By Lisa Cerceo
A few months ago, the war in Ukraine occupied every news outlet. Now that it is going into its ninth month, the war is beginning to recede into the background, as our attention gets pulled away by other shiny objects. But, while Ukraine was at the tip of everyone’s lips, there was a resurgence of discussion about nuclear armament. Specifically, fear, fueled by the world being on the precipice of nuclear engagement, reignited arguments as to the wisdom of continuing our global nuclear escalation.
The global impact of a major nuclear war has long been acknowledged as heralding the destruction of our modern civilization. But a “limited” conflict in one region? A recent international report led by Rutgers scientists models the global impacts of even a small nuclear war and its catastrophic effects.
When a nuclear weapon detonates, it briefly creates temperatures four times hotter than the center of the Sun. Soot from burning cities would be lofted miles above the clouds, blown around the world, and float up there for years. It would block out the Sun, making temperatures plummet and crops fail.
Even a very “limited’ nuclear war involving less than 3% of the world’s nuclear arsenal would trigger a global famine that could kill more than 2 billion people. If the United States and Russia unleashed their arsenals on each other, the climate impact could starve three-quarters of the world’s population. As a physician, I treat one patient at a time. The number 5.7 billion people is unfathomable.
Any of the nine nuclear-armed nations could trigger immense suffering and agricultural and societal collapse. It does not matter where the weapons detonated because the soot would be propelled into the upper atmosphere and block out the Sun globally. The historical evidence for this can be seen after major volcanic eruptions such as the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia, the largest eruption in the last 500 years, which launched millions of tons of ash into the stratosphere and lingered for over a year with resultant crop failures and hunger.
Although they have only been used twice in war, there are reportedly about 13,080 nuclear weapons in our world today. The United Nations have long striven for peace on a healthy planet through multilateral disarmament since its inception but its efforts have largely been ignored. Groups like the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (ippnw.org) and Physicians for Social Responsibility have advocated for nuclear disarmament on the basis of public health principles but it comes down to simple survival.
Here’s the problem: most United States senators, representatives and the president still cling to the 1950s-era belief that nations can somehow “defend” themselves with nuclear doomsday devices. In fact, for 2021, Congress passed a budget including over $44 billion for nuclear weapons, part of a planned 30-year, $1.7 trillion overhaul of the nation’s entire nuclear arsenal. That is a huge amount of resources that should address the urgent needs of everyday Americans. Americans need equitable access to health care, pandemic preparedness, mental health support, education, and immediate action to meet the climate crisis, not nuclear weapons.
Certainly, the Inflation Reduction Act was a hugely positive step both in terms of climate change and enhanced health insurance subsidies but Congress needs to do more to protect U.S. citizens in a real way from real threats.
Despite the many issues that assail us, individual citizens need to recall our attention to this looming threat to society and continually advocate for nuclear disarmament. The UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is a legally binding tool to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading toward disarmament, that governments can sign on to. You can encourage Congress to lessen its focus on a nuclear arsenal and focus on tangible actions to improve the lives of everyday Americans.
There are many good causes worthy of fighting for. In my humble opinion, existential threats should float to the top. It’s time to phase out nuclear weapons, worldwide, for good.
Dr. Lisa Cerceo is an academic hospitalist living in Cherry Hill and chair of Health and Public Policy for the American College of Physicians, New Jersey. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer or ACP NJ.
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
Here’s how to submit an op-ed or Letter to the Editor. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.