United States Senators Angus King and Susan Collins have a golden opportunity to reduce the threat of global catastrophe that would be caused by a limited nuclear war and to save money at the same time.

A new report by Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, publicly released nationally and internationally today, demonstrates that such a war would put more than 2 billion people at risk of starvation.

Whether a limited nuclear war occurred in the tense regions of South Asia between India and Pakistan, or the Middle East, the catastrophic impact would be global. Even if less than 0.5 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal is used, we are now learning the aftereffects would cause a decade-long, severe drop in average world temperatures which would result in dramatically decreased corn, soybean and wheat production throughout the Northern Hemisphere, with social and economic chaos around the world.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, more than 17,000 nuclear weapons remain in the world. These weapons are expensive to maintain and serve no purpose in meeting modern military threats. The vast majority of these weapons are located in Russia and the United States.

American security experts have long argued we would be much safer with a smaller nuclear stockpile, and American military leadership has determined it can safely reduce U.S. deployed strategic warheads to around 1,000.

Given the need to cut military spending by up to $1 trillion over the next decade, this is the right time to rethink current plans to rebuild U.S. nuclear forces. How many new missiles, submarines and bombers do we need for the next 50 years?

For example, the U.S. Navy wants 12 new ballistic missile submarines to replace the 14 we have now, with a production cost of $100 billion.

Any one of these submarines, armed with up to 96 warheads each, is capable of creating nuclear famine. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by scaling back to eight new subs — which, by the way, are not planned to be built or serviced in Maine — we would save $15.7 billion over 10 years and still allow deployment of the 1,000 warheads U.S. military leadership thinks we need.

Secondly, the proposed program to refurbish 400 B61 nuclear gravity bombs — designed for the Cold War era of the previous century — would cost $10.4 billion, an increase of $6 billion over the original estimate. As these outdated bombs have no significant remaining military purpose, it makes sense to scale back the B 61 life extension plan and save $5 billion.

By pushing for these reductions, King and Collins can meet budget-cut requirements and speed reduction of our nuclear arsenal to reduce the severe risks posed by nuclear war, while still maintaining our security.

This is an opportunity they cannot afford to miss.

DANIEL OPPENHEIM, MD, is president and ANDREW A. CADOT is a member of Security Committee of Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine chapter, based in Portland.