Since the first atomic bombing, nuclear weaponry technology has developed rapidly. The Cold War introduced the reality that nuclear war may be inevitable if nuclear weapons continue to exist. The future of humanity may depend on how we manage our nuclear resources, which prompts the question: What are the consequences of and alternatives to continued nuclear development? Many organizations are calling for the eradication of nuclear weapons, and while this solution is ideal, it may be unrealistic (Shelden 1). Alternative and current solutions include prohibition of testing nuclear weaponry (Garwin). However, nuclear armed states are permitted to maintain their stockpiles as a deterrent (“The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile”). Assuming that we continue to maintain a nuclear stockpile, it will likely be inevitable that a nuclear war would take place, and if this were to happen, a nuclear winter would almost undeniably destroy the foundation of human society (Carrier). There are few sustainable outcomes, assuming we continue to develop and maintain our nuclear resources at the current rate. The consequences of a nuclear war, should we proceed as is, could include genocide, nuclear winter, and collapse of society. Alternative possibilities, assuming they are effectively enforced, would be through treaties and movements to completely obliterate the existence of nuclear weaponry so as to make any nuclear stockpile as a deterrent largely unnecessary.

Notable organizations like the Future of Life Institute and the International Committee of the Red Cross have advocated to abolish all nuclear weapons. Their argument states “…the increasing application of emerging technology to nuclear weapons systems increases the risk of nuclear war, and that, as technology advances, the only way to eliminate this risk is to eliminate the weapons” (Shelden 3). In agreeance with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the International committee of the Red Cross has stated, “To ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again and are completely eliminated, the Movement calls on states to join the ban treaty and to fulfil their long-standing nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments” (International Committee of the Red Cross). While this proposal is drastic and difficult to enforce, they are correct in that simply having nuclear weapons available causes hazardous tensions. The ethical, political, and environmental concerns of nuclear warfare is far too great a cost to risk accidentally starting such a conflict. The United States currently maintains a nuclear stockpile for the purpose of deterrent, a strategy The Future of Life Institute, an organization dedicated to analyzing the consequences of developing technology in order to help humanity move forward in a safe and ethical way, has claimed is, “…not only unnecessary for deterrence, but actually make[s] accidental war more likely” (Future of Life Institute). In order to implement such an idea, strict precautions would have to be taken to ensure no hostile state was waiting to attack another as soon as another state had no means of retaliation, having discarded their nuclear stockpile. The implications would be complicated, but if done correctly, could potentially save millions of lives.

Although the Future of Life Institute, ICAN, and the Red Cross argue a nuclear deterrent is hindering our progress, we can see from sources like the US Department of Energy that it may be the only way to move forward. Historically, a deterrent has been necessary in maintaining the safety of the United States, and as the threat of nuclear attacks from rival states grows, it will only become more necessary to maintain global peace and stability (“The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile”). Though the idea of full recovery from Hiroshima and Nagasaki proposed by organizations like ICAN is ideal, a journal from Air University states, “…there is little possibility of a future in which nuclear deterrence will diminish in importance to international security” (Lowther and Cimbala). Nuclear weapons are not going away, and we must learn to live with the reality that some of the most hostile states in the world have access to the most destructive weapons in history. We must organize our state defensively. However, there are compromises that must be made to ensure these precautions stay defensive as opposed to offensive. Treaties such as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is one way that, should all states adopt, could significantly improve the prevention of nuclear warfare (“The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)”). “In the area of weapons development, activities that would be permitted under the CTB Treaty could include stockpile maintenance and refabrication; product improvement of existing weapons (for example, increased yield-to-weight ratio, safety and reliability or maintenance and remanufacture); or even the introduction of entirely new types of weapons, such as nuclear explosion-pumped X-ray laser or other nuclear weapon-powered, directed-energy weapons which were under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in the 1980s” (Garwin).

In addressing the consequences of continuing to develop nuclear weaponry, one must assess the possibility of nuclear war, an event that would have a catastrophic impact on society. According to an article from the National Library of Medicine, not only is it possible, but likely. “Current nuclear arms control and non-proliferation efforts are inadequate to protect the world’s population against the threat of nuclear war by design, error, or miscalculation” (Abbasi et al.). States are not currently adequately equipped to avoid the impending threat of nuclear war and to withstand the consequences following. “Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting 2 billion people at risk” (Abbasi et al.). Should a nuclear war take place, besides the drastic death toll from the immediate explosions, an even greater issue would arise. As debris from the explosion, including clouds of dust and smoke, flood the atmosphere, a nuclear winter would ensue, causing the global temperature to drop by about 20°C for ten years and cause widespread crop failure and famine (Carrier). Similar findings by the Future of Life Institute have found, “The world as we know it would crumble, due to starvation, hypothermia, and epidemics. Even if just one superpower launched its full nuclear arsenal against the other without retaliation, nuclear winter would still ensure the attacking country’s self-destruction.” (Future of Life Institute).

The consequences of continuing to develop nuclear weapons are dire, should they backfire. This issue is incredibly important in considering the future of humanity wherein entire urban populations would perish, food resources for the entire world dwindle, and many would die simply due to the effects of nuclear winter. As Sir John Hill, Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority in 1976 stated regarding the historical development of technology, “Accidents… got bigger because a stagecoach going over a cliff could only kill about six people, whereas a train accident could kill over a hundred and an accident to a single aircraft can now kill over 300. The promise, and the problem, of nuclear power is that it is not only one more step along the path that mankind has been following since civilization began, it is also a fairly big step. Each step in the past frightened people at the time, and this step, brought vividly to everyone’s attention by it being introduced by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, has frightened correspondingly more” (Hill 2). Nuclear war, however, would have consequences much bigger than a stagecoach crash, and much bigger than even just one city. Nuclear war would mean the end of the world as we know it. The future of nuclear technology will always remain unclear as breakthroughs are made, treaties are signed, violated, and retaliated against. However, one thing remains certain: We must either proceed with extreme caution or find a way to eliminate the threat.

Works Cited

Abbasi, Kamran, et al. “Reducing the risks of nuclear war: the role of health professionals.” pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 1 September 2023, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10545493/. Accessed 21 January 2025.

Carrier, George F. “Nuclear Winter: The State of the Science.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, National Library of Medicine, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219171/. Accessed 20 January 2025.

Future of Life Institute. “Nuclear Weapons.” Future of Life Institute, https://futureoflife.org/cause-area/nuclear/. Accessed 18 January 2025.

Garwin, Richard L. “The Future of Nuclear Weapons Without Nuclear Testing.” armscontrol.org, Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/features/future-nuclear-weapons-without-nuclear-testing#:~:text=In%20the%20area%20of%20weapons,(SDI)%20in%20the%201980s. Accessed 20 January 2025.

Hill, John. “The Abuse of Nuclear Power.” IAEA Bulletin, vol. 19, no. 2, 1976. iaea.org, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull19-2/19204794249.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2025.

International Committee of the Red Cross. “International humanitarian law and policy on Nuclear weapons.” icrc.org, International Committee of the Red Cross, https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/nuclear-weapons. Accessed 17 January 2025.

Lowther, Adam, and Stephen Cimbala. “Future Technology and Nuclear Deterrence.” Wild Blue Yonder, 2020. airuniversity.af.edu, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/2071083/future-technology-and-nuclear-deterrence/. Accessed 16 January 2025.

“Russia | Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.” International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, https://www.icanw.org/russia. Accessed 16 January 2025.

Shelden, Seth. “International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).” www.ican.org, https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sof-international-campaign-ican-input-zero-draft-pact-for-future.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2025.

“The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.” Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/us-nuclear-weapons-stockpile. Accessed 16 January 2025.

CTBTO Preparatory Commission. “Text of the Treaty.” ctbto.org, https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/the-treaty. Accessed 30 January 2025.