Do nuclear weapons pose major threat to mankind?

The extent of nuke threat
Nuclear weapons in the hands of none is the best option for mankind, in the hands of one is the worst option, in the hands of many is a better option and in the hands of few is a worse option.

Mankind at present stands on the worse option with nuclear weapons in the arsenals of few states. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an effort towards promoting the same objective. The UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is working to ensure peaceful use of nuclear energy, i.e., the countries which are possessing nuclear weapons will continue to possess them and the countries which are trying to possess nuclear weapons in the guise of peaceful use of nuclear energy are to be prevented. In other words, the IAEA is working for continuation of the worse option.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Had many countries, at least all regional powers and their counterparts, possessed nuclear weapons, the mankind would have been in the better option. There would have been a balance of power, therefore, less probability of the use of nuclear weapons by any. During the Cold War period, nuclear war did not break out because of the balance of power between the USA and the former USSR. With such option, the risk lies in its possible use by any irresponsible regime or any terrorist group. But history shows that nuclear weapons had been used during the World War II by a very responsible, world's top democratic regime of the USA. The USA used it within few weeks of its production by the Manhattan Project. But the regional powers namely, India and Pakistan have for long restrained themselves from using nuclear weapons.

The use of nuclear weapons by USA was criticised on the grounds that it was not needed to kill 220,000 people during the end days of the war when Japan was gradually loosing ability to continue war. The proponents of bombings opine that more lives could have been lost had the war continued. They argue that the use of nuclear bombs put an end to the war. Against such opinion it can be said that it was not needed to drop two bombs on densely populated cities. To show US strength of destruction it could have been dropped on land uninhabited by people.

Therefore, the use of nuclear bombs by the USA on Japan was far from an outcome of reality perception and rational calculation. The responsible leaders also sometimes behave irresponsibly. Understandably, had the US required using nuclear weapons, it would have done so. But the USA is realising its objectives with conventional weapons, so, it does not require using nuclear weapons. Israel is believed to have possessed nuclear weapons to use it as the last resort if its existence is threatened. With the Palestinian policy of coexistence with Israel and nuclear balance of power between India and Pakistan, regional nuclear war is less probable. If IAEA is given enough authority to have information regarding the nuclear capabilities of the states, and their efforts to obtain the capability, it is less likely that any terrorist group can obtain nuclear weapons.

The best option -- total nuclear disarmament is not heard today because some countries holding nuclear weapons want to eat the cake and keep it too. It is unethical to hold nuclear weapons thyself and ask others not to do so. Had ethics prevailed in the decision making of some states, nuclear power could have done enough welfare to the mankind. Had the states with nuclear weapons started nuclear disarmament, the would-be nuclear states would have given up their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Total nuclear disarmament eludes because of image perception and over ambition of some people whose decisions matter. Understandably, the USA does not need nuclear weapons. So, there is no harm for the USA and other states to go for total nuclear disarmament.

Some may argue that in a nuclear free world, there will be proliferation of protracted wars -- with conventional weapons -- more lives and properties will be destroyed, so, the world needs nuclear deterrence to keep conventional warfare limited. Strengthening the United Nations is the answer to these critics. Spread and proliferation of conventional warfare can be controlled by the UN with strong peace-keeping ability.

Perhaps, aspirations are there even to push mankind to the worst option of nuclear weapons in the hands of one. The US doctrine of the New American Century presumably has a surreptitious element of this sort.

From the above discussion, it is seen that there is less possibility of a nuclear war. Neither side can win an all-out atomic war. In today's international relations, such an all-out war has become an impossibility with a unipolar world led by the USA. If there is threat of limited regional nuclear war that can be checked with effective role of the IAEA and regional balance of power. Now let us examine the extent of damage nuclear weapons caused to mankind. Nuclear bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki in August 1945. Initial death tolls stood at 220,000. Till 2004 the death tolls rose to 237,062 as more people died from cancer and other long-term ailments. But surprisingly, the World War II caused a total of 60 million or more deaths -- not by nuclear weapons but by conventional ones. World War I caused 20 million deaths -- none of these deaths caused by nuclear weapons.

There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads in the arsenals of little more than half a dozen countries -- enough to destroy the present civilization but that did not happen. So, some amount of rationality is certainly finding its way in actions of people whose decisions matter. It is no harm if nuclear weapons are there but those do never explode. However, it is in the best interest of mankind that there are no nuclear weapons.

Magnitude of other threats
Now let us compare the loss of human lives by the use of nuclear weapons and by some other causes. Landmines kill or maim 2000 people a month, one third of them are children. That means during the last 15 years, landmines have caused more deaths than nuclear weapons did during World War II. Professor Rummel explains, "Nearly 170 million probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years". These death tolls had been caused by conventional weapons.

In terms of loss of human lives, some diseases have caused more havoc on mankind than nuclear weapons did. During the last 24 years, 25 million people died of AIDS. There is no AIDS cure till date, so more deaths will follow. According to WHO Report, 2005 about 530,000 women die a year in pregnancy and childbirth, more than 3 million babies die before birth, more than 4 million new-borns die within the first days or weeks of life, and altogether 10.6 million children die a year before their fifth birthday. Nuclear weapons could not inflict such havoc on mankind. According to another report, about 40 million people die due to tobacco related diseases across the world every year. Centre for Environment and Food Security (CEFS) -- a Delhi-based research organisation -- reported that 24,000 people die of hunger a day worldwide. A study reveals that climate changes resulting from global warming is claiming more than 150,000 lives around the world every year.

The above discussion shows that conventional weapons, poverty, diseases and natural disasters have done more harm to mankind than nuclear weapons did in terms of loss of lives. It is theoretical perception that nuclear weapons are the major threats but in reality conventional weapons, poverty, diseases and natural disasters are the actual threats to mankind. People concerned need to give some more rational thoughts to these points. In these days, when the fossil fuel reserve of the world is rapidly depleting, nuclear energy can be of great help to mankind. Albert Einstein rightly said "Politics is more difficult than physics and the world is more likely to die from bad politics than from bad physics". Time is ripe to take lesson from this to put politics on right track for human welfare.

Md Abdur Rouf is doing his Ph.D. on Govt and Politics at JU.