![]() The nuclear arms control regime has been weakened in recent years with the termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between Russia and the United States, the withdrawals of those countries from the Treaty on Open Skies, and the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. And it was only because cooler heads prevailed that nuclear weapons were not used deliberately during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 or amid the Vietnam War when military leaders urged their use. Even before the emergence of cyberthreats, there were many instances of near launches by technical or human error. A cyberattack on nuclear weapons control systems, for example, could create false warnings of launches or perhaps even initiate real launches. New technologies threaten the abilities of governments to control and secure nuclear weapons. Nearly 2,000 warheads are on alert status, ready to launch within minutes of an order. Currently, there are more than 9,000 nuclear warheads in the active military stockpiles of nine nations, with more than 90% of those in Russia and the United States. The existence of nuclear weapons means that they can be used, and this threat is getting more severe as the number of possible scenarios leading to nuclear war rises. A new coalition is working to do just that. Today, as nuclear arsenals and the plausibility of their use are growing anew, we argue that it is again time for physical scientists to advocate for steps that reduce the nuclear threat. But there is also a long history of scientists opposing use of the weapons and warning of the outcomes in the event they are used. We have performed the research and developed the technology that created the weapons, and we have studied their effects. The scientific community, particularly physicists and geophysicists, has a special relationship with the problem of nuclear weapons. Īs nuclear arsenals and the plausibility of their use are growing anew, we argue that it is again time for physical scientists to advocate for steps that reduce the nuclear threat. ![]() In effect, a nuclear attack would be the actions of a suicide bomber. Even a regional nuclear war could threaten civilization globally and condemn innocent bystanders to famine, including inhabitants of the country that initiated the conflict. But a nuclear war would also produce nearly instantaneous climate change that among other effects, would threaten the global food supply. ![]() The immediate devastation from nuclear blasts and subsequent fires and the lasting harm from nuclear radiation have, of course, been demonstrated tragically. While we all recognize that global warming threatens humanity, the effects of nuclear war pose an even graver threat to the global population. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |