A nuclear war would kill millions of people, a new report reminds the Pentagon. (Photo: Department of Energy/cc)
So-Called "Limited" Nuclear War Would Actually Be Very Bad and Kill Tens of Millions, Warns New Report
"We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."
Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible--or safe.
"This terrifying new video shows how just one tactical nuke can trigger a U.S.-Russian war that kills tens of millions," Daryl G. Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association, said in a tweet. "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."
Reaction to the video of the lab's findings emphasized the importance of the information, especially in a world where the U.S. military is considering using nuclear weapons as part of its conventional war strategy.
"The whole world needs to see this video," tweeted John Hallam, a campaigner at Australia's People for Nuclear Disarmament.
Watch the video:
The lab developed the scenario after the Pentagon published, and shortly thereafter removed, a new draft of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf) on June 11.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the document raised questions from observers and antiwar advocates concerned over the hubris of the Pentagon to assume it could win a nuclear war.
That document, combined with the scrapping of arms control treaties, led the researchers to develop testing for a scenario wherein the U.S. and Russia engage in a limited conflict.
The results point to a devastating cost in lives in short order.
"It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict," the site reads.
The scenario envisions a back and forth between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict begins with Russia striking the border of Germany and Poland in an effort to dissuade NATO aggression--but the reaction from the U.S. is to strike Kaliningrad, Russia's small territory on the Baltic Sea. From there, things get worse as both countries launch ever-increasing barrages of bombs at one another. Within hours, over 34 million people are dead and over 57 million are injured, to say nothing of the ongoing effects from radiation and nuclear winter.
The study is "based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets," according to the lab.
"It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases," the lab's summary reads.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible--or safe.
"This terrifying new video shows how just one tactical nuke can trigger a U.S.-Russian war that kills tens of millions," Daryl G. Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association, said in a tweet. "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."
Reaction to the video of the lab's findings emphasized the importance of the information, especially in a world where the U.S. military is considering using nuclear weapons as part of its conventional war strategy.
"The whole world needs to see this video," tweeted John Hallam, a campaigner at Australia's People for Nuclear Disarmament.
Watch the video:
The lab developed the scenario after the Pentagon published, and shortly thereafter removed, a new draft of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf) on June 11.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the document raised questions from observers and antiwar advocates concerned over the hubris of the Pentagon to assume it could win a nuclear war.
That document, combined with the scrapping of arms control treaties, led the researchers to develop testing for a scenario wherein the U.S. and Russia engage in a limited conflict.
The results point to a devastating cost in lives in short order.
"It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict," the site reads.
The scenario envisions a back and forth between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict begins with Russia striking the border of Germany and Poland in an effort to dissuade NATO aggression--but the reaction from the U.S. is to strike Kaliningrad, Russia's small territory on the Baltic Sea. From there, things get worse as both countries launch ever-increasing barrages of bombs at one another. Within hours, over 34 million people are dead and over 57 million are injured, to say nothing of the ongoing effects from radiation and nuclear winter.
The study is "based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets," according to the lab.
"It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases," the lab's summary reads.
Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible--or safe.
"This terrifying new video shows how just one tactical nuke can trigger a U.S.-Russian war that kills tens of millions," Daryl G. Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association, said in a tweet. "We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."
Reaction to the video of the lab's findings emphasized the importance of the information, especially in a world where the U.S. military is considering using nuclear weapons as part of its conventional war strategy.
"The whole world needs to see this video," tweeted John Hallam, a campaigner at Australia's People for Nuclear Disarmament.
Watch the video:
The lab developed the scenario after the Pentagon published, and shortly thereafter removed, a new draft of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf) on June 11.
As Common Dreams reported at the time, the document raised questions from observers and antiwar advocates concerned over the hubris of the Pentagon to assume it could win a nuclear war.
That document, combined with the scrapping of arms control treaties, led the researchers to develop testing for a scenario wherein the U.S. and Russia engage in a limited conflict.
The results point to a devastating cost in lives in short order.
"It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict," the site reads.
The scenario envisions a back and forth between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict begins with Russia striking the border of Germany and Poland in an effort to dissuade NATO aggression--but the reaction from the U.S. is to strike Kaliningrad, Russia's small territory on the Baltic Sea. From there, things get worse as both countries launch ever-increasing barrages of bombs at one another. Within hours, over 34 million people are dead and over 57 million are injured, to say nothing of the ongoing effects from radiation and nuclear winter.
The study is "based on independent assessments of current U.S. and Russian force postures, nuclear war plans, and nuclear weapons targets," according to the lab.
"It uses extensive data sets of the nuclear weapons currently deployed, weapon yields, and possible targets for particular weapons, as well as the order of battle estimating which weapons go to which targets in which order in which phase of the war to show the evolution of the nuclear conflict from tactical, to strategic to city-targeting phases," the lab's summary reads.