It is time for the world to take stock of the dangers

With the type of weapons commonly used in modern warfare, all wars have become extremely destructive. Sincere efforts should therefore be made to avoid any conflict. The possibilities for destruction multiply and the risks for humanity become intolerably high when the possibilities of confrontation between the greatest military powers arise. These powers have arsenals of nuclear weapons as well as other destructive weapons. Any possibility of a clash between the United States and Russia, or between NATO and Russia, is daunting since both sides together have nearly 11,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

If only 5 to 10 percent of these weapons are used, the world will be very close to annihilation. Ninety-nine percent of humanity and 100 percent of other life forms play no role in creating this extremely high risk, but they are nonetheless at risk. Is this risk real or imaginary, based on facts or greatly exaggerated? The most worrying news of late is that the risk has increased. This risk to humanity and all forms of life can be broken down into two factors. First, what is the possibility that there will be a direct confrontation between the largest military powers in the near future? Second, what is the possibility that nuclear weapons would be used in such a confrontation? Although there are several potential hotspots, the risk is highest in the context of the escalating Ukrainian conflict. Recent developments have increased the risks.

Ukraine has faced several serious setbacks on the battlefield. This can either lead to an increased desire to seek a quick peace to avoid further damage, or it can lead to mobilization for a larger war. Ukraine's response will depend on its powerful backers within NATO. Several key NATO members have already responded that they are ready to increase their military support for Ukraine in two important ways. First, they are ready to send their own soldiers to Ukraine. This was first declared by French President Macron, without getting much support from other NATO members. But subsequently, some other NATO members received more support.

A statement that recently attracted a lot of attention was reported by the New York Times on May 16 (report titled “NATO Considers Sending Trainers to Ukraine”). This report quoted General Charles Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as saying that NATO trainers would eventually be sent to Ukraine and that the deployment of NATO trainers seemed inevitable. The newspaper believes that such a move could draw the United States and Europe more directly into a war against Russia. Another hurdle that NATO member countries are crossing in terms of military support for Ukraine is that not only are more and more long-range weapon systems being supplied, but it is much more openly declared that There are no conditions prohibiting their use for military purposes. attack mainland Russia.

This is clearly a dangerous escalation and the possibility of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO increases very significantly. The second important question to consider is: if the possibility of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO has increased, has the possibility of using nuclear weapons in such a confrontation also increased? Currently, the Ukrainian side is significantly weakened militarily. But we can imagine a different situation with NATO member countries sending soldiers and trainers and providing lethal long-range attack weapons.

Russia will increasingly feel faced with an existential threat and, in such a situation, Russian nuclear doctrine provides for the use of nuclear weapons. However, it is equally possible that, when NATO senses this possibility, it will choose to establish its advantage by carrying out the first nuclear strike(s). So it's possible that both sides could start a nuclear war, and once it starts, no one knows where it will end. While Europe is likely to suffer the most damage, the entire world can suffer the very harmful effects of radiation.

If large numbers of nuclear weapons are used, it could herald a “nuclear winter” threatening all life on the planet. It is precisely because the dangers are so extreme that most people believe that senior leaders will never allow the situation to escalate to such an extent. But the fact remains that the situation may have already deteriorated and the world's confidence is seriously shaken. In addition, the possibility of dangerous situations becoming uncontrollable should also be considered. Of course, Ukraine is not the only hot spot.

There are other hot spots like the Middle East and the possibility of a US-led conflict with China. The situation is therefore very dangerous and all possible efforts must be made to minimize the possibilities of nuclear war and a third world war. The statesmen of the world, the individuals who command respect, should come together to advise a de-escalation of tensions. They should establish a non-partisan international team to closely and carefully monitor developments, issue timely warnings and suggest corrective measures. In the longer term, the non-partisan movement for peace and disarmament should be strengthened on a global scale, as this is the only way to give us real hope for a safer and more peaceful world.

(The writer is honorary head of the campaign to save Earth now. His recent books include Protecting the Earth for Children, Planet in Peril and One Day in 2071.)