Image: Tavis Coburn
More In This Article
-
Overview
The Science Of The Next 150 Years
-
Overview
Extinction Countdown: The End For Many Species
-
Overview
Will High Tech Cool A Hot Earth?
-
Overview
Computing In 2165
The Science Of The Next 150 Years: 50 Years in the Future
As we look back from the perspective of NDDD—Nuclear Disarmament Decision Day on August 8, 2063—it is still not clear how the first “small” nuclear war started in 2024. Yet it is clear that once it happened, things changed. The survivors saw that nuclear war was no longer a fantasy; nuclear extinction the next time was no longer an impossibility. The reality sunk in that deterrence could fail, accidents could happen, terrorists could steal warheads. A nuclear bomb with no return address could be detonated and start a conflagration. A billion people could die.
This article was originally published with the title The Nuclear Question.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
32 Comments
Add CommentSpeaking about a nuclear catastrophe gives money to the authors, and also some kind of ascendent or influence in others, as they appear as protectors or saviors. It would be good that somebody makes the simulation of what would happen if all the existing nuclear weapons were detonated at the same time, and the worst scenarios for this may be detonations in Winter season, the so called "Nuclear Winter" would add extreme and very dangerous cooling to the already cool season, and also a detonation in a deep oceanic fosa looks frightening, this may trigger tsunamis or something worse, the long term effects on the human genome and induction of diseases such as cancer will never hit everybody. Eliminating mankind is out of the reach of mankind, even more, God protects us. To eliminate fears, and purposeless waste of energy, a good simulation of the consequences of a total nuclear war will be probably nothing but reassuring, and will release energies and efforts for more realistic issues. Info welcome!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtinction Level Event [ELE] means one hundred million megatons. When we [the US] and the Soviet Union had the most bombs, thirty thousand each, we had one part in ten thousand of an ELE. We are now down to fifteen hundred each. There has never been a possibility of making ourselves extinct by means of nuclear war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRetired Department of the Army scientist/engineer.
PS: Just in case somebody doesn't understand "factor." Factor means multiply, not add. To make an ELE, we would need six hundred million bombs like we had at the maximum to equal one hundred million megatons. The average bomb was only 16.66% of a megaton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe value of nuclear weapons is questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have not used our nuclear arsenal tactically or strategically in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan or anywhere else.
The threat of a nuclear strike may keep some countries from attacking a country with nuclear weapons but that benefit is unclear.
It may be that the major threat is a nuclear accident or terrorists actually using nuclear weapons. But the after effect should dissuade all but lunatics.
Nuclear weaponry cannot not be uninvented. Perhaps, we should work toward selecting leaders with peaceful intents and worldviews that are inclusive rather than divisive.
Psychology has come a long way in a short period. We should use what we know to manage the thinking of leaders.
Some say that president Nixon was impeached, not because Watergate, but because he seriously considered using Nuclear Weapons in Viet-Nam. Needless to say, Nuclear bombings in Japanese army places instead of in towns with no troops or anything of military power, would have taken the WWII to an stop the same, it sounds hard to explain Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even harder Dresden, but this was the mr. Portal's decission, that even Churchill that was in command criticised. Probably the USA is the only country having backpack size A bombs, and this is the kind of NW terrorists may use. Leader is a 100% incorrect word from a religious point of view (See Mathew 23,9), and your comment may have an inconsistency: if the thought of somebody is "managed", he or she is no longer in the lead, but the lead is on the mind of the mind controlling the "Powerful one's" mind. Who controls the controller is a very old problema, and unfortunately, under the image of what you call "selecting presidents" or whatever the position's name may be, things very close in rationale and practice to female genital mutilations exist, we can suspect there rationales coming from mental issues similar to "paranoid jealousy", and blaming somebody of being dangerous is an easy approach to get rid of somebody that threatens the way you think, your beliefs or your personal welfare and income, many times people request having a salary for being in the watchtower of a desert from wich nobody will ever come, or where nothing will ever happen. Many ignore them, president Bush spoke about asking his attorney about "what International Law may be", but there are universal principles for laws, and some basic human rights. Men are not born equal, just think how many are born like Hellen Keller, and how they compare in abilities with others, I don't speak about human dignity, but there are things equally real, and not so easy to detect. May I ask you to think twice before writing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry to see Scientific American put itself in the same catagory as FoxNews by displaying such exaggerated hyperbole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure I can think twice before I write.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are all citizens of the world and that gives us the right to pick good people to lead.
Do you want leaders with personal agendas or do you want leaders who serve all the people?
Choosing leaders is not who is the best for civilization. It is who best represents the few who are in charge of choosing.
A country can and does end up with bullies, manipulators, extremists, hawks, egotists, narcistics, thieves, murderers and psycopaths.
All these people should be automatically eliminated from consideration long before they are in contention.
This is not to say that we can choose the leader of every country but we should be able to limit the choices to selfless, empathetic, unbiased individuals.
To allow a tyrant to have his finger on the nuclear trigger is illogical.
If you read the Bible you see that God is portrayed in a number of different ways. Which God would you choose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe God of Moses, John, Esther, Job or some other God?
I would choose a God who was understanding, fair, selfless, open minded, unbiased, sympathetic and humble.
Would you choose a God who was self-righteous, hypocritical, judgmental, holy, dictatorial, manipulative, etc.?
Your comments are very nice and very pious, but I can't see a connection to the issues I pointed. I do discuss subjects of my private relationship with religion only with my confessor, and I don't have one since 1970. Those who use the images of general benefits to protect their meager interests many times use reasonings not very different from some stated here. A crime is a crime, and can be defined in an objective an universal way. Defenses' assessment are the judge's job, and tyrant action in the name of destroying a tyrant is just bygotry. Enjoy yourselves!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as there exists the potential for hostility between competing nations there will exist a need for weaponry, that a nation will believe supplies it with a competitive advantage in achieving victory. Although a noble dream, nuclear disarmament remains just that -a dream (an unrealistic pipe dream).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world was really peaceful before the advent of nuclear weapons. There were never wars in which millions of people were killed. Never cities being firebombed out of existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least that is what I was told. It was before I was born.
To Sideramus: something very close to your appropriate comment was stated in the 1970's book by David Irving: "The destruction of Dresden", but more tan 20 years later this historian was put in jail on charges of "holocaust denial". The belief that Nuclear Weapons do contribute to Peace may be right, just look at the change in the Pakistan-India conflict after both sides had "the bomb". The problem may be that power, even when not actually employed, is used to impose on others things that go much beyond prosecution of crimes and protection of human rights, as the USA interventions on the Japan's statements about the Emperor's ancestry, that are impossible to prove or deny, and absolutely out of the business of nobody but the Japanese, their Imperial family, and God. Did the US president that won the war on Japan have a divine command for the change in the image of Emperor he forced?. Many nations had exerted pressure on Cuba and North Korea, but regarding the former USSR, nothing but declarations were implemented. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are rightfully concerned about the risk of ever spreading nuclear weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in business, risk is dealt with by risk managers and controls are used to get good results or prevent bad ones.
Management theories of risk and control cannot be imposed on sovereign nations but external processes should be instituted and beneficial internal procedures should be negotiated, impressed, manipulated and rewarded.
In my opinion, scientists should do more than just identify the problem. They should plan and implement worldwide controls.
In the history of 20th century, some facts look hard to explain. By the date the fascist and nazi regimes arrived to power, the procedures implemented in the soviet union to eliminate private property had produced there 11 million of deaths by starvation, and later, 6 million of Ukrainians. Diplomats should have been aware of this, and they probably were, but in spite of these dreadful events, the USA supplied the soviets with double use technology, such as Aircraft Engines. The politician's line that has been ruling the USA may have commited so many mistakes, and has almost never recognized it, and also almost never beg pardon, that it looks hard to explain the confidence of US tax payers on some activities of their administration; circumstances are so opaque, that the only thing that can be taken as sure, and that everybody would accept, is the declaration by president Bush: "War is a dangeorus place". Scientists don't have a greater commitment or right to control of governments than other taxpayers, they may have just a larger database to issue opinions, and a social prestige that can give his/her comments a more general acceptance. The political systems have its own control mechanisms, parliaments are for this, and some demands of "Power to scientists" and things like, may be a way to obtain easy money, and get influence on others by appearing as Rescuer. Media are open, the job of Inquisitor is extinct, everybody should have a way of earning money that offers the rest of mankind something real. Reality bites are many times indigestible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said that "Scientists don't have a greater commitment or right to control of governments" yet scientists invented nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and many industrial innovations. Turning a blind eye to possible solutions is shirking a responsibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElected officials might shirk their own responsibility and claim ignorance of tried and true management procedures.
In the end nothing will get done and everyone will blame other people. Based on the article, we are on the road to a nuclear disaster and nobody is taking positive steps to stop the inevitable.
When there are proven management methods to control, that road is ridiculous.
The Spanish thinker Giner de los Rios shared departement during a train trip with V I Lenin, they discussed about social policies, Lenin exposed his thoughts, and just when the end of journey was approaching, de los Rios asked Lenin: "And freedom?" Lenin answered: "Freedom, for what?". You can construct right now a psychocivilized society, probably somebody is in their way to implementenig this, or has already go very far in this, but the kind of society implicit in some proposals, I'm afraid yours' look too close to this, is inhuman, and adequate only to those that think mankind can be forced into an unarmed body the same way books are balanced. This isn't different to female genital mutilation, its rationale, or better said its rationalization is the same, and most of times, the hidden aim is eliminating somebody that puts in danger the very high standard of living of some that have discovered the ways to make lots of money without contributing nothing to the members of society that produces the goods they buy with this money. Nuclear war is impossible, nuclear end of mankind is impossible, a nightmare should never be consuming efforts, as there are serious and real problems we all suffer, starting with global warming and economic crises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf global warming and economic crises could have been foreseen, governements could have taken steps to prevent them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese steps would have been controls.
By not instituting controls, we face problems that could have been avoided.
Nuclear warfare can be foreseen. Is the probability 1/2 of 1% or is it much higher? Perhaps, the risk is not important because the effects will be horrendous.
Just because there are immediate problems, doesn't me we can stick our heads in the sand about future risks.
The risk of global warwing was addressed in "Popular Mechanics", 1964, by an article by Clifford B. Hicks, with the title: "The air around us is changing", I guess this is not a low circulation publication for special scientists, but a widespread magazine, cheap, and very easy to find, many may have read this. 48 years looks as more tan ample time for having taken actions, and as of today, besides the improvements in energy consuming procedures and products induced by the high cost of oil and other energies, it seems that few things besides meetings and discussions have been considered or implemented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is the “we” the article referenced?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanet earth is governed by over 200 independent nations that have different and frequently conflicting goals.
Humans have always had conflicts with one another over limited resources and have always sought to develop the means to overpower enemies with ever improving weapons. What is occurring currently is merely an extension of history.
The evolution of behavior would seem to lead to a simple conclusion for the future. Either:
Weapons technology will continue to advance over time and the advanced weapons will be employed by nations that believe it is to their net advantage to do so. The only other option:
One nation or collection of nations unify and force behaviors upon the balance of the peoples of the world.
Be careful which option you support as both have many risks.
In the article referenced, "we" probably means the whole world for some things, and some special places in the USA and elsewhere, for example the California chemical smogs, but obviously, the question should be addressed to the author of the article. Warfare efforts have produced some big advances in everyday technologies, for example, aircraft turbines, or the rockets that took Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin to the Moon, but having a war is an awful way of improving technologies. The US armies total some 3950 airplanes, but during WWII, the nazi regime produced more than this just from their first types of jet airplanes. Army contracts are a good way to stimulate some advances in technologies, and as there's no war, and probabilities of having one are close to zero, as there's no enemy for those having the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction, this kind of activity is maintained just to keep some industries alive, and some people having fun from their engineering efforts, that you never know at its beginnig which uses they may finally have. As armies don't require the huge amounts of money it previously spend, taxes can be reduced, and the resources that go free because of this, employed in more practical uses, but probably it doesn't make any sense, as some do, in considering army people as guys that do like killing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point was that the basis of the article is silly unless or until one defines a realistic "we". In the real world, nuclear weapons as well as biological weapons will continue to evolve and occasionally be used. It is only a question of when. It is probably a safe bet to assume they will be used very soon by someone if the US is perceived by the other nations as unwilling or unable to make the use of such weapons to costly in terms of what would happen if they were used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article cited was about Air contamination and global warming, no connection at all with nuclear or any kind of weapon, I cited it because too much time may be wasted, and too many crimes being commited, in the name of pretending saving the world from a nuclear or any kind of war, the USA since its start has been involved in a lot of wars, from which no obvious benefit may have resulted, besides repeatedly trying to acomplish the goals stated by Juvenal for the roman empire, using force for reasons that in the end are just showing the rest of the world there's nobody like the cowboys is silly, but nobody can afford even discussing or pointing that this exists. Many consider some of the groups that were in the foundations of the USA as satanic sects, and their interventions abroad produced as much, or even more victims that the systems they pretended fighting; again, there are first class deads, and accidental victims of progress, you win, but this has been a suicide for mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet humankind populates the planet at the highest numbers ever recorded, so what is the evidence of suicide for humankind that you are concerned about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthical or Moral or Religious suicide, the word you like. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne persons Ethical or Moral or Religious suicide is most likely another persons desired state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's simple: good and evil can be defined in an objective way, and most people would agree in the definition of something as an evil action. The subjects of imputability, responsibility, and freedom when acting are judgements, an nobody in mankind has a right to judge other persons, even when acts can be defined as morally right or evil actions. What courts do is not judging, but resolve conflicts of interest, and apply sanctions to deter some behavior to be repeated, and thus protect the innocent. God is the only one having a right to judge, Jesus Christ will come at the end of times to judge all of us, justice and law reinforcement are totally different things, in the Bible "justice" means "the condition of righteous", law is called "right" (Derecho in Spanish, Jura in German, Droit in French...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNukes are hardly the worst weapon. Chemical or biological weapons are pretty nasty. White phosphor weapons and napalm are pretty nasty. A nice custom air-born virus can be delivered by a single person and wipe out anywhere from 2% to 30% of an area population via simple absence of the vaccine. If you really want to hurt the USA just drill down to the caldera of the Yellowstone super volcano. If you are patient you can go to the island of La Palma and start doing a variety of things to widen and deepen the fissure that divides the island. A tsunami over 100 feet tall will do a lot of damage to the East coast of the USA, Mexico and central and South America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor that matter, my worst nightmare is another tax audit. Inflict tax audits on an area population and watch the pain and suffering.
Nuclear war cannot make us extinct. At the cold war maximum, 30,000 bombs each for the US and USSR, we had only one part in ten thousand of enough bombs to make ourselves extinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtinction Level Event means one hundred million megatons.
We would have needed 3 hundred million bombs each to make ourselves extinct. Give up your irrational fear.
This is in response to the first comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not about the nuclear weapons creating an extinction for mankind, but the aftereffects that can cause a wipe-out of man.
The bombs itself may not affect/wipeout mankind but the after effects very may contribute to that.
nuclear weapons can cause mutations, soil deficiencies, and more. would you want your child to live in an area that was once a nuclear zone and have the chance of having him/her contract any mutations, and what about the land it will make the soil uninhabitable for plant life which in turn we need to survive, in the worst case scenario the bombs would have an overall ecological farming impact and we would "starve" ourselves to extinction rather than have nuclear weapons do all the work in the explosions.
Please consider these effects to the land not necessarily to people alone but to products that are desirable to people.
Sorry for the typo I thought the comment would be posted at the start of this topic, and as you may have figured I am new to this website and am not familiar with how the posting works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's that dumb R Rosenbaum? Who else but his friends seriously considered building the nuclear weapon, and used it against Japan? It's obvious that Japan surrended, not because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but because the Russians entered WWII when it was close to its end, USSR were close neighbors to Japan, and started taking bites on the Japan's scarce land, and there was no reason why of using the A Bomb than just watching the Japanese die, and how it was, A bombings added nothing to the end of WWII. Look at the surmanes involved in the conception, development and use of nuclear weaponry, and you'll know who is for or against life. Why should anybody pay somebody for saying stupid things, just to protect their 'supremacy' on nations, obtained by thefts and serial murders? It's going over...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think Russia was the cause considering it took only 6 days for Japan to surrender after the bomb was dropped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have some history found on another website and I will post it here with the web address.
August 9, 1945: An atomic bomb is dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, by a B-29 bomber piloted by Maj. Charles Sweeney. It explodes 1,540 feet above the ground. The original target for the bomb, nicknamed Fat Man, is Kokura, Japan. Due to cloud cover, the bomb is instead detonated over Nagasaki, the alternate location. It is estimated that 75,000 people are killed immediately.
August 9, 1945: Three days after the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman speaks to the nation in a radio address: The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. By this time, the United States had already dropped its second bomb on Nagasaki.
August 15, 1945: Japan surrenders, ending World War II.
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4785786"
and here are some side notes from the same site.
"Atomic Bomb by the Numbers
140,000 - Number of people in Hiroshima killed instantly or within months.
237,062 - Estimated total number of dead due to aftereffects, including radiation poisoning and cancer.
80,000 - Number of people estimated to have died in Nagasaki."
But I do agree that nuclear weapons should not be needed at all. considering it affects innocent people with side-effects/death even if they didn't have anything to do with this. Overall I am against the death of people...but I alone can't bring peace or stop wars. Some people are just to stubborn to listen to agreements aswell