Consequences of Using Nuclear Weapons
by Dean Babst and David Krieger*, 1997

"We have yet to fully grasp the monstrous effects of these weapons, that the consequences of their use defy reason, transcending time and space, poisoning the earth and deforming its inhabitants."(1)

-- General Lee Butler, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, December 4, 1996

"The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet."(2)

--International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996

The destructive power of today's nuclear weapons is far greater than the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of nuclear weapons today could have devastating consequences for humanity and the environment, not only in the country attacked but in neutral countries and in an attacking country as well.

The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, an international commission of distinguished individuals that was initiated by the Australian government, reached the conclusion that "Nuclear weapons pose an intolerable threat to all humanity and its habitat, yet tens of thousands remain in arsenals built up at an extraordinary time of deep antagonism. That time has passed, yet assertions of their utility continue."(3)

The Canberra Commission went on to state the conviction that "There is no doubt that, if the people of the world were more fully aware of the inherent danger of nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use, they would reject them."(4) Believing this to be true, we have set forth in this paper information on the consequences of using nuclear weapons.

We have described the consequences of using a) a relatively crude nuclear weapon with an explosive force of one thousand tons, the kind a terrorist might use; b) a sophisticated nuclear warhead with an explosive force of one hundred thousand tons, the type of standard warhead found on a U.S. or British Trident submarine; and c) one thousand sophisticated warheads with 100 million tons of explosive force.

A Crude Terrorist Bomb-1000 Tons (1 Kiloton) of Explosive Force

In order to illustrate how catastrophic the use of nuclear weapons can be, the following example is based on the use of just one small nuclear bomb by terrorists. A rudimentary nuclear bomb would have a destructive power equivalent to 1,000 tons (1 kiloton or 1kt) of conventional high explosives. According to the Center of Defense Information, "if [such] a nuclear weapon had been available to the bombers of the World Trade Center, most of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island would have been leveled."(5) Terrorist truck bombs using conventional explosives have a destructive force equal to 5 to 10 tons of dynamite.

If central New York City were leveled, besides injuring and killing millions of people the exploding bomb would destroy the following institutions creating economic and social chaos in the world:

• United Nations Headquarters,
• Major communication centers: NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.,
• New York Stock Exchange,
• World banking centers where billions of dollars are transferred daily,
• Transportation centers within New York City and connecting New York City with other areas.

The danger from terrorists is being seriously overlooked. The U.S. is not devoting sufficient assets to dealing with the potential terrorist use of nuclear weapons. The Center for Defense Information has stated, "Almost ignored in the quarter trillion dollar annual U.S. military budget is the fact that large quantities of nuclear bomb-making material are potentially available to hostile nations and terrorists. But only about one-tenth of one percent of our military budget is devoted to safeguarding against this source of deadly danger to the American homeland."(6)

A Sophisticated Nuclear Warhead-100,000 Tons (100 Kilotons) of Explosive Force

One standard nuclear warhead on a U.S. or British Trident submarine has an explosive force equal to 100,000 tons (100kt) of conventional high explosives. This is a force 100 times more powerful than the terrorist bomb discussed above.

Great Britain was arbitrarily selected as an example of what might happen if a country used one of its standard nuclear warheads. One of the reasons given for Britain maintaining nuclear weapons is for protection against regional threats, especially in the Middle East. Another reason given for their maintaining nuclear weapons is for responding to a chemical or biological attack or threat of attack.(7)

Economic Chaos - If Britain decided to use one of its standard Trident submarine nuclear warheads against a Middle East threat, radioactive fallout could land in oil-producing areas. If it did, that area would likely stop production. If production continued, who would buy radioactive oil? Since the Middle East supplies the world with so much oil, decreased production might trigger economic chaos.

British farmers only produce enough food by themselves to support 12 million of Britain's 56 million people.(8) If Britain used one of its nuclear warheads, it could cost Britain and others in the world greatly. How would the British people feed themselves if there is little fuel for transporting food and the world economy is in chaos?

Some nuclear explosions produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP can travel at the speed of light across a wide area and pack enough punch to wipe out or make unreliable electronic bank and business records, further adding to the economic chaos.

The radioactive fallout from one nuclear explosion can cover a wide area and last a long time. The Center for Defense Information has pointed out that nuclear weapons could not have been used in the Persian Gulf War without poisonous radiation destroying the countries we were fighting to protect (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) as well as our troops and our allies' troops.(9)

Environmental pollution - We need to ask ourselves, "If a nuclear bomb was used to stop a biological or chemical weapon attack or threat of attack, could the explosions throw these poisonous elements into the atmosphere to settle around the world along with the radioactive fallout?" The U.S. Department of Defense acknowledged that thousands of sick veterans from the Persian Gulf War may have been exposed to nerve gas or toxic chemicals when Iraqi weapons containing these toxins were destroyed. They said it also might have been from environmental pollution from oil well fires.(10)

Still Building - It can be seen from the above that one standard Trident submarine nuclear warhead can do a vast amount of damage because the scope of the damage is not necessarily local to the targeted area; it can cross national boundaries, even those of the state using the weapon. One British Trident submarine can launch up to 128 of these independently-targeted nuclear warheads. With U.S. help, Britain is replacing its four Polaris submarines with four much more powerful Trident submarines, of which two are now in operation. The U.S. currently has seventeen Trident submarines and is planning to deploy one more in 1997.(11)

A Nuclear War-100,000,000 Tons (100 Megatons) of Explosive Force

The use of one thousand nuclear warheads the same size (100 kilotons) as the one described above would produce an explosive force equal to 100,000,000 tons of dynamite (100 megatons). If more powerful nuclear weapons were used it would take fewer nuclear warheads to produce an explosive force equal to 100 megatons.

As an explosive force, 100 megatons provides a helpful measure for trying to comprehend the size of a nation's overkill capabilities. For providing defense, however, an explosive force of this size is not helpful to the defending nation; a defense that could result in the destruction of the defending nation makes no sense.

Nuclear Winter - Carl Sagan and his colleagues in their studies found that a war in which 100 megatons were exploded in low-yield airbursts over cities could ignite thousands of fires. The smoke from these fires would be enough to generate a Nuclear Winter, darkening and chilling the earth and reducing world food crops.(12)

Earthquake and Volcanic Activity - The continuous pounding of the earth's crust with a thousand nuclear explosions might greatly increase earthquake and volcanic activities. In the early 1980s, the world had its greatest volcanic activity in 70 years, with the eruption of volcanoes in the U.S., Mexico, and Indonesia. At this time, many nuclear tests were being carried out by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was the first volcanic eruption in the continental U.S. in 60 years.(13)

In 1978 an earthquake killed 25,000 persons in Tabas, Iran. Thirty-six hours before the earthquake, Russia had tested a large nuclear bomb at Semipalatinsk, about 1,500 miles away. The Iranian quake was shallow like the Russian test. The Tabas quake differed from most natural earthquakes in that there were no apparent after-shocks.(14)

In summary, it can be seen that if a nuclear explosive force of 100 megatons was used it could destroy civilization. It could turn our world into a dark, cold, radioactively polluted planet with few survivors.

Nuclear Overkill

An explosive force of 100 megatons, awesome as it is, represents only a small proportion of the nuclear destructive power in the world.

Since humanity can only destroy itself once, nuclear overkill serves no purpose, wastes billions of dollars in maintenance costs, and increases the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists, or by accident, miscalculation, or misunderstanding.

Russia has a nuclear weapons destructive force of 2,900 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 29 times. Russia, which is in terrible financial shape, is wasting vast sums of money to maintain far more strategic nuclear warheads (7,150) than it can use without destroying itself.(15)

The United States has a total nuclear weapons destructive force of 1,800 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 18 times. While struggling mightily to reduce deficit spending, the U.S. is spending some $27 billion annually to maintain far more strategic nuclear warheads (7,250) than it can use without destroying itself.(16)

While the total nuclear destructive power of the United Kingdom, France and China represents only a small part of the world's nuclear weapons destructive force, it is still enough to destroy the world several times. Each of these countries is struggling with great difficulty to pay for their nuclear weapons.(17)

The destructive power estimates are conservative since they only include the power of strategic nuclear weapons. If tactical nuclear weapons were added, the overkill capability would be even greater.

Israel, India and Pakistan also have the ability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons.(18) As global awareness grows that nuclear weapons use is likely to be massively destructive, including self-destructive, hopefully these states, too, will reevaluate the appropriateness of maintaining nuclear arsenals.

Global Mental Block

Why does humanity waste vast sums maintaining far more nuclear weapons than are needed to destroy itself? In an earlier study we discovered the main reason for such illogical behavior is that there is a worldwide reluctance to think about what the consequences would be if nuclear weapons were used -- a mental block. We discovered that virtually nothing is being published anywhere in the world on the self-destructive consequences of the use of nuclear weapons despite the great peril they present to all.(19)

An example of this mental block was recently reported by General Lee Butler (USAF, Ret.). When General Butler became head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, he went to the Omaha headquarters to inspect the 12,000 targets in the former Soviet Union. He was shocked to find that dozens of warheads were aimed at Moscow (as the Soviets once targeted Washington). General Butler said, "We were totally out of touch with reality."(20) U.S. planners had no grasp of the destructive power of nuclear weapons. One small nuclear warhead alone could destroy a major city.

While it is understandable that people are reluctant to think about how terrible the consequences of nuclear weapons use could be, this reluctance has allowed humankind to place itself in danger of self-annihilation, and to spend some $8 trillion over the course of the Nuclear Age doing so.

Conclusion

We have looked at the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, from levels as low as a crude terrorist bomb to a full scale nuclear war. Even at the lowest level of use the consequences would be unimaginably grave, resulting potentially in millions of deaths and social chaos. We must act now to prevent nuclear weapons and nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists.

We have also shown that any use of nuclear weapons by a state is ultimately self-destructive. A nuclear attack by a state not only risks full scale nuclear war, which would clearly have disastrous global consequences, but also endangers its own citizens simply through the massive havoc that a nuclear bomb would create in the environment, in global economics, and in distribution lines.

The obvious conclusion is that we must move rapidly to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. We must overcome the worldwide reluctance to face the terrible consequences of nuclear weapons use, accept the fragility of our lives in the Nuclear Age, and work to abolish all nuclear weapons.

Notes

1. General Lee Butler's Statement At the National Press Club on Dec. 4, 1996.

2. "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons," United Nations General Assembly A/51/218, 15 October 1996, p.17.

3. Sanders, Ben, Ed. "The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons," Programme For Promoting Nuclear Non-proliferation, New York, NY, 3rd Quarter 1996, p.21.

4. Ibid, p.21

5. Lurie, Oscar, "Nuclear Leakage: A Threat Without a Military Solution," The Defense Monitor, The Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C., Vol. XXV, No.6, October 1996, p.3.

6. Ibid, p.1.

7. Rogers, Paul, Whitby Simmon and Stephen Young; et al., Nuclear Futures: The Role Of Nuclear Weapons in Security Policy, British American Security Information Council, London and Washington, D.C. Basic Research report 96, 1 April 1996, pp. 14-15.

8. Holsti, K.J. International Politics - A Framework for Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1977, p.242.

9. Schultz, Kathryn. "Does the United States Need Nuclear Weapons?" The Defense Monitor, The Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1993.

10. Shennon, Philip. "Gulf War Study Needs Revision, Scientist Says," San Francisco Chronicle 10 Dec., 1996.

11. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William M. "National Resource Defense Council Nuclear Notebook," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, January/February 1997, p.71.

12. Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Boston, MA., 1983.

13. Kerr, Richard A. "Long valley is On Low Simmer for Now," Science, June 1984.

14. Richie, David. The Ring of Fire, Toronto, Canada; McClelland and Stewart. 1981.

15. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William M. "National Resource Defense Council Nuclear Notebook," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, March/April 1997, p.63.

16. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William M. op. cit, p.70.

17. Norris, Robert S. and Arkin, William M. "National Resource Defense Council Nuclear Notebook," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, November/December 1996, pp.64-67. (The estimated 300 megatons of destructive force for the three countries combined is a conservative estimate since there is some uncertainty due to secrecy of details.)

18. Shanahan, John J. et. al. 1995 CDI Military Almanac. The Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C., 1995, p.6.

19. Babst, Dean; Krieger, David; and Aldridge, Bob. "The Self-Destructiveness of Nuclear Weapons: A Dangerous and Costly Mental Block," Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, CA. February 1997.

20. Grady, Sandy. "Can nuclear genie be stuffed back in the bottle," San Jose Mercury News, 8 Dec. 1996, 2P.

21. Sivard Ruth L. et. al. "The Threat of Mass-Destruction," World Military and Social Expenditures 1996, World Priorities, Washington, D.C., p.20.

*Dean Babst is a retired government scientist and Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Accidental Nuclear War Studies program. David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. We appreciate the helpful suggestions of Bob Aldridge, a former aerospace engineer who now leads the Pacific Life Research Center, Bob Mason, a retired hospital administrator, and Jeff Heinz, staff member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.