is not only possible, but a legally binding obligation embedded in Article VI of the NPT. Fifty years after the Treaty's inception, it is high time for the possessors of nuclear weapons to effectively comply with this obligation. As with viruses, containment may be good, but eradication is best.