FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Ticking Toward Doomsday

by

Recently, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced it was keeping its famous Doomsday Clock at three minutes to midnight. In making this decision, their panel of experts, including 16 Nobel Laureates, cited the  growing danger of nuclear war.

The danger of nuclear war?

For most people today, the threat of nuclear war isn’t even on their radar screens.  It needs to be.

When the Cold War ended most of us started to act as though the danger of nuclear war had gone away. It didn’t. There remain in the world today some 15,000 nuclear war heads, 95 percent in the arsenals of the US and Russia. More than 2,000 of these warheads are on hair-trigger alert. They are mounted on missiles that can be launched in 15 minutes. And all nine counties that possess nuclear weapons are actively modernizing their arsenals at a cost of hundreds of $billions.

For the last quarter century we have been told we don’t need to worry about these weapons. The US and Russia weren’t enemies anymore and they would never be used. The recent conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and the irresponsible nuclear saber rattling by both sides have shown us how hollow these assurances are. There is a real danger that some crisis could spiral into direct conflict between the US and Russia.

We also have to worry about the possibility of accidental nuclear war. On at least five occasions since 1979 either Moscow or Washington prepared to launch nuclear war in the mistaken belief that it was already under attack.

So what happens if these weapons are used? A 2007 study showed that if even 300 Russian warheads got through to targets in US urban areas, 75 to 100 million people would be killed in a half-hour and the entire economic infrastructure that the rest of the population depends on would be destroyed.

If all of the weapons the US and Russia maintain on high alert were involved in the war, the firestorms they started would put 150 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere creating a new Ice Age in a matter of days. Temperatures around the world would drop an average of 14 to 15 degrees. In the interior of North America and Eurasia, the temperatures would drop up to 50 degrees. Ecosystems would collapse, food production would stop and the vast majority of the human race would starve.

Even a much more limited nuclear war, as might take place between smaller nuclear powers like India and Pakistan would be a worldwide catastrophe. The fires from “just” 100 “small” nuclear weapons in their arsenals would cause enough climate disruption to cut global food production and trigger a famine that would put some two billion people at risk.

Fortunately, there is a growing movement around the world to ban and eliminate these weapons. The International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement has voted unanimously to educate people around the world about the dangers of nuclear war and to work for the abolition of these weapons. The World Medical Association and the American Medical Association have taken asimilar stand.

Physicians for Social Responsibility and our global federation the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have launched a worldwide campaign, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons that brings together hundreds of thousands of people in nearly 500 organizations in 95 countries.

More than 140 countries have called for a new treaty to close the gap in international law which still does not prohibit possession of these weapons, and the United Nations will convene an Open Ended Working Group next month in Geneva to explore ways to negotiate such a treaty and report back to the UN General Assembly in the fall.

All of these efforts are designed to pressure the nuclear weapons states to sit down and negotiate a detailed, verifiable, enforceable agreement to dismantle their weapons under internationalsupervision.

This process will not be easy. But we have no other choice. We have been incredibly lucky to avoid nuclear war since Hiroshima. Hoping for continued good luck is simply not an acceptable nuclear policy.

The US has not been part of this effort, and has actually tried to block it. It is time to change course. America needs to lead this movement as our highest national security priority and the candidates running for President need to make it clear that they will indeed lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Ira Helfand MD practices internal medicine at an urgent care center in Springfield, MA. He is a Past President of Physicians for Social Responsibility and is currently the Co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the 1985 Nobel Peace Laureate.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 26, 2017
Richard Moser
Empire Abroad, Empire At Home
Stan Cox
For Climate Justice, It’s the 33 Percent Who’ll Have to Pick Up the Tab
Paul Craig Roberts
The Looting Machine Called Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
The Dilemma for Intelligence Agencies
Christy Rodgers
Remaining Animal
Joseph Natoli
Facts, Opinions, Tweets, Words
Mel Gurtov
No Exit? The NY Times and North Korea
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Women on the Move: Can Three Women and a Truck Quell the Tide of Sexual Violence and Domestic Abuse?
Michael J. Sainato
Trump’s Wikileaks Flip-Flop
Manuel E. Yepe
North Korea’s Antidote to the US
Kim C. Domenico
‘Courting Failure:’ the Key to Resistance is Ending Animacide
Barbara Nimri Aziz
The Legacy of Lynne Stewart, the People’s Lawyer
Andrew Stewart
The People vs. Bernie Sanders
Daniel Warner
“Vive La France, Vive La République” vs. “God Bless America”
April 25, 2017
Russell Mokhiber
It’s Impossible to Support Single-Payer and Defend Obamacare
Nozomi Hayase
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Robert Fisk
The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him
Giles Longley-Cook
Trump the Gardener
Bill Quigley
Major Challenges of New Orleans Charter Schools Exposed at NAACP Hearing
Jack Random
Little Fingers and Big Egos
Stanley L. Cohen
Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition
Stephen Cooper
Conscientious Justice-Loving Alabamians, Speak Up!
Michael J. Sainato
Did the NRA Play a Role in the Forcing the Resignation of Surgeon General?
David Swanson
The F-35 and the Incinerating Ski Slope
Binoy Kampmark
Mike Pence in Oz
Peter Paul Catterall
Green Nationalism? How the Far Right Could Learn to Love the Environment
George Wuerthner
Range Riders: Making Tom Sawyer Proud
Clancy Sigal
It’s the Pits: the Miner’s Blues
Robert K. Tan
Abe is Taking Japan Back to the Bad Old Fascism
April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail