SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear weapons
War Is Hell for People and the Earth
Given the increasing violence across the world, it is essential that the international community more seriously address the environmental impacts of war as a persistent threat to the biosphere.
Mar 23, 2026
By any measure, Homo sapiens is one of the most violent animals on Earth. At any one time today, humans are engaged in over 100 armed conflicts and wars across the world, many with a resource component—oil, diamonds, gold, timber, territory, water. In the 20th century alone, over 130 million people were killed directly in war, 210 million if including government killings in non-war situations. The United Nations now reports that the world is entering “a new era” of increasing violence and conflict, and that “unresolved regional tensions, a breakdown in the rule of law, absent or co-opted state institutions, illicit economic gain, and the scarcity of resources exacerbated by climate change, have become dominant drivers of conflict.” Such extraordinary intraspecific violence seems to be unique to humans.
Strict economic losses from war exceed $1 trillion each year, and global military spending continues to rise, now approaching $3 trillion annually, compared to roughly $5 billion (0.2%) per year spent on peacekeeping. Global arms sales now exceed $150 billion each year, and there are over 500 million military assault weapons in circulation.
And often overlooked in assessing the toll of war is that, in addition to its humanitarian and economic cost, war often causes severe, long-lasting impacts on the natural environment.
War significantly impacts every part of the environment—air, water, land, habitat, biodiversity. This includes massive oil spills (e.g. enormous amounts of oil and other hazardous substances spilled from thousands of ships sunk in war, Iraqi forces during the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War intentionally releasing over 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and setting wellheads ablaze, the 2006 Israeli bombing of fuel depots in Lebanon causing the large Eastern Mediterranean oil spill, and millions of barrels of oil spilled in the Niger Delta conflict); air pollution from explosive detonations and fires; land contamination; wildfires; deforestation (the loss of millions of hectares of forests in Vietnam from the spraying millions of gallons of the toxic defoliant “Agent Orange,” and vast areas burned by incendiary napalm); habitat destruction (thousands of hectares of mangroves lost in Vietnam); physical impacts to land (erosion, compaction) from war machinery; and mortality of wildlife (killing tens of thousands of Norwegian reindeer during WWII, and thousands of camels killed during the 1990-1991 Gulf war). Fuel use and carbon emissions during war, and in preparation for war, are enormous, and the US military is the world’s largest institutional user of petroleum.
War and environment are reciprocal drivers of decline—environmental degradation leads to war, and war leads to environmental degradation.
But perhaps the most troubling aspect of modern civilization is the development and threatened use of nuclear weapons, now numbering roughly 14,000 across the world, with a combined explosive yield more than 360,000 times that of the Hiroshima detonation. This global nuclear weapons stockpile, many of which are on a hair-trigger ready to launch, creates significant risk of accidental launch, as well as unsecured weapons (“loose nukes”) being acquired and used by malevolent actors.
The environmental effects of full-scale nuclear war would put at risk much of human civilization and the planetary biosphere. Firestorms from a full-scale nuclear war would suspend millions of tons of black soot into the upper atmosphere, leading to abrupt and unprecedented climate impacts including “nuclear winter,” with global cooling and reduced photosynthesis, causing years of crop failures, famine, and ecological collapse.
As nuclear tensions have risen, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has now set its “Doomsday Clock” at 85 seconds to midnight, closer than ever in history to nuclear annihilation, a move it says “should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.”
We are, and must be, better than this.
UN secretaries general have called the environmental consequences of war widespread, devastating, and debilitating, prompting the initiation of the United Nations’ International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict (November 6).
Theoretically, all nations are governed by international rules of war, and those rules specifically prohibit inflicting unnecessary environmental harm.
For instance, Paragraph 18 of the Geneva Conventions stipulates that:
All armed forces, whether regular or irregular, should continue to observe the principles and rules of international environmental and humanitarian law to which the parties to the conflict are bound in times of peace. Natural and cultural resources shall not be pillaged under any circumstances.
In Additional Protocol I, Article 35 states:
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.
And Protocol I, Article 55—Protection of the Natural Environment—states:
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
It is notable that while the US has signed, but not ratified, Protocol I, it is generally felt that the Protocol has achieved status as Customary International Law that is to be abided by all nations, irrespective of ratification.
As well, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the 1998 Rome Statute, stipulates in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) that the following constitutes a war crime:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
While there are 129 nation-state members to the ICC-Rome Statute, several countries with significant military activities are not, and thus do not abide by its rules—e.g., the US, China, Russia, India, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, and Syria.
And unfortunately, the laudable provisions cited above are often ignored by both state actors and non-state actors, without consequence. The terms widespread, long-term, and severe are not specifically defined. And the ICC statute requires evidence of intent and knowledge in order to prosecute violators, as such, it has yet to be employed due to this high threshold. Perhaps most importantly, these rules of war lack clarity regarding accidental or collateral environmental damage, which is by far the largest environmental impact of war.
War and environment are reciprocal drivers of decline—environmental degradation leads to war, and war leads to environmental degradation. Put simply, war and environment don’t mix—war is hell on people and the natural environment.
Given the increasing violence across the world, it is essential that the international community more seriously address the environmental impacts of war as a persistent threat to the biosphere. The Geneva Conventions must be updated to specifically and unambiguously define their environmental protections; to establish an international legal mechanism—independent of nation-states—to arbitrate and prosecute claims of environmental damage from war and to impose sufficient consequences for violators; and to hold the perpetrators of conflict financially liable for environmental damage and restoration post conflict.
For now, all combatants, including those in the current Persian Gulf war, must abide by these agreed environmental protections during conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s No-Rules International Order Fuels Death, Destruction, and Nuclearization
Trump and Netanyahu insist that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Yet perhaps the greatest irony of this war is that their senseless aggression is giving every country reason to develop nuclear arms.
Mar 16, 2026
At the 2026 meeting of the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney remarked that the “rules-based international order” has ended. In its place is a system where “the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.” Sovereignty is no longer safeguarded by international law, but rather “will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.”
The world Carney describes is quite familiar to the nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America—the ones that never had the luxury of relying on international law. Where, for instance, were these rules during the decades of Israeli occupation of Palestine?
Still, while international law was always unevenly applied, the illegal war being waged by the US and Israel against Iran highlights the dangers of a world where superpowers can act without even those modest restraints.
A world where instead of just cause, the whims of the strong is enough cause for war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has “longed” for this war “for 40 years.” President Donald Trump remarked, “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first… I felt strongly about that.” Trump has even claimed that the war will end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.”
What other lessons are countries to draw from this than that the US will engage in imperial violence against any non-nuclear power?
No congressional approval; no clear—or even consistent—justification provided to the public; no forewarning to America’s allies. When might makes right, why bother with the details?
Instead of the façade of proportionality, wars are deliberate exercises of international bullying. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth boosts that America “is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history… with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives.” Trump openly jokes that military officials have told him it’s “a lot more fun” to sink Iranian ships than capture them.
Instead of any pretense of protecting civilians, the mighty strike with callous indifference. On the very first day of the war, the US struck a girl’s elementary school, killing more than 175 people—most of them small children. A US official reports that this was likely due to outdated intelligence. However, it is worth noting that the Trump administration effectively dissolved the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, an initiative aimed precisely at reducing civilian harms during US military operations.
To date, the Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian reports that at least 1,255 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in the war. More than 12,000 people have been wounded, and 52 health centers and 29 clinical facilities have been either damaged or destroyed.
The cruelty is the point. Trump and Netanyahu want to make Iran into a failed state—an example of what happens to their enemies. As Trump puts it, “They really are a nation of terror and hate, and they’re paying a big price right now.” This is collective punishment with no plans or care for what comes next.
It is a war with no clear off-ramp. A peaceful resolution would be ideal, but why exactly would Iran entertain this option? Prior to these attacks, they were negotiating with the Trump administration. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who was mediating talks between the US and Iran, said that Tehran had made major concessions regarding its nuclear program. This included a willingness to reduce uranium levels below what it had agreed to under the Obama administration.
In a world where the pretense of international law has been unraveled, how can nations negotiate as equals? What guarantees could the world offer Iran that it will not be attacked again without provocation? This is, after all, the second war Israel has launched against them in nine months.
How will the world hold the US and Israel—two nuclear powers—responsible for their war crimes? Is it even possible? And if not, what precedent does it set?
Trump and Netanyahu insist that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Yet perhaps the greatest irony of this war is that their senseless aggression is giving every country reason to develop nuclear arms.
In a speech on March 2, French President Emmanuel Macron remarked, “The next 50 years will be an era of nuclear weapons.” He further announced that France will bolster their own nuclear arsenal, including the development of a new nuclear-armed submarine. On March 3, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk remarked that his administration is preparing “Poland for the most autonomous actions possible” with regards to nuclear security.
These moves, while dangerous, are unsurprising. In addition to war with Iran, Trump has threatened to annex Greenland and Canada; threatened to take the Panama Canal; kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro; launched military strikes in Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq; as well as imposed an oil embargo that is pushing Cuba to total collapse.
What other lessons are countries to draw from this than that the US will engage in imperial violence against any non-nuclear power? It will threaten Cuba for dealing with “hostile countries” like China and Russia, while also inviting President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin to be part of Trump's Peace Board. The Trump administration will condemn human rights abuses in Iran, while also sharply scaling back its annual human rights report on North Korea.
This is the reality of Trump’s no-rules international order. If Iran had nuclear weapons, neither the US nor Israel would have dared attack them. Their sovereignty would be safe.
At Davos, Carney remarked that while the “great powers can afford for now to go it alone,” other nations must work together “because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” The precedent Trump has set is clear: A seat at the table is only guaranteed to nuclear powers. That is how nations will “withstand pressure.”
Importantly, this dynamic does not end with the Trump administration. Even if a competent leader is elected in 2028, no country can rest assured that another Trump is not on the horizon. The threat of unmitigated American violence will drive further nuclearization. It will make nuclear war increasingly more likely. That will be Trump’s legacy—one of death, destruction, and nuclearization.
Future presidents will inherit the terrible burden of repairing America’s image on the global stage. For now, we must do everything we can to end this war before Trump’s madness goes truly nuclear.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Iranians Probably Wish They Had Developed Nuclear Weapons!
The lesson that Iranian government and the world has learned is that NOT developing a nuclear weapon will lead to the US and Israel assassinating the leadership of your country and bombing the hell out of the rest of the country.
Mar 14, 2026
Including the minute when the US and Israel fired missiles and dropped bombs on the home of Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his wife and other members of his family killing over 40 members of the leadership of Iran, senior Iranian officials had maintained that Iran would never develop a nuclear bomb.
The Omani foreign minister who was in discussions with Iran and the United States on February 27, 2026 only days before the US-Israeli attack on Iran said Iran agreed to "never, ever have… nuclear material that will create a bomb."
“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” said Jeffery Lewis of of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies after the US attack on Iran.
Arms control experts have disputed President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran “soon” could have missiles capable of reaching the US, and they say there’s a lack of evidence that the country “attempted to rebuild” nuclear enrichment facilities damaged by US strikes last year.
US Intelligence Community Said That Iran Was NOT Developing a Nuclear Weapon
Prior to the US-Israeli June, 2025 attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, in March 2025, the US Intelligence Agencies' 31-page “threat assessment” states that “we continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” (Page 26)
Lesson Learned: Nuclear Weapons Are A Deterrent to US Attacks
The lesson that Iranian government and the world has learned is that NOT developing a nuclear weapon will lead to the US and Israel assassinating the leadership of your country and bombing the hell out of the rest of the country.
All you have to do is ask the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans about the value of nuclear weapons to deter the United States from attacking them.
Will developing and testing nuclear weapons keep the United States from attacking? So far, the answer is YES.
So that’s the foreign policy imperative of 2026: Develop nuclear weapons or always be threatened by the United States.
Venezuela: No Nuclear Weapons—US Attacked
Venezuela had no nuclear weapons and its head of state Nicolás Maduro and the former Attorney General and President of the National Assembly, Maduro’s spouse Cilia Flores, were kidnapped and imprisoned in the US on January 3, 2026 by the military of the United States and the other leadership of the country threatened with the same treatment.
Afghanistan: No Nuclear Weapons—US Attacked
Iraq: No Nuclear Weapons—US Attacked
Cuba, Nicaragua, Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Mexico
Cuba has no nuclear weapons, and after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961, has no means of strategic defense of the country, and its leadership is threatened daily by Trump.
Nicaragua has no nuclear weapons, and its leadership is threatened by the United States.
Canada, Greenland, Denmark, and Mexico have no nuclear weapons and the threats from the US come almost daily.
When is enough… enough?
When 72,000 are killed by US bombs in the genocide of Gaza—is that enough?
When the head of state of another country is kidnapped and imprisoned in the US—is that enough?
When Israel dictates when the US goes to war on a country that has not attacked the US and has not developed nuclear weapons—is that enough?
When the US threatens a 70-year-old revolution 90 miles off the United States with decapitation and destruction—is that enough?
When the president of the United States orders the assassination of 125-plus?? persons in boats allegedly transporting drugs and then pardons the former president of Honduras who was convicted by a federal court and sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug operations while president of his country—is that enough?
When the president pardons over 1,000 persons convicted of the 2020 rioting and destruction of the US Capitol—is that enough?
When its policy for 100,000 non-criminal human beings to be locked up in horrific detention or prison facilities—is that enough?
And on and on! Is that enough?
In the words of religious friends, “Sweet Jesus, What will be Enough?”
When Does It End?
It ends at the White House when the people of the United States have had enough.
It ends when the US Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have had enough.
Have we had enough yet?
On one level, it seems like NOT---but on other levels, we are reaching that point.
Will There Be Blowback from these Policies?
In one word: YES
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular