On Jan. 22, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists advanced the hand of the Doomsday Clock up to 3 minutes to midnight, declaring: “Today, unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity.”

For the past 70 years, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has been providing the world with an annual assessment of the risk of global nuclear threats. Their Board of Directors, in consultation with their Board of Sponsors including 17 Nobel Prize Laureates, has recently begun also factoring in the threats to human survival from global climate change.

During the height of the Cold War, the world’s nuclear arsenals contained over 65,000 weapons. Through a sequence of negotiations those stockpiles have been reduced to approximately 16,000. Yet since the entry into force of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2011, Russia and the United States have failed to begin talks to further reduce their still enormous nuclear stockpiles, which far exceed any plausible deterrence requirements. Instead, we are poised to begin a new arms race.

Recent reports by Physicians for Social Responsibility confirm the scope of the dire threat we still face from nuclear weapons — a threat completely of our own making. Even a so-called limited nuclear war between any two countries in the world using just 100 weapons would destroy national communications and transportation networks, as well as healthcare, agriculture and food distribution systems. Following this initial assault, tens of millions would die from exposure, radiation poisoning and infectious disease. Eventually, up to 2 billion (more than a quarter of the world’s population) might die of starvation.

No wonder that the Bulletin’s scientists moved the hand closer to midnight. If use of just 100 nuclear weapons will cause a global catastrophe, why would we insist on maintaining arsenals with 16,000 warheads around the world?

Now the United States and Russia are once again preparing to accelerate efforts to modernize their nuclear weapons. Meanwhile France, the United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea are all following our lead in this dangerous direction.

We can do better then this. From a medical perspective, as well as from a national security point of view, the risks of nuclear weapons are too great and the benefits too limited. One doesn’t have to be a nuclear scientist, a doctor or a general to understand this basic truth. These vast arsenals of nuclear weapons are simply unusable and we would be much safer with far fewer of them.

Every day we hear of disturbing international tensions and terrorist threats. Yet nuclear weapons have no role to play in addressing them.

General James Cartwright, retired vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces, has determined that national security can be guaranteed with a total of 900 warheads. Why not proceed in that direction and save billions in the process?

We are at a crucial choice point. Do we embark on a new nuclear arms race or follow through with President Obama’s commitment in Prague in 2009 “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons?”

Around the world, calls are growing to begin negotiating a treaty to ban nuclear weapons — from the Pope, the annual gathering of the Nobel Peace Laureates and numerous retired military leaders and statesmen, as well as from the 3rd Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Conference attended by official delegations from 158 countries.

In sharp contrast, the U.S. Congress is now poised to commit the staggering sum of more that a trillion dollars to pay for nuclear modernization programs over the next 30 years.

Senator Angus King will continue to play a key role in determining how much we spend on nuclear weapons through his role on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. His thoughtful oversight of plans to build unnecessary new nuclear submarines, missiles and bombers is essential.

Maine citizens need to share with Senator King the common sense view that we can best maintain national security with far fewer nuclear weapons and use the tax dollars saved to strengthen our education and healthcare systems, meet the needs of our troops returning from war, and rebuild our essential infrastructure.

———

Dr. Peter Wilk serves on the Board of Maine Physicians for Social Responsibility and on PSR’s National Board. He lives in Portland.