The Continuing Environmental Threat of Nuclear Weapons

Eos, Vol. 88, No. 21, 22 May 2007 tern."The treaty also has a built-in mecha nism for periodic "conferences of the FORUM parties" to develop mechanisms to meet its objective. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, adopted at the third session of the Confer ence of the Parties in 1997, entered into The Continuing Environmental Threat of Nuclear force on 16 February 2005, after ratification by Russia. This protocol by itself will not Weapons: Integrated Policy Responses meet the Convention's objective, but it is a step forward, and there are signs that even in PAGE 228,231 tioning, foam blowing, aerosol propellants, the United States, public opinion is reaching and other applications. As a result, the con a tipping point toward serious policy Humans have come to the realization that centration of these substances has started to responses to deal with the problem [Gore, pollution of the atmosphere with gases and decrease in both the troposphere and strato 2006]. particles in the past 50 years is the dominant sphere. Ozone has begun a gradual recovery cause of atmospheric change [Intergovern and may reach its pre-1980 levels by the Nuclear Winter mental Panel on Climate Change, 2007]. middle of the current century [Ajavon et al, While land-use change can produce large 2007].The treaty includes built-in,continuing Although complicated by issues of regional effects, ozone depletion, global meetings of the parties, which have pro national defense and prestige, nuclear prolif warming, and nuclear smoke all are human- duced amendments to take into account the eration has many aspects in common with driven problems that have actual or poten latest observations and scientific under global environmental issues, though they tial global adverse impacts on our fragile standing—produced for them in regular have not been considered in the same sort environment, each with severe conse World Meteorological Organization Ozone of policy framework. Casualties from the quences for humanity These effects were, or Assessments—and to adjust emissions regu direct effects of a nuclear blast, radioactivity, would be, inadvertent and unplanned conse lations to ensure ozone recovery as fast as and fires resulting from the massive use of quences of normal daily activities, the possible. nuclear weapons by the superpowers would defense policies of many nations, and To address the problem of global warm be so catastrophic that we avoided such a nuclear proliferation.Thus, we must seek ing, in 1992 the United Nations Framework tragedy for the first six decades after the ways of continuing our normal lives while Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invention of nuclear weapons. The realiza protecting ourselves from environmental was signed by 194 countries, and has since tion in the 1980s, based on research con catastrophe. been ratified by 189 countries. The UNFCCC ducted jointly by Western and Soviet scien Ozone depletion and global warming are was signed and ratified by the United States tists [Crutzen and Birks, 1982; Turco et al, already happening, while drastic cooling in 1992, came into force in 1994, and states, 1983; Aleksandrov and Stenchikov, 1983; from smoke from nuclear-generated fires has "The ultimate objective of this Convention... Robock, 1984, Pittock et al, 1986; Harwell and so far been avoided. However, these three is to achieve...stabilization of greenhouse Hutchinson, 1986],that the climatic conse threats to humanity and the environment are gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a quences, and indirect effects of the collapse interrelated—for example, nuclear energy is level that would prevent dangerous anthro of society, would be so severe that the ensu seen as an alternative to burning carbon for pogenic interference with the climate sys- ing nuclear winter would produce famine fuel, but also could potentially provide nations with the means to produce nuclear 80,000 • weapons. Chemicals harmful to ozone pro -•-U.S. Russia duction are no longer used in manufactur 70,000 • ing, but their replacements are greenhouse -•-World total gases. These threats have been addressed —^U.S. Deployed with quite different policy responses, and _ 60,000- —B—Russia Deployed O with varying degrees of success so far. na In this article, we present recent research 0) S 50,000* that models the environmental effects of _ W both small-scale and widespread nuclear 2 J* weapons discharges, and show how efforts I 40,000* to save the ozone layer, and strategies cur Z 30,000 rently used to reduce greenhouse gas emis ' sions, can be paralleled by a global call to avoid climatic catastrophes from the use of 20,000 • % | nuclear weapons. 10,000 • JP Ozone Depletion and Global Warming Following the discovery that substances such as chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer—a discovery for which Mario Molina, E Sherwood Rowland, and Fig. 1. Number of nuclear warheads in Russia (USSR) and the United States and the total for all Paul Crutzen were awarded the 1995 Nobel the nuclear weapons states /Norris and Kristensen, 2006]. Russia and the United States have Prize in Chemistry—the world's first global more than 95% of the warheads worldwide. The number of warheads began to fall after 1986 environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol, following the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and by 2005 was about one third of its was created, in 1987.The treaty was success value at the peak in 1986. Current treaties do not require a future reduction in the numbers of ful in pushing society to find replacements warheads, only a reduction in the numbers of warheads that are on strategic delivery systems for ozone-depleting substances, chiefly chlo (deployed). Weapons on strategic delivery systems should decline to 1700-2200 for each country rofluorocarbons for refrigeration, air condi by 2012. Eos, Vol. 88, No. 21, 22 May 2007 for billions of people far from the target zones, may have been an important factor in the end of the arms race between the One new state per 5 years United States and the Soviet Union [Robock, 1989]. Arms reductions since the 1980s (Fig ure 1) have cut the global nuclear arsenal to one third of its prior size, and the United States and Russia have much improved rela tions. This may be best symbolized by joint operation of the International Space Station and the 1993 Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement, in which highly enriched ura nium from decommissioned Russian weap ons is processed into low enriched uranium for use in U.S. nuclear power plants. However, the world now faces the pros pect of other states developing small, but remarkably deadly, nuclear arsenals. Toon et al. [2007a] address these policy issues in the context of nuclear arms control, but here we focus more specifically on policy impli cations related to environmental changes. 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Toon et al. [2007b] recently found that a regional war between the smallest current Year nuclear states involving 100 fifteen-kiloton explosions (the number of weapons likely to Fig. 2. New nuclear states have steadily appeared since the invention of nuclear weapons. In this exist in the arsenals of new nuclear states; figure, the date of the first test, or the date when weapons were obtained, is noted. Israel and South Africa did not test weapons so their dates to obtain weapons are uncertain. South Africa India and Pakistan are estimated to have abandoned its arsenal in the 1990s. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan also abandoned the 110-180 weapons between them) could pro weapons they inherited after they left the Soviet Union. The trend line is included not as a best fit duce direct fatalities comparable to all of or as a prediction, but just for reference. those worldwide in World War II. Robock et al. [2007a] showed that smoke from urban firestorms in such a conflict would A Global Nuclear Environmental Treaty United Kingdom, and many more weapons produce significant global temperature and may remain in storage. Hence much larger precipitation changes, lasting a decade or Work on nuclear winter has already led reductions are needed in the Russian and more, shortening the growing season in the to important policy decisions [Robock, U.S. weapon stocks. midlatitudes by a month in major agricul 1989]. However, we now propose that it is To make matters worse, there has been a tural areas, and thus affecting world food time for a global nuclear environmental steady increase in the number of nuclear supplies. In addition, Robock et al. [2007b] treaty. A nuclear war cannot be won. Even a weapons states (Figure 2). Between 1970, found that although the Cold War and its 'first strike' would be suicidal. Likewise, a when the nuclear proliferation treaty was associated nuclear arms race are over, the 'limited' nuclear war could cause severe signed, and 1980, only nonsignatories to the remaining American and Russian nuclear effects if targeted at cities and industrial treaty, such as Israel and India, created weap arsenals could still produce nuclear winter, areas, and it is doubtful that a nuclear war ons. Now, however, signatory countries such threatening the lives of billions of people. could ever be limited.'Star Wars' (the U.S. as North Korea and Iran are violating the Simulations for this new work were car ballistic missile defense system also known treaty. Unlike in prior periods, the world no ried out using the latest NASA Goddard as the Strategic Defense Initiative, now the longer seems united in the goal of prevent Institute for Space Studies climate model, Missile Defense Agency) is not the answer, ing nuclear proliferation. Addressing this ModelE [Schmidt et al., 2006], the result of since this system will always be 'leaky' Fur issue from an environmental viewpoint decades of NASA investment, and the hard ther, the indirect effects of nuclear winter would provide a needed additional perspec work and dedication of a large number of could be even greater than the direct tive and help the world to address all the scientists supported by NASA.

Load more