Citation

Snyder BF, Ruyle LE. Sci. Total Environ. 2017; 605-606: 347-356.

Affiliation

Center on Conflict and Development, Texas A&M University, United States. Electronic address: ruyle@tamu.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.223

PMID

28668746

Abstract

Since the 1950s, select military and political leaders have had the capacity to kill all or nearly all human life on Earth. The number of people entrusted with this power grows each year through proliferation and the rise of new political leaders. If humans continue to maintain and develop nuclear weapons, it is highly probable that a nuclear exchange will occur again at some point in the future. This nuclear exchange may or may not annihilate the human species, but it will cause catastrophic effects on the biosphere. The international community has attempted to resolve this existential problem via treaties that control and potentially eliminate nuclear weapons, however, these treaties target only nuclear weapons, leaving the use of war as a normalized means for settling conflict. As long as war exists as a probable future, nations will be under pressure to develop more powerful weapons. Thus, we argue that the elimination of nuclear weapons alone is not a stable, long-term strategy. A far more secure strategy would be the elimination of war as a means of settling international disputes. Therefore, those concerned about environmental sustainability or the survival of the biosphere should work to abolish war.

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Kellogg-Briand Pact; Nuclear winter; Particulate matter; Radiation