The development and use of nuclear weapons was a major turning point in human history. Even if used to destroy a city or military targets, they could kill many millions of people, or even wipe out civilization as we know it. The Red Cross has been a vocal advocate for the abolition of these deadly weapons ever since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
While there was a period when explicit threats of nuclear attack were common, they are rare today. But the world still faces the threat of nuclear-armed states like India and Pakistan (and now, potentially, North Korea), as well as terrorist groups with alleged access to nuclear devices or weaponry.
Moreover, there are growing concerns about the reliability of early warning systems that detect missile launches and nuclear explosions. There have been 78 cases in the last 40 years when systems have mistakenly identified a nuclear threat. The Soviets, for example, feared that the NATO military exercise Able Archer 83 in November 1983 was a cover for a first strike, and raised their readiness level.
Nevertheless, nuclear-armed states – and especially the US – argue that they need to keep their arsenals because of the perceived threat from other countries. They speak of ‘nuclear deterrence’ or the ‘nuclear umbrella’ to give their populations a false sense of security and safety. But scientific studies estimating the immediate and long-term consequences of a nuclear war show that most of the world’s population would be killed in the initial attacks, and that much of humanity would die of starvation and radiation exposure over the decades that follow.
About the Author
