The catastrophic consequences of a hypothetical nuclear war between the United States and Russia

As Russia continues its brutal invasion on Ukrainian soil, fears persist that the conflict will escalate to nuclear levels. Above all, after what was said on Tuesday by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who acknowledged that Moscow only would use nuclear weapons in the event of an “existential threat”.

“We have a concept of internal security, and it's public. You can read all the reasons for using nuclear weapons (...) So, if it is an existential threat to our country, then it can be used according to our concept,” said the Russian official.

It is precisely to avoid a nuclear conflict that the United States and NATO carefully measure any maneuver in their strategic support of Ukrainian forces. The West, and Russia itself, are aware that such a war would have devastating consequences.

Princeton University's Global Science and Security Program (SGS) developed a simulation of a possible escalation of war between the United States and Russia. Indeed, the result would be catastrophic.

According to project estimates, there would be more than 90 million deaths and injuries, just in the early hours of the conflict. More specifically, the dead would amount to 34.1 million and the injured to 57.4 million.

“This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of the current US and Russian nuclear war plans,” says SGS on its website.

Specialists from Princeton University also warn that the risk of nuclear war has increased considerably in the last two years, after the United States and Russia abandoned existing nuclear weapons control treaties. They also developed new types of nuclear weapons and expanded the circumstances in which they could be used.

The SGS details that the four-minute audiovisual project “uses extensive data sets of nuclear weapons currently deployed, their performances and the possible targets of certain weapons, as well as the order of battle that estimates which weapons go to which objectives in what order and in what phase of war to show the evolution of nuclear conflict from tactical to strategic phases and urban objectives”.

It also clarifies that the number of fatalities is limited to deaths caused by nuclear explosions. That number would increase significantly due to fallout deaths and other long-term effects.

The simulation begins in the context of a conventional conflict, and then ends in an all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. The images show the rain of nuclear warheads launched by Moscow against US soil and NATO bases in Europe, and vice versa.

Last week UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres sounded alarm bells about Russia's increased alert level for its nuclear forces after invading Ukraine, and described it as a “chilling development”.

“The prospect of a previously unthinkable nuclear conflict is now back within the realm of possibility,” Guterres told reporters, repeating his call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

At the end of February, Putin ordered Russian nuclear forces to be on high alert, raising fears that Russia's invasion of Ukraine could lead to nuclear war.

Russia and the United States have by far the largest arsenals of nuclear warheads after the Cold War that divided the world for much of the 20th century, pitting the West against the Soviet Union and its allies.

Far from bringing peace of mind, weeks ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that if the conflict with Ukraine escalates and triggers a third world war, it could include the use of nuclear weapons and be destructive.

The consequences of a nuclear war could be devastating for humanity and for planet Earth.

“The shock wave and heat created by the detonation of a single nuclear weapon can end the lives of millions of people immediately. But even greater is the devastation that would follow a nuclear war,” explained Max Roser, founder and director of Our World in Data, the global data measurement organization that depends on Oxford University.

The first reason for this is radioactive fallout: “The radioactive dust from the bombs that detonate rises into the atmosphere and spreads over large areas of the world from where it falls and causes lethal levels of radiation.”

“The second reason is less well known. But it is now believed that this consequence, the 'nuclear winter' and the world famine that would follow, is the most serious consequence of nuclear war,” Roser explains.

These consequences mean that the destruction caused by nuclear weapons is not confined to the battlefield. It would not only harm the country under attack. Nuclear war would devastate all countries, including the attacker.

A large-scale nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia using 4,400 100-kt bombs (kilotons, equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT) would inject 150 million tons of aerosols into the stratosphere. This would decrease solar radiation and the sea temperature would drop 6.4 ℃. We are talking about a scenario in which only about half of the current atomic arsenal would be used.

Globally, two years after the war, food production would decline by 80%. Such reductions would also be more pronounced in the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere, where they would reach 99%.

“Despite the diplomatic efforts of recent weeks, increasingly alarming scenarios are opening up,” Pope Francis warned weeks ago.

Keep reading: