You don’t need to watch too many apocalyptic blockbusters to realise that nuclear war would be devastating.
But when it comes to understanding the impact of a modern nuclear exchange, our data is nearly as old as The Terminator.
The last comprehensive United Nations study into nuclear war was published in 1989, back before the Soviet Union collapsed and before the first internet browser was released.
In the decades since, new nuclear powers have emerged and weapons technology has advanced.
The lack of holistic research into the consequences of nuclear conflict has the scientific community worried.
James Cameron’s 1991 blockbuster Terminator 2 depicted a nuclear war sparked by an out-of-control artificial intelligence. (Supplied: Tri-Star Pictures)
An atomic fact-finding mission
In light of these concerns, the UN First Committee last week voted to establish a panel of 21 international experts to assess how nuclear war would impact all facets of life, from public health and population to economics and agriculture.
The panel will harness the expertise of UN agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, while also soliciting data from governments and organisations like the Red Cross.
It will explore the role of new technology, such as artificial intelligence, and new risks, such as cyber-attacks.
And after consulting with “the widest range of scientists and experts”, a final report will be delivered in 2027.
Australia was one of 144 voters to support the move, while 30 abstained and three nuclear-armed nations opposed: the UK, France and Russia.
New Zealand and Ireland introduced the resolution.
“At a time of elevated risk of nuclear conflict, there is a clear need to publicly establish an accurate and up-to-date understanding of the impacts of a nuclear war,” they said.
The last time the United Nations mandated a comprehensive study into the impact of nuclear war was during the Cold War. (Reuters: Eduardo Munoz)
Is nuclear war more likely today?
Nuclear war may seem a fading relic of the Cold War era, with global stockpiles declining from around 70,000 weapons in the 1980s to just over 12,000 today.
But many disarmament treaties are no longer in force, and new nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals.
Historic rivals India and Pakistan had only just established their nuclear programs when the last UN report was released.
They now have more 300 weapons between them.
A surface-to-surface Agni V missile is displayed during India’s Republic Day parade in 2013. (Reuters: B Mathur)
China has added hundreds of weapons to its arsenal in recent decades, while becoming an economic and military rival to nuclear leader the United States.
North Korea has also joined the nuclear club, while two long-standing nuclear nations, Israel and Russia, have been fighting conflicts that have threatened to spiral out control.
Today, the world is arguably closer to a nuclear strike than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, according to University of Queensland international relations expert Marianne Hanson.
“We have nine nuclear weapon states now, and all of them have actually threatened to use them,” Dr Hanson said.
“We really are on the brink of a potential nuclear war unless some decision is taken to halt this madness.”
North Korea is one of the newest nations to become a nuclear power, under its leader Kim Jong Un. (AP: KCNA)
Nuclear powers ‘don’t want the world to know’ the real risks
Nuclear disarmament advocates have welcomed Australia’s support for the UN study, especially given the opposition of its ally, the UK.
The UK Foreign Office told The Guardian the world did not need an independent scientific panel to know that “nuclear war would have devastating consequences”.
But Dr Hanson said the nuclear powers “don’t want the world to know just how devastating a nuclear war will be”.
“Or indeed the fact that we’ve had numerous close calls,” she said.
Marianne Hanson is an associate professor of international relations at the University of Queensland. (Supplied)
One of the most famous close calls occurred in 1983, when a Soviet early-warning system falsely reported missiles flying towards Russia from the US.
Despite Soviet protocol, the officer on duty did not report the false alarm to his superiors, preventing a potential retaliation.
According to the memoirs of former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there was a more recent close call in 2019 when India launched strikes against militants in Pakistan following an attack in Kashmir.
Dr Hanson said the world had been “extremely lucky” to avoid a nuclear conflict.
“Our luck is not going to hold out forever,” she said.
Why do we need another study?
The detonation of the world’s first nuclear weapon in 1945, known as the Trinity test, was part of the Manhattan Project. (Supplied: US Department of Energy/Jack Aeby)
Various governments and institutions have studied aspects of nuclear weapons in recent decades.
But a lot of research has focused on areas of “military relevance”, according to International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons founding member Tilman Ruff.
“We really understand very little about the psychological, climatic, economic, social, political and infrastructure implications of nuclear weapons in the modern era,” he said.
How to survive a tactical nuclear bomb
Dr Ruff said the UN panel would provide authoritative and transparent research, without the “bias or needs of any particular country”.
“It gives it much more credibility and currency. Nations can’t say, ‘Oh, this doesn’t apply to us’,” he said.
“This is everybody’s work, everybody’s business.”
Some recent research has already taken advantage of advances in climate modelling.
A 2022 study found a nuclear exchange of less than 1 per cent of the world’s arsenal would throw so much soot into the air, that the subsequent decline in rainfall and sunlight, and damage to agriculture, would leave 1.5 billion people at risk of starvation.
“We know now that those effects can happen with a much smaller nuclear war than previously thought,” Dr Ruff said.
“And there are still many new effects of nuclear weapons being discovered.
“What happens to the oceans? What happens to marine currents? What happens to fisheries?”
Can a study stop nuclear war?
Tilman Ruff says many nuclear armed nations do not want the spotlight on the consequences of nuclear war. (Supplied)
Whether a UN study will make a difference in the heat of battle remains to be seen.
But Dr Ruff hoped the panel could do for nuclear disarmament what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for climate change.
“It certainly suits the nuclear armed states for this not to be particularly prominent,” he said.
“But it’s not going to go away by denial, and the first step to dealing with any important issue is to look at the facts.”
Dr Hanson said the UN panel would “get the message out” in a “very, very high-profile” way.
“Sometimes we think, ‘What, another report? Another UN campaign? Is it really going to make a difference?'” she said.
“But I wouldn’t discount the cumulative impact that it can have.
“It might have been argued in 1992 or 1993 that the chemical weapons convention isn’t going to make any difference, but it did over time.”