United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres announced the formation of an independent scientific panel of experts to study the physical and societal consequences of nuclear war.
The 21-member panel will examine the potential impacts – ranging from public health and ecosystems to agriculture and global socioeconomic systems – on a local, regional, and planetary scale in the days, weeks, and decades after such a devastating event, Guterres said on Thursday.
The establishment of the panel, mandated by a General Assembly resolution, comes amid heightened global tensions. It marks the first comprehensive U.N. study of its kind in nearly four decades; the last was undertaken in 1988.
Guterres noted that the risk of nuclear war is now at its highest point since the Cold War, citing the use of nuclear weapons as tools of coercion, continuing upgrades to arsenals, and the re-emergence of a nuclear arms race. He also highlighted the erosion of safeguards against nuclear devastation.
This sentiment echoes stark warnings from organizations like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which sets the symbolic Doomsday Clock. In January, the Bulletin moved the clock to 89 seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been to a theoretical global catastrophe. The organization cited increasing nuclear arsenals, a lack of progress on climate change, and the rise of disruptive technologies, including AI in military applications, as key factors driving humanity closer to the brink.
“The purpose of the Doomsday Clock is to start a global conversation about the very real existential threats that keep the world’s top scientists awake at night," said Daniel Holz, a University of Chicago professor who chairs the Bulletin's Science and Security Board. "National leaders must commence discussions about these global risks before it’s too late. Reflecting on these life-and-death issues and starting a dialogue are the first steps to turning back the Clock and moving away from midnight.”
Fractured views of nuclear-armed Security Council members
The U.N. panelists are leaders in various scientific disciplines, representing all regions of the world. They will solicit input from diverse stakeholders, including international and regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, civil society, and affected communities.
The panel is scheduled to hold its inaugural meeting in September and is expected to submit its final report to the General Assembly in 2027.
The General Assembly approved setting up the panel in a 144-3 vote last November. Thirty countries abstained from voting on the resolution proposed by Ireland and New Zealand. Only France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, three of the world's nine nuclear-armed powers, voted against it.
Most other nuclear-armed powers —India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States — abstained, while China voted in favor. The voting also made for a widely fractured split among the five permanent U.N. Security Council seat-holders: China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.
The idea for the study came from a recommendation made by the Scientific Advisory Group to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Dec. 2023.
The 1988 U.N.-commissioned study on the climatic and other global effects of nuclear war, often referred to for its focus on the concept of "nuclear winter," significantly raised public awareness of nuclear war's far-reaching consequences and influenced policy discussions on arms control, underscoring the global peril.
It concluded that a major nuclear exchange would inject vast amounts of soot and dust into the atmosphere. This would block sunlight, leading to a dramatic drop in global temperatures, prolonged darkness, and severe disruptions to weather patterns. The report warned that such an event would pose a "high risk of a global environmental disruption" and imperil world food production, leading to widespread starvation for both targeted and non-targeted nations.
Beyond the immediate casualties of nuclear blasts, the study emphasized that indirect effects like starvation and disease could lead to billions of deaths. It also highlighted that a nuclear war would completely shatter global socioeconomic systems, precluding any recovery akin to that after World War II due to widespread physical damage and the breakdown of vital infrastructure.
