CATASTROPHIC
HUMANITARIAN

HARM

WARNING

Some images may disturb.

Creative CommonsFirst published in August 2012 by theInternational Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons (info@icanw.org).
Updated in August 2015.

1

Reframing the nuclear weapons debate
The catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons on our health, societies and the environment
must be at the centre of all discussions about nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Abolishing nuclear weapons
is a paramount challenge
for people and governments theworld over – a pre-condition forsurvival, sustainability and thehealth of our planet and future
generations. Both in the scale ofthe indiscriminate devastation
they cause, and in their uniquely
persistent, spreading, geneticallydamaging radioactive fallout,
nuclear weapons are unlike anyother weapons. A single nuclear
bomb detonated over a largecity could kill millions of people
in an instant. The use of tens
or hundreds of nuclear bombs
would disrupt the global climate,causing widespread famine.

A HUMANITARIAN APPROACH

Although the number of nuclear
weapons in global stockpiles isdeclining, the risk of their use,by accident or design, appears to
be growing. Any such use would
have catastrophic humanitarianconsequences. Despite rhetoricin favour of achieving a world
without nuclear weapons,
governments have not yet
begun negotiations on a global
treaty banning nuclear weapons.
The International Campaign
to Abolish Nuclear Weapons(ICAN), a movement of nongovernment organizations
advocating such a treaty, believes
that discussions about nuclear

weapons must focus not on
narrow concepts of national
security, but on the effects ofthese weapons on human beings– our health, our societies, andthe environment on which
we all depend. The successfulprocesses that led to treaties
banning landmines in 1997
and cluster munitions in 2008
demonstrated the importanceof adopting a humanitarianbased discourse: new politicalcoalitions were formed,
longstanding deadlocks werebroken, and two whole classes
of weapons were outlawed.
Today we must adopt a similar
approach for nuclear weapons.

2

A unique existential threat to humanity
The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be controlled in space or time.
Their existence anywhere is a threat to people everywhere.

Nuclear weapons are themost destructive, inhumane
and indiscriminate instrumentsof mass murder ever created.
The term “catastrophic
humanitarian consequences”– now commonly used bygovernments – describes theirunique and horrifying effects on
people, including lethal harm to
those who are not part of theconflicts in which they are used.
Physicians and scientists havelong studied and documented
the medical consequences ofnuclear war, concluding thathuman security and survival
depend upon ridding the Earthof these indefensible weapons.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE

NUCLEAR ARSENALS

Nuclear weapons have beenused twice in warfare – on theJapanese cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in 1945. Morethan 200,000 innocent civilians
died, while many more sufferedacute injuries. Even if a nuclear
weapon were never again
exploded over a city, there are
effects from the production,
testing and deployment of
nuclear arsenals that areexperienced as an ongoing
personal and community
catastrophe by many people
around the globe. This must
inform and motivate efforts toeliminate these weapons.

The dangers of nuclear weapons
arise from their very existence.
Nine countries today possess
an estimated 15,700 nuclear
weapons, around 1,800 of which
are kept on hair-trigger alert –ready for use within minutes.
Most of today’s nuclear weapons
are dozens of times more
powerful than the Hiroshimabomb. The failure of the nuclear
powers to disarm has heightened
the risk that other countries, or
terrorists, will one day acquire
nuclear weapons. The only
guarantee against their spreadand use is to eliminate themwithout delay.

NUCLEAR FORCES IN 2015
Country		

Warheads

United States		
Russia		
United Kingdom
France		China
India		Pakistan		Israel		North Korea		

7,200
7,500
215
300
250
90–110
100–12080<10Total		

~15,700

Estimates only. Source: FAS“The conference expresses its deep concern at the catastrophic
humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.”
Final Document, Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, 2010

Mushroom cloud: A 37-kiloton nuclear device
is exploded in Nevada. Credit: US Government

Obliteration: The Japanese city of Hiroshima was instantly reduced to ashes whena single US 15-kiloton nuclear bomb was detonated over it. Credit: US Government

Burns: Nagasaki bomb victim Sumiteru Taniguchi looks
at a photo of himself taken in 1945. His horrific burns
have required 17 operations. Credit: Yuriko Nakao

SUMITERU TANIGUCHI’S STORY“As a 16-year-old boy, I was
riding my bicycle down the street
when the atomic bomb exploded
1.8 km away, scorching my backand leaving the skin on my rightarm hanging down from theshoulder to the fingertips. Mostof the people around me had
no one to look after them, andpassed away while begging forwater. I spent two nights up in
the mountainside before a rescue
squad found me on the morningof the third day and took me toa first-aid station some 28 km
away. I went from one aid station
to another until I was finallyreleased from Omura Naval
Hospital in March 1949.

I suffered such awful pain duringthat time that I often called out‘Please kill me!’ as I was being
treated. Among the survivors of
the atomic bombing, there arethose who committed suicide
and those who died after saying
they couldn’t stand yet anotheroperation. As someone who
knows about this, I feel that I
have a responsibility to live mylife to the very end. Sometimes
it’s a struggle. I’ll keep onfighting until all nuclear weapons
are banished from this Earth. To
everyone who is reading this, I
beg you to think of yourselves as
parents building a bright futurefor your descendants.”

5

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings
The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundredsof thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today.

The highly enriched uranium
bomb detonated over
Hiroshima on 6 August 1945
had an explosive yield equal
to 15,000 tonnes of TNT. It
razed and burned around 70
per cent of all buildings andcaused an estimated 140,000
deaths by the end of 1945, alongwith increased rates of cancer
and chronic disease among
the survivors. A slightly larger
plutonium bomb exploded
over Nagasaki three days laterlevelled 6.7 km2 of the city andkilled 74,000 people by the endof 1945. Ground temperatures
reached 4,000°C and blackradioactive rain poured down.

MEDICAL RESPONSE

LONG-TERM EFFECTSIn Hiroshima 90 per cent ofphysicians and nurses were killed
or injured; 42 of 45 hospitals
were rendered non-functional;
and 70 per cent of victims had
combined injuries including, inmost cases, severe burns. All the
dedicated burn beds around theworld would be insufficient tocare for the survivors of a single
nuclear bomb on any city. In
Hiroshima and Nagasaki mostvictims died without any careto ease their suffering. Someof the people who entered thecities after the bombings toprovide assistance also died fromradiation-related illnesses.

The incidence of leukaemia
among survivors increased
noticeably five to six years
after the bombings, and about
a decade later survivors begansuffering from thyroid, breast,
lung and other cancers at higher
than normal rates. For solidcancers, the added risks related
to radiation exposure continue
to increase throughout thelifespan of survivors even to thisday, almost seven decades after
the bombings. Women exposedto the bombings while they werepregnant experienced higher
rates of miscarriage and deaths
among their infants. Children

DEATHS BY END OF 1945
Hiroshima
Nagasaki		

140,000
74,000

exposed to radiation in theirmother’s womb were more likely
to be mentally retarded, andhave smaller brains and impaired
growth, as well as increased riskof developing cancer.

Heat and blast: House No. 1, located 1 km from groundzero, is completely destroyed during a nuclear test in
Nevada in 1953. The elapsed time from the first picture
to the last is two seconds. Credit: US Government

EFFECTS OF A 100-KT NUCLEAR BOMB
3 km radius

A radioactive fireball hotter
than the Sun and with theforce of 100,000 tonnes of
TNT kills everyone.

5 km radius

The vast majority of people
die quickly from blast injuries,
asphyxiation or (over weeks)radiation sickness.

10 km radius

About half die from trauma
and burns. Many succumbsoon after to fires andradiation sickness.

80 km radiusRadioactive fallout spreads.
Over time, many thousands
will die from radiation
sickness and cancers.

7

Blast, heat and radiation
It takes around 10 seconds for the fireball from a nuclear explosion
to reach its maximum size, but the effects last for decades.

Nuclear weapons are uniquein their destructive power
and the threat they pose to
the environment and humansurvival. They release vast
amounts of energy in the formof blast, heat and radiation.
BLAST

A nuclear explosion creates
an enormous shockwave
that reaches speeds of many
hundreds of kilometres an hour.
The blast kills people close to
ground zero, and causes lunginjuries, ear damage and internal
bleeding further away. People
sustain injuries from collapsingbuildings and flying objects.

HEAT

Thermal radiation from the
explosion is so intense that
almost everything close to
ground zero is vaporized. The
extreme heat causes severeburns and ignites fires over alarge area, which coalesce into a
giant firestorm. Even people inunderground shelters face likely
death due to a lack of oxygenand carbon monoxide poisoning.
RADIATION

Unlike conventional weapons,
nuclear weapons release ionizing
radiation: particles and rays given
off by radioactive materials. At
high doses, radiation kills cells,

Above: Chromosomal damage in a
nuclear test veteran. Credit: R. Rowland
Below: Children in Hiroshima suffer fromhair loss. Credit: Shunkichi Kikuchi

damages organs and causes
rapid death. At low doses, it
can damage cells and lead tocancer, genetic damage andmutations. In human beings, itcauses most types of leukaemia,
or blood cancer, as well as solidcancers such as thyroid, lungand breast cancers. Radiation
exposure can also heighten therisk of hereditary effects infuture generations. Radiation
exposure can occur externally(from particles in the air,water and soil) or internally(from breathing, eating anddrinking). Many radioisotopes
are concentrated in plants andanimals, and thus the food chain.

8

Climate disruption and nuclear famine
A regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized weapons would
disrupt the global climate and put up to two billion people at risk of famine.

Nuclear weapons are theonly devices ever createdwith the capacity to destroy allcomplex life forms on Earthwithin a relatively short period.
A war fought using 1,000 nuclear
weapons – around 6 per cent of
the total global stockpile – would
render the planet uninhabitable.
REGIONAL NUCLEAR WAR

In addition to causing tens of
millions of immediate deaths, aregional nuclear war involving
around 100 Hiroshima-sizedweapons would disrupt the
global climate and agricultural
production so severely that up
to two billion people would be

at risk of famine, according
to recent research by theInternational Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War.
Although it would not resultin the extinction of the humanrace, it would bring about an
end to modern civilization as weknow it. Even the relatively small
nuclear arsenals of countries
such as India and Pakistan could
cause long-lasting global damage
to the Earth’s ecosystems.
AGRICULTURAL COLLAPSE

The smoke and dust froma limited nuclear war would
cause an abrupt drop in global
temperatures and rainfall byblocking up to 10 per centof sunlight from reaching
the Earth’s surface. Sudden
global cooling would shorten
growing seasons, threatening
agriculture worldwide. Increases
in food prices would makefood inaccessible to hundredsof millions of the poorest
people in the world. For those
who are already chronicallymalnourished, just a 10 per centdecline in food consumption
would result in starvation.
Infectious disease epidemics andconflict over scarce resources
would be rife. If the entire global
nuclear arsenal were used, 150
million tonnes of smoke would

be emitted into the stratosphere,
resulting in a 45 per cent global
reduction in rainfall and averagesurface cooling of –7 to –8°C.
By comparison, the global
average cooling at the depth ofthe last ice age more than 18,000
years ago was –5°C.
OZONE DEPLETION

A nuclear war would cause
prolonged and severe depletionof the ozone layer and have adevastating impact on humanand animal health. Substantial
increases in ultraviolet radiation
would cause increases in skincancer rates, crop damage andthe destruction of marine life.

“Climate change may be the global policy issue that has captured most attention
in the last decade, but the problem of nuclear weapons is at least its equal interms of gravity – and much more immediate in its potential impact.”
International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, 2009

Famine: Somali men carry a severely malnourished child to hospital. The use of 100 nuclear
weapons would put up to two billion people at risk of famine. Credit: UN Photo/Stuart Price

Crop failure: A regional nuclear war would result in agricultural
collapse over a wide area. Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret“We witnessed a sight totally unlike
anything we had ever seen before.
The centre of the city was sortof a white patch, flattened andsmooth like the palm of a hand.
Nothing remained. Every living
thing was petrified in an attitudeof acute pain.”
Dr Marcel Junod, International Committee of
the Red Cross, Hiroshima, September 1945

Total devastation: A mother and her son in Hiroshima fourmonths after the atomic bombing. Credit: Alfred Eisenstaedt

11

The radioactive incineration of cities
The death toll from a nuclear attack against a large city today could bemeasured in the millions rather than the tens or hundreds of thousands.

TERRORIST SCENARIO

A 12.5-kiloton nuclear explosion
in a New York shipping yard
would produce casualties morethan one order of magnitude
greater than those inflicted in the

15M

10M

an hour and tens of millions
would be fatally injured. Hugeswaths of both countries would
be blanketed by radioactive

US

UK

RUSSIAPAKISTANJAPANISRAEL

IRAN

5M

INDIA

The effects of a war involving
many nuclear explosions
would be on a scale larger thananything previously experienced
in human history. If 500
warheads were to hit major US
and Russian cities, 100 million
people would die in the first halfThis graph showsthe estimatednumber of fatalities
due to immediateradiation, blast andfire damage from 50
nuclear weapons
with 15-kiloton yields
on various countries.
The total death tollfrom cancers andwider environmental
effects would besubstantially higher.

FRANCE

FULL-SCALE NUCLEAR WAR

Source: Science

MILLIONS KILLED

EGYPT

September 11 terrorist attacks.
Blast and thermal effects would
kill 52,000 people immediately.
Another 238,000 would be
exposed to direct radiationfrom the blast. Fallout would
expose a further million and ahalf people. In total, more than
200,000 would die.

CHINA

cientists have modelled thecatastrophic humanitarianconsequences of nuclear strikes
against various urban centres. In
a city like Mumbai, India, withpopulation densities in someareas of 100,000 people persquare kilometre, a Hiroshimasized bomb is estimated to cause
up to 870,000 deaths in the firstweeks. A 1-megaton bomb could
promptly kill several million.

BRAZIL

S

fallout. Most Americans andRussians would die in thefollowing months from radiation
sickness and disease epidemics.

Nevada: Judith Vollmer, poet and teacher, hascome to Sedan Crater on the Nevada Test Site
to better understand the loss of her father toradiation-related illnesses. Credit: Lynn Johnson

Utah: Dave Timothy, a “down winder”, believes
his multiple thyroid cancers were caused by theradiation from atomic tests that rained down on his
boyhood home in Utah. Credit: Lynn Johnson

Semipalatinsk: A Kazakh nuclear test victim receives
treatment. Between 1949 and 1991, 456 Soviet
nuclear tests were conducted at Semipalatinsk.
Credit: Jonathan Silvers/Saybrook Productions Ltd

Refugees: Libyan refugees line up for food near theborder with Tunisia. A nuclear attack would potentiallydisplace millions of people. Credit: OCHA/David Ohana

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION“Nuclear weapons constitute the greatest
immediate threat to the health and welfare
of mankind .... It is obvious that no healthservice in any area of the world would
be capable of dealing adequately withthe hundreds of thousands of people
seriously injured by blast, heat or radiationfrom even a single one-megaton bomb.... Whatever remained of the medical
services in the world could not alleviate
the disaster in any significant way .... To
the immediate catastrophe must be added
the long-term effects on the environment.
Famine and diseases would be widespread,and social and economic systems would
be totally disrupted .... Therefore the only
approach to the treatment of the healtheffects of nuclear explosions is primaryprevention of such explosions.”

15

No adequate response capacity
A nuclear attack anywhere in the world would overwhelm the healthinfrastructure, making an effective humanitarian response impossible.

Nuclear bombings eradicate
the social infrastructure
required for recovery fromconflict. Communications
and transportation systems,
fire-fighting equipment, andhospitals and pharmacies would
all lie in rubble throughout azone of complete destruction
extending for kilometres. Those
attempting to provide relief
to the sick or wounded would
be exposed to high levels ofradioactivity, risking their own
lives. Nowhere in the world
would it be possible to render an
effective humanitarian response,
underscoring the absolute
imperative of nuclear abolition.

THE RED CROSSUN AGENCIES

Consistent with the humanitarianvision of its founder Henry
Dunant, the International
Committee of the Red Cross
first called for nuclear weapons
to be banned in September
1945, just weeks after the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima andNagasaki. Since then, it hasrepeatedly warned that nuclear
weapons will not spare hospitals,
prisoner-of-war camps andcivilians, and “their inevitableconsequence is extermination”.
In 2010 the Committee adopted
the prohibition and complete
elimination of nuclear weapons
as one of its top priorities.

In 1984, at the height of thecold war, the World HealthOrganization published adefinitive study on the global
health repercussions of nuclear
war. Its report, updated in 1987,
concluded that the immediate
and delayed loss of humanand animal life would beenormous, and “the plight ofsurvivors would be physicallyand psychologically appalling”.
Nuclear disarmament is directly
relevant to the work of many
UN agencies, including those
responsible for refugees, humanrights, development, foodsecurity and the environment.

Australia: As a 10-year-old boy, Yami Lester was covered by a cloud ofradioactive fallout from a British nuclear test conducted at Emu Junction in1953 with the support of the Australian government. Credit: Jessie Boylan

Marshall Islands: Iroji Kebenli, a Marshallese boy, suffered radiation burns to
his skin after contact with “Bikini snow” – radioactive ash and coral fragments
dispersed over the islands from US nuclear tests. Credit: US Government

Algeria: A danger sign warns of the toxic
legacy of French nuclear testing in Algeria
in the 1960s. Credit: Nic Maclellan

17

The legacy of nuclear testing
Physicians project that some 2.4 million people worldwide will eventually die fromcancers due to atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980.

S

ince the dawn of theatomic age in July 1945,
nuclear weapons have beentested on more than 2,000
occasions – in the atmosphere,
underground and underwater.
The toll on human health andthe environment has been
staggering. Today we eachcarry in our bodies radioactive
substances from the fallout of
nuclear testing, increasing ourrisk of developing cancer. Muchof the Earth’s surface has been
contaminated at some point withradioactive particles. Nuclear
testing enables governments toincrease the destructiveness andlethality of their nuclear forces.

NUCLEAR TEST SITES

Nuclear tests have been carriedout at more than 60 locations
around the globe, often on
the lands of indigenous andminority peoples, far away fromthose who made the decisions
to conduct them. While sometest sites have been virtuallyuninhabited, others havebeen densely populated. The
tests have irradiated people
working on the programmes,
the downwind and downstream
communities, and the whole
global population. The
Nobel Peace Prize-winning
organization International
Physicians for the Prevention

A NUCLEAR TEST BAN
NUCLEAR TESTSProgramme

No. tests

USA
Russia/USSRFranceUnited Kingdom
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea

1,054
715
210
45
45
6
6
3

Total

2,084

of Nuclear War has estimatedthat roughly 2.4 million people
will eventually die as a result of
the atmospheric nuclear tests
conducted between 1945 and1980, which were equal in force
to 29,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Public concern in the 1950s
about the health and environmental impacts of nuclear
testing, including its effect on
mothers’ milk and babies’ teeth,
led to the negotiation in 1963
of a treaty banning atmosphericand underwater nuclear tests. A
comprehensive nuclear test ban,covering underground tests, wasnegotiated in 1996. Although thelatter treaty has not yet enteredinto legal force, full-scale nuclear
testing has largely come to halt.
However, a number of countries
continue to test their nuclear
weapons sub-critically, involving
no chain reaction.

18

Production of nuclear weapons
The production of the explosive materials used in all nuclear weapons – highly enricheduranium and separated plutonium – is harmful to human health and the environment.

Nuclear weapons derive
their explosive force fromuranium and/or plutonium, thelatter of which is a by-productof nuclear fission in reactors.
The production of bothsubstances causes widespreadenvironmental contaminationand is harmful to human health.
MINING & ENRICHING URANIUM

Uranium, its radioactive decay
products, and other substances
released through uranium mining
and processing can cause diseasein mineworkers, nuclear industry
workers and nearby inhabitants.
More than 70 per cent of theworld’s uranium is mined on thelands of indigenous peoples.
Large volumes of waste tailings
result in long-lasting radioactive
and chemical pollution. No
uranium mine anywhere in theworld has been fully cleaned up
after mining has finished. Fissile
materials created from uranium
ore remain toxic and weaponsusable for many millennia. Anyenrichment plant that can enrichuranium to reactor grade canalso enrich it to weapons grade.
NUCLEAR REACTORS

Plutonium is produced fromuranium in a nuclear reactor.
Military and civilian nuclear
programmes are often closely

Ranger Mine: Yvonne Margarula, aMirarr elder from Australia, has longfought to protect her country fromuranium mining. Credit: Dominic O’Brien

linked. Most of the recent
instances of nuclear proliferation
have stemmed from ostensibly
peaceful programmes. Releasesof radiation similar to or larger
than those from a nuclear bomb
can come from nuclear reactors
and spent fuel ponds – meaningthat every reactor is, in effect, a
giant pre-positioned dirty bomb.
Nuclear accidents, such as that at
Chernobyl in 1986, will eventually cause at least several tensof thousands of cancer deaths.
Even during normal use, nuclear
reactors emit radiation into theair, water and soil, resulting inincreased rates of leukaemia inchildren living within 50 km.

“A phase-out of civilian nuclear energy would provide the most effective andenduring constraint on proliferation risks in a nuclear-weapon-free world.”
International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2009

Chernobyl: Useless against gamma radiation, thesegas masks lie strewn across an empty classroom
floor in Pripyat, Ukraine. Credit: Ricky Pitman

Fukushima: A baby is tested for radiation in 2011,
four days after an earthquake and tsunami struck the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Credit: Kyodo

Hunger: A woman holding her young malnourished baby queues forfood in Somalia. Money spent on nuclear weapons could be redirected
towards meeting basic human needs. Credit: UN Photo/Stuart Price“The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded .... The end of the cold war has led theworld to expect a massive peace dividend. Yet, there are over 20,000 nuclear weapons aroundthe world. Many of them are still on hair-trigger alert, threatening our own survival.”
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Mexico City, 2009

21

A diversion of public resources
As millions across the globe go hungry and are denied access to clean water, basic medicines andsanitation, the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces.

T

he production, maintenanceand modernization of
nuclear forces diverts vast
public resources away fromhealth care, education, climatechange mitigation, disaster relief,
development assistance andother vital services. Globally,annual expenditure on nuclear
weapons is estimated at US$105
billion – or $12 million an hour.
SPENDING ON DEVELOPMENT

The World Bank forecast in 2002
that an annual investment of just
US$40–60 billion, or roughly
half the amount currently
spent on nuclear weapons,would have been enough tomeet the internationally agreed
Millennium Development Goals
on poverty alleviation by thetarget date of 2015. Nuclear
weapons spending is estimatedto be more than twice theofficial development assistanceprovided to Africa, the poorest
continent on Earth, and equal to
the gross domestic product ofBangladesh, a nation of some
160 million people. The Officefor Disarmament Affairs – theprincipal UN body responsible
for advancing a nuclear-weaponfree world – has an annual
budget of $10 million, which isless than the amount spent on
nuclear weapons every hour.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL SPENDING
ON NUCLEAR WEAPONSCountry		

USD

United States
Russia		China		France		
United Kingdom
India		Israel		
Pakistan		North Korea
Total

61.3 bn
14.8 bn
7.6 bn6.0 bn5.5 bn4.9 bn
1.9 bn2.2 bn0.7 bn
US$104.9 bn

Source: Global Zero, 2011

Poverty: Achan Ajwal, a villager in South
Sudan, shows riverweed, her only diet
before a World Food Programme food
distribution. Credit: UN Photo/Fred Noy

“Some governments tell us that a nuclear weapons ban is premature and unlikely.
Don’t believe it. They told us the same thing about a mine ban treaty.”
Anti-landmine campaigner and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams

Cluster bombs: Abdullah Yaqoob was
injured in a British cluster bomb strikein Iraq in 2003. Credit: DanChurchAid

Landmines: Kabibi Tabu lost both legs in a landmine
explosion in 2006 in the Democratic Republic ofCongo. Credit: UN Photo/Martine Perret23

Outlawing inhumane weapons
There are treaties prohibiting biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines
and cluster munitions, but no such treaty exists – as yet – for nuclear weapons.

T

he international community
has negotiated conventions
to eliminate certain types of
weapons that cause unacceptable
harm to people and theenvironment. These include
biological and chemical weapons,
landmines and, most recently,
cluster munitions. Although
the destructive capacity of
nuclear weapons is many times
greater than that of these andall other weapons, they are notyet subject to a universal treaty
ban. Nevertheless, their use isprohibited under international
humanitarian law, and all nations
are obliged to negotiate in goodfaith for nuclear disarmament.

HUMANITARIAN LAWPROHIBITED WEAPONSType of weapon
Biological weaponsChemical weapons
Anti-personnel mines
Cluster munitions

Banned
1972
1993
1997
2008

Nuclear weapons cannot
distinguish between militaryand civilian targets, or
between combatants andnon-combatants. Most of thecasualties of a nuclear attack
would inevitably be civilians.
Once the explosive energy of a
nuclear chain reaction has beenreleased, it cannot be contained.
People in neighbouring anddistant countries who havenothing to do with the conflict
would suffer from the effectsof radioactive fallout, even if
they were at a safe distancefrom the blast and thermal
destruction near ground zero.

This disproportionate andindiscriminate destructivenessis clearly a violation ofinternational humanitarian law.
HUMAN SECURITY

The catastrophic health andenvironmental consequences ofnuclear war are at the extreme
end of a continuum of armed
violence that undermines healthand security. Outlawing andeliminating nuclear weapons
is part of a broader struggle
for genuine human-centred
security founded on respect forbasic rights, including rights to
education, health care, decent
work and a clean environment.

24

A nuclear weapons ban
To avert a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, nations
must intensify efforts to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons.

An understanding of “thedevastation that would bevisited upon all mankind by anuclear war” was the motivating
force behind the adoption of thenuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) in 1968. Article VI of
the agreement obliges all nations
to negotiate in good faith for
total nuclear disarmament understrict and effective international
control. More than four decades
on, however, this provision
remains unfulfilled. At an
important review of the treaty in
May 2010, governments warned
that catastrophic humanitarianconsequences could result fromcontinued failure to act.

A UNIVERSAL BAN

A global ban on nuclear
weapons is long overdue and canbe achieved in the near futurewith enough public pressure
and political leadership. A ban
would not only make it illegal
for nations to use and possess
nuclear weapons; it would
also help pave the way to theircomplete elimination. Nationscommitted to reaching thegoal of abolition should begin
negotiating a ban now.
A nuclear weapons banwould globalize what nuclearweapon-free zone treaties havedone regionally – for Latin
America and the Caribbean, theSouth Pacific, Southeast Asia,
Central Asia and Africa. It would
allow nations in any part of theworld to formalize their rejectionof nuclear weapons and help
create a clear international legal
norm against the possessionof nuclear weapons. Similarly,
a ban would build on, andreinforce, the NPT andComprehensive Nuclear-TestBan Treaty – which, althoughhaving helped prevent the use
and limit the spread of nuclear
weapons, are insufficient toachieve disarmament. A nuclear
weapons ban is the missing piece
for a broad legal rejection of all
weapons of mass destruction.

Everyone’s responsibility

1

Engaging thedevelopment sector

A nuclear attack anywhere in
the world would have profound
implications for the work oforganizations that provide
disaster relief, refugee assistanceand health care, as well as thosepromoting human rights, foodsecurity, poverty alleviation andenvironmental sustainability. Allsuch groups must play an activerole now in efforts to avert ahumanitarian catastrophe byeliminating nuclear weapons.

2

Engaging United
Nations agencies

Nuclear disarmament is alongstanding objective of theUnited Nations. It is directly
relevant to the work of mostof its major agencies, including
the World Health Organization,
the Food and Agriculture
Organization, unicef, unesco,
and the high commissioners forhuman rights and refugees. The
UN family must join forces toaddress the continuing threat ofnuclear conflict.

3

Building the political
will for a ban

Ultimately, the responsibility todisarm rests with governments.
All barriers to achieving a world
free of nuclear weapons arepolitical, not technical. The
growing recognition among
governments of the catastrophic
humanitarian consequences ofnuclear weapons is a positive
development. It must now
translate into meaningful action
towards a treaty to outlaw andeliminate nuclear weapons.

4

Raising publicawareness

Generating a powerfulgroundswell of public support
for nuclear abolition will be key
to ensuring that all governments
engage constructively innegotiations for a nuclear
weapons ban. Information
about the catastrophic effects ofnuclear weapons must be spreadthrough the mass media, become
part of the national education
curriculum, and be shared widely
through ngo networks.

CATASTROPHIC HUMANITARIAN HARM
Катастрофические гуманитарные последствия

Conséquences humanitaires catastrophiques‫נזק הומניטארי קטסטרופלי‬壊滅的な人道的被害‫נזק הומניטארי קטסטרופלי‬‫ﺍﻷﺿﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺛﻴﺔ‬‫זק הומניטארי קטסטרופלי‬‫נ‬灾难性的人道主义伤害Daño humanitario catastrófico

치명적인 인도주의적 피해