We live in an extremely dangerous world, where there are numerous weapons of such power and destructive force that the lives of the world’s citizens and our environment are at imminent risk. These weapons include: Nuclear weapons 8 to 80 times the destructive force used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons being developed, or already in existence, that can cripple the electrical grid, electronic devices, and communication systems; Chemical and biological weapons currently forbidden by treaties yet capable of being recreated and deployed; hypersonic missiles, so fast and undetectable that interception may be next to impossible. What do these weapons have in common? They are likely to be employed against large population centers and cause massive human, infrastructure and environmental destruction.    

Currently, there are nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons possessed by 9 countries: Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. (Statista) Russia and the United States have a substantial majority of these weapons, but China is rapidly growing their supply. Most of these countries are currently modernizing their nuclear forces. The United States is projected to spend $756 billion from 2023-2032 to modernize its nuclear arsenal. (CBO)

Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has historically been considered the primary deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons since they were first used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under the MAD theory of deterrence, no nuclear power would make a preemptive nuclear first strike on another nuclear power for fear that enough of the opponent’s nuclear weapons would survive to provide a devastating response. This is particularly true for countries that possess a Triad means of delivery. Triad is the capability of nuclear weapons being deployed by air (bombers), land (missiles) and sea (submarine-based missiles). Currently, only Russia, China, India, and the United States have Triad capabilities. (National Interest)

However, the MAD deterrent is not as plausible in today’s world. For example, what if a country can disable a nuclear response to a first strike by initially employing Electromagnetic Pulse weapons? Or, what if a country uses hypersonic nuclear missiles that reduce the ability or the time to respond? Moreover, there will always be the threat that an irrational leader of a nuclear power will launch nuclear weapons without fear of a reprisal or by underestimating the potential for a devastating response.

There are treaties banning the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons, but the latest Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) needs revision. This treaty, signed in 2010 between the U.S. and Russia replaced previous treaties and reduced deployable nuclear warheads to 1,500 and reduced deployable delivery vehicles to 700 by each country. The treaty was extended to 2026 but Russia suspended it in 2023. (Arms control Association) We need all nuclear powers to agree to a further reduction of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.

Amazingly, the latest Pew Research Center report on the top problems facing the U.S. does not even list the nuclear threat among the 16 problems of concern by Americans! (Pew) How can this be? Possibly, Americans have been lulled into complacency concerning the threat of nuclear warfare. Perhaps, they believe that the MAD theory of deterrence prevented the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 and will continue to do so indefinitely. Another explanation is that Americans have “buried their heads in the sand” because the thought of nuclear warfare is too frightening to consider. Lastly, many Americans may simply be uninformed as to the very real possibility of the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. 

The threat of the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction is especially troubling today for the following reasons:

1. Due to the current tension between the United States and North Korea over North Korea’s testing of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s), and the development of the nuclear warheads that they will eventually carry.
2. Due to the threat of nuclear weapons development by Iran and the actions by Israel and the U.S. to halt that development; and the intention of Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran proceeds with development.
3. Due to current announcements by Russia, China, U.S. and other nuclear powers to modernize their respective nuclear forces.  
4. Due to the status of nuclear weapons in other countries and hostilities between countries with nuclear weapons, specifically Pakistan and India. 
5. Due to the extraordinary lethality of nuclear weapons use over large geographical areas and populations. These “strategic” nuclear weapons have the destructive force of approximately 100 to 1,000,000 KT (kilotons) of TNT.  The nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a force of 12.5 KT of TNT. (Rhodes). It resulted in deaths of between 90,000 to 120,000. (Ringle)                         
6. Due to the possibility of accidental use of nuclear weapons or accidents involving the transportation or storage of nuclear weapons.
7. Due to the fear that nuclear weapons could eventually fall under the control of an autocratic and irrational leader who is desperate enough to use those weapons. 
8. Due to the concern that nuclear weapons, or weapons-grade material, could be stolen or purchased by terrorists.
9. Due to Vladimir Putin placing Russia’s nuclear forces on “High Alert” status during the invasion of Ukraine and recent threats to employ “tactical” nuclear weapons (weapons of lower yield primarily for use against military targets).
10. Due to the development of hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, and Electromagnetic Pulse weapons. Plus, the possible resurrection of Chemical & Biological weapons and the development of new weapons of mass destruction.

It is difficult to dispute the horrific destruction of the conventional bombing wrought upon London, Tokyo, Hamburg and other cities during World War II, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the lethality of today’s nuclear weapons can dwarf the destruction of the bombs dropped during World War II. 

Russian ICBMs carry warheads equal to 100 to 800KTs (equivalent yield of 100,000 to 800,000 tons of TNT). U.S. ICBMs carry warheads equal to 300-350KTs. As stated above, these nuclear weapons are many times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russian and American bombers can carry nuclear bombs exceeding 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT). (U.S., 2017) (Kristensen, 2017)

The employment of about 1% of the nuclear weapons held by Russia and the U.S. would not only result in the tragic death of millions of earth’s inhabitants but potentially lead to catastrophic climatic changes threatening the surviving inhabitants. (Starr, 2014) 

Until recent times most damage estimates of nuclear weapons were based on blast effects, but the devastation of fires caused by these weapons can be equally damaging. Lynn Eden in “City on Fire” gives us a glimpse of such destruction. A hypothetical 300KT bomb is detonated 1,500 feet above the Pentagon. In a real war, multiple bombs would likely target command and control forces, both military and political. Under this scenario, a single 300KT bomb would produce devastating fires within 4.6 miles of ground zero, or over nearly the entire 68 square miles comprising Washington, DC. It is likely that many of the 700,000 inhabitants would be crushed by the blast, burned by the initial thermal radiation or the accompanying fires, or die from radiological sickness.

There are other possible Weapons of Mass Destruction that we should also consider: neutron bombs that kill people but leave structures in tack; Electromagnetic Pulse missiles or bombs that can virtually cripple all electronic devices, including our power grid and communication systems, over a large geographical area; Hypersonic missiles traveling at 5-10 times the speed of sound; cyber attacks that could cause similar problems to a nation’s electrical, communication, or other infrastructure. (Pry, 2018) Vladimir Putin has hinted at the development of a nuclear torpedo capable of causing a 500-meter-high tsunami that could wipe-out large coastal areas and threaten what remains with long-term radioactivity. (Robin, 2018) We need a new round of international treaties that forbid the development and use of such weapons.  

Throughout human history there is a tendency to seek weapons that are more advanced than the weapons of an opponent to deter aggression or to facilitate domination.  Whether for self-defense or military conquest, the technological development of weaponry has always been with us.  Nevertheless, civilization has a duty to protect itself from extinction. Weapons of mass destruction should be banned by strict international treaties that include robust inspection and enforcement measures.   

Final Thoughts

We must be realistic about our objectives concerning nuclear weapons. We cannot immediately eliminate all nuclear weapons from our world. Every country has a right and a duty to protect its citizens. Yet, there must be a more reasonable, less costly and less destructive means of protection. Should we continue a new multi-billion-dollar nuclear arms race between the U.S., Russia, and China? Can we extend the New START treaty and further reduce our nuclear forces? Should nations that possess nuclear weapons agree to a prohibition of the use of such weapons against heavily populated civilian areas? How do we guarantee the security of peaceful, non-nuclear states who might be threatened by hostile states with nuclear weapons or superior conventional forces? Should other weapons of mass destruction be prohibited by a new round of international treaties? Ultimately, is it possible to rid the world of all nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction?

The above issues and concerns involving nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction require more debate and discussion by our leaders and by our citizens. Few of us are nuclear physicists or experts on nuclear weapons policy. However, we should all be concerned citizens and realize that most of us have kept these issues out of our immediate consciousness, and that the results of unawareness or indifference can be detrimental to our survival and the survival of our children and future generations. We can rest on the status quo and argue that the world has not been involved in a war employing nuclear weapons since 1945. However, we should realize that there are numerous hostile events, either active or smoldering beneath the surface that could negate that optimism and possibly lead to a nuclear exchange of devastating results. 

To quote Stephen M. Younger of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “The time has come to bring discussions of nuclear policy out of the cloistered enclave of defense strategists to engage a much wider audience. Nuclear weapons affect all of us, and all of us should have the opportunity to discuss their future.” (Younger)

On February 13, President Trump expressed interest in negotiating arms control with China and Russia.  “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over.  And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.” (Ruiz and Wilson)

We adults, especially our leaders, made this world unsafe for ourselves and for our children. It is time we correct that situation.

Ron Ohlhausen

April, 2025                                                                                       

Bibliography

Arms Control Association. “New START at a Glance.” December, 2024. www.atmscontrol.org/factsheet/new-start-glance.  

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2023 to 2032.” July, 2023. www.cbo.gov/publications/59365.

Eden, Lynn “City on Fire,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 60 Issue 1, 1 January 2004, pages 32-43

Fleck, Anna. Statista, “The Countries Holding the World’s Nuclear Arsenal.” Aug. 20, 2024. www.statista.com/chart/8301/the-countries.

Kass, Harrison. “Here’s Why America’s ‘Nuclear Triad’ Is So Important.” The National Interest. Feb. 14, 2025. Nationalinterest.org/blog/buss/heres-why…

Kristensen, Hans M. & Norris, Robert S. “Russian Nuclear Forces , 2017,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 73:2, 115-126, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2017.1290375

Pew Research Center. “Top problems facing the U.S.” May 23, 2024. www.pewresearch.org/…/top-problems-facing-the-u-s. 

Pry, Peter, EMP Task Force Director, “Life, Liberty & Levin” interview on Fox News, April 22, 2018.

Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Simon & Schuser, New York, 1986

Ringle, Ken “A Fallout Over Numbers,” The Washington Post, August 5, 1995, https://www.washingtonpost.com/…a-fallout-over-numbers/d9c5fb21-880b-4c6c-85f1-…

Robin, Sebastion, “We Now Know Why Russia Wants a 100-Megaton Nuclear Torpedo,” The National Interest, March 2, 2018, www.yahoo.com/news/now-how-why-russia-wants-032000431United States Nuclear Forces

Ruiz, Lucas and Wilson, Geoff. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, February 24, 2025. “What Trump got right about nuclear weapons—and how to step back from the brink.”

The bulletin.org/2025/02/what-trump-got-right…

Starr, Steven, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons,” https://www.countercurrents.org/star310514.htm, 2014

“U.S. Nuclear Arsenal (As of January 2017) Weapon Type Number…” https://www.ucsusa.org.sites/default/static/arsenal/…/US-Nuclear-Forces_Jan-2017.pdf

Younger, Stephen M, The Bomb: A New History, Harper Collins, New York, 2009, page 4