Are you an undergraduate or master’s student? Do you want to unpack the world of arms control? Then this is your chance! The SCRAP Weapons Project is excited to announce the launch of ‘Arms and Arguments’ – a dynamic new initiative to fuel public discourse on arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. Explore cross-sectional themes and engage with diverse perspectives. Join the conversation and become an informed voice!
About
In an increasingly uncertain world, understanding the history, theory, and current state of efforts to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and limit the proliferation of conventional weapons is more crucial than ever. Fostering critical thinking, knowledge sharing, and dialogue among youth, Arms and Arguments provides an opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions with like-minded individuals. Explore the challenges and opportunities of multilateral diplomacy and contribute to the discourse. Delve into the political, strategic, and ethical dimensions, learn from the past, and connect globally for a safer future. Whether you’re a seasoned scholar or just curious, your perspective matters here. Open to all interested, no expertise needed.
Structure and Format
As a shared informal space, members will immerse themselves in various literary and multimedia sources, including books, academic papers, reports, movies, and documentaries on disarmament, diplomacy, modern warfare, social justice, and more. Key engagement comprises—
- Monthly online meetings: 1.5 to 2 hour virtual call via Google Meet for discussion and open dialogue led by rotating members.
- Collaborative selection: Members suggest and vote on the literature they want to focus on. Guest speakers, authors, or members of the IMPACT Coalition could also be invited for selected themes to provide deeper insights.
- Monthly reviews: Draft 100-200 word summaries or creative takeaways for SCRAP Weapons’ social media/website, which will be reviewed by a copy editor.
Through thoughtful reviews, we aim to spotlight unique challenges confronted by countries on their path to disarmament, unveiling not only distinct narratives but also a myriad of viewpoints that contribute to global efforts for peace by celebrating the power of both academic and narrative literature. Potential offshoots may also include social media content comprised of blog posts, quotations, and video clips of the monthly meetings. The proposed outcome is to develop a culture of continuous learning within and beyond SCRAP, building a network of participants with shared interests.
2026 EDITION
April 2026 Edition Coming Soon Arms and Arguments Club Members Coming soon
March 2026 Edition Coming Soon Arms and Arguments Club Members Coming soon
February 2026 Edition Coming Soon Arms and Arguments Club Members Coming soon
January 2026 Edition Mila King and Ashoka-Bandi Philips Arms and Arguments Club Members All Quiet on The Western Front (1979) The 1979 …
MARCH'25 EDITION
Review by Daniel Whiting and Philippa Campbell, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
A balancing game of assumptions and estimation. The Unbearable Lightness of Luck invites us to consider historical learning from nuclear disasters and how it causes over and/or underestimations of nuclear threats. Our consideration is guided by using the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the point in history deemed closest to reaching nuclear disaster. Pelopidas confronts the ‘unbearable lightness of luck’, referring to the chilling discovery of the significant role of luck, and highlights the limits of leaders’ knowledge about nuclear weapons, various command and control problems, the rudimentary weapons’ safety procedures, and the potential for accidents.
The French assessments and calm attitude towards the crisis appeared a little comical, but also rather immature, and can be characterized by ‘overconfidence’. It was amusing to see how unbothered France was, making us wonder if this national attitude was strictly imposed or was a cultural consequence of prior events. While there is a certain logic to what French nuclear strategist Andre Beaufre said about how unwinnable a nuclear war was and thus how pointless it was to entertain the idea of using nuclear weapons, Pelopidas identifies how narrative control is obtained, firstly by epistemic inconsistencies.
Review by Philippa Campbell, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove parodies the very real Cold War fear of nuclear war, exposing the role of humans, however fickle or untrustworthy, in deciding the fate of humanity. Released in 1964, the movie presents a satirical yet unnervingly plausible look into Cold War politics and the potential for global annihilation. It depicts the pre-emptive nuclear strike of a U.S. brigadier general and the subsequent scramble in the pursuit of preventing Armageddon, warning us of the immense capabilities that we are leaving to the flawed and few.
In the movie, Dr. Strangelove, a former Nazi now advising the U.S. President, né Merkwürdigliebe, becomes Dr. Strangelove through naturalization despite physical inclinations towards a Nazi salute and an awkward tendency to address the President as Mein Führer. Through the absurdity of characters, Kubrick has taken a resonating Cold War fear to a surreal and grotesque imagination whereby history’s most dangerous ideologies are sanitized to instill individuals with warped worldviews in positions of power. All in all, the movie brilliantly humanizes the terrifying prospect of nuclear war.
APRIL'25 EDITION
Review by Daniel Whiting, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Highlighting the lamentable impact of explosive weapons on the environment, this report underlines how armed conflict suppresses environmental research by limiting access to areas deemed ‘low risk’. Documenting soil, water, and biodiversity conditions in Kherson and Mykolaiv regions, the report found that pollution levels, while not immediately dangerous to locals, were above the maximum permitted concentration, which could have lasting and generational consequences on their health.
Further, the destruction of critical infrastructure such as water treatment facilities and irrigation canals risks contamination and the spread of waterborne diseases, depriving cities of access to clean water. For instance, the breach of the Kakhovka Dam resulted in the loss of 40% of Ukraine’s annual water consumption and the flooding of 600 km. sq in the Ukrainian and Russian-occupied regions. Water analysis from Komyshany and Zymivnyk, which has no centralised sewage system, revealed record levels of iron, manganese, cadmium, zinc, nickel, lead, oil, and other pollutants in the private borehole, which did not meet drinking water standards. However, in the absence of alternative sources, locals had to utilize the water for “hygiene and technical needs” and rely on trucked and bottled water for drinking.
The 27 Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC) dictate how to protect the environment before, during, and after conflict and occupation. Evaluating the environmental cost of the Ukraine war can assist in remediation and accountability in the future, and help underscore the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
Review by Philippa Campbell, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Warring parties in conflict often masquerade their political pursuits as a matter of national security, strategic necessity, or even the protection of foreign citizens. Yet behind the rhetoric of defence lies a consistent truth: it is always people—ordinary civilians—who bear the brunt of its consequences. Israel’s feigned concern for Lebanese citizens in areas that were subjected to Hezbollah control serves to obscure the IDF’s direct role in the destruction of critical infrastructure and the consequent generational environmental and health risks from toxic contamination.
The article offers a stark and sobering account of how militarisation transforms landscapes into sites of long-term suffering by detailing how Israeli airstrikes devastated southern Lebanon’s infrastructure, leaving behind toxic environmental scars. For instance, agricultural land that was once a source of livelihood has been incinerated by fires caused by the use of White Phosphorus (WP), which not only destroyed olive farms and grasslands but also acidified the soil. Crucially, widespread reports of WP have only become commonplace since October 2023, when the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict escalated to the now recognised war. The debris, potentially containing asbestos and other toxic substances, poses further risks to human health and the environment.
What emerges is a clear picture: militarised violence does not end when the fighting stops. It continues to poison the land, water, and air that civilians depend on to survive
Alice and Lincoln Day (2008) Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives
Review by Philippa Campbell, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives compels viewers to recognise that wartime destruction encompasses both humans and the environment. Amid greater climate consciousness in consumerism and global engagement in tackling the main contributors to the environmental crisis, the role of war and its preparations is far too overlooked for the effects this documentary reveals it to have. The film makes a vital intervention by spotlighting the environmental cost of militarism, a subject too often excluded from mainstream climate discourse.
Through a thoughtful blend of archival footage from conflicts and insightful expert testimony, the documentary uncovers the deeply intertwined human and ecological impacts of conflict. Among the voices featured is Lt. General Robert Gard, Jr., who warns of the dangers unexploded ordnance poses to formerly fertile agricultural land and the risk of long-term water contamination. His testimony underscores how warfare leaves havoc to the environment that outlasts the battles themselves. James Janko, a Vietnam War veteran, offers a powerful reflection: “Often I wonder if our struggle is not against human beings but the Earth that sustains them.” His words capture the tragic irony of modern warfare, where the environment, the very source of life, is relegated to collateral damage.
MAY'25 EDITION
Denis Delestrac (2009) Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space
Review by Daniel Whiting, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
The documentary highlights the American perspective on the militarisation of space and provides a critical view of their methods and intentions. “Pax Americana”, as they call themselves, is a contradictory term. Despite presenting themselves as the sole police of the world, their space military projects reveal a more threatening nature. Any statements made in the documentary on how vulnerable they feel in space are hyperbolic, as they continuously reject attempts to extend the parameters of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
The USA exemplifies the typical pattern of the security dilemma, where a nation that seeks greater military power induces other countries to pursue similar actions for protection, ultimately increasing global security volatility without providing anyone with actual security. As a major influence in global views on space as a military frontier, the USA has recklessly pursued power, exaggerating fears of a Chinese space threat to justify its endless growth. At some point, one has to consider what good comes from this: if a country is willing to invest so much more into warfare than they ever would into peace, how could anyone view them as not being aggressive? When a nation prioritises military so heavily, can it justify not using it?
JUNE'25 EDITION
Review by Philippa Campbell, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning delivers the spectacle that fans of the franchise adore. Beyond the Hollywood extravagance of character returns, love interests, epic stunts and ultimate countdowns, this movie alerts us to contemporary concerns of rogue state leaders and the arms capabilities that they are bestowed. It reminds us of the fragile anarchic global system that paves the way for the very destruction that nuclear arsenal was made for and is capable of.
There’s a familiar reliance on old Cold War prejudices that embed suspicion, ultimately discouraging diplomacy and favouring the save-the-day Ethan Hunt archetype. Moreover, the action-packed storyline becomes convoluted in its entertainment agenda, glamorising the adrenaline-inducing individualised mission led by a man as opposed to warning of the devastating human and climate consequences of conflict. Cooperation with an old friend and love interest evokes heart-warming sentiments of teamwork, but dwindle when considering the global-scale collective investment that is needed to secure a more peaceful international society.
JULY'25 EDITION
Review by Monalisa Hazarika
Ammunition has long been overlooked in discussions central to understanding and addressing the lethality of small arms and light weapons (SALW). In his paper, Alley highlights the critical deficiencies in the international arms control framework, particularly the lack of explicit restraint on SALW ammunition and persisting disagreements on supply to non-state actors. He also highlighted the dangers posed by continued ammunition supplies reaching non-state actors and conflict zones.
The paper remains deeply relevant in 2025 and continues to resonate strongly in the discussions at the recent preparatory meetings for the Global Framework for Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management (GFA). Alley’s critique that ammunition has historically not received the same regulatory attention as the weapons themselves was echoed in the preparatory meetings, where states highlighted the urgent need to integrate ammunition explicitly in disarmament instruments. The need for detailed measures on stockpile management, marking and tracing, and robust end-user verification to prevent diversion was reaffirmed by member states, where they deliberated on a path toward meaningful implementation of these long-standing recommendations.
For youth and civil society, the paper reinforces the importance of sustained advocacy to strengthen normative frameworks and urge state accountability. As ammunition fuels cycles of violence globally, actionable policy, driven by inclusive multilateral dialogue, remains the key to progress.
AUGUST'25 EDITION
Review by Mila King, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Robert Jacobs’s article “Global Hibakusha” is a compelling call to broaden our understanding of nuclear harm. He reframes the Cold War not merely as a geopolitical standoff, but as a period of “soft nuclear war,” marked by an average of one nuclear test every 8.6 days between 1946 and 1989, alongside numerous accidents.
Jacobs challenges the conventional view that nuclear destruction is limited to desolate, irradiated landscapes from external exposure. Instead, he highlights the danger of microscopic fallout particles that are absorbed by and enter the human body. Though not instantly lethal, these particles gradually undermine health, often taking years to manifest in disease. Contamination extends far beyond test sites, occurring in uranium mines and poorly managed nuclear fuel deposits, and spreading across vast distances through air and water. As Jacobs observes, nuclear fallout is “a holistic event” that can disrupt entire ecosystems over extended periods. It not only damages health but also undermines cultural and historical ties to the land, eroding traditional knowledge systems through forced displacement
Perhaps most striking is how he frames nuclear testing as an extension of colonialism. Governments, fully aware of the risks, conducted tests in regions with populations considered expendable, thus effectively “selecting the irradiated”. Jacobs’s work insists that we confront the enduring legacy of these policies. This article is both a historical analysis and a moral imperative, urging readers to reckon with nuclear fallout’s human and environmental toll.
SEPTEMBER'25 EDITION
Review by Palwasha Khan, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Emily Faux’s article highlights the continued debate on preconceived binary gender dispositions that have found their way into the digital world. Her argument on the simultaneous release of both ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ movies may not hint at corporate counterprogramming, but it surely identifies the competition it triggers between genders.
This aspect not only challenges the existing debate on binary gender perceptions but also highlights its misperceptions and preconceived assumptions. “Barbenheimer” serves as a critique of how the world continues to subscribe to its legacy of nuclear weapons, yet does so with more subtlety and humor, thanks to the digital space. It redraws attention to how gendered lens have made their way into the digital space by choosing to use memes as a subliminal conduit for the same. Barbenheimer memes add a touch of hilarity to the major social theme of feminism and nuclear risks.
Review by Taylor Evans, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
The article offers an interesting perspective on the “Barbenheimer” craze, especially in its analysis of memes. However, the comparison between Barbie and Oppenheimer feels problematic. Placing them side-by-side risks trivializing nuclear war, an issue that feels particularly wrong given how little the film itself addresses the actual effects of the bombs. While Barbie provides a powerful take on women’s struggles, its pairing with Oppenheimer ultimately undercuts that seriousness.
This is reminiscent of the tone-deaf marketing by a makeup brand that reenacted scenes from Oppenheimer by replacing the likeness of Oppenheimer with their makeup products. This kind of marketing diminishes the seriousness of nuclear violence. While memes can be funny and entertaining, they risk turning tragedy into mere entertainment.
Review by Stephanie Meciar
The article critically examines how gender has been incorporated into nuclear diplomacy. Drawing on discourse analysis of five years of NPT documentation, the authors show that ‘gender-sensitive’ approaches are predominantly framed around women’s inclusion, with little attention to masculinity or broader gendered power relations. This narrow framing positions women as a homogenous outsider group and treats inclusion mainly as a tool to improve efficiency and legitimacy, rather than as a pathway to structural transformation. Importantly, the authors demonstrate how ‘gender’ is often instrumentalised, stripped of its critical edge and mobilised in ways that reinforce existing nuclear hierarchies rather than challenge them.
The paper’s key insight is that without deeper engagement with feminist and intersectional perspectives, gender initiatives risk becoming tokenistic and may reproduce the very power asymmetries they seek to address. Overall, the article underscores the limits of current gender-sensitivity efforts in nuclear governance and calls for approaches that genuinely challenge, rather than reinforce, existing power structures.
Review by Ashoka Bandi Phillips
Gender discourse on nuclear weapons policy has often amounted to nothing more than a footnote in the eyes of the public and politicians. Brown and Considine’s critique highlights this harsh reality and seeks to reorient policymakers’ views by drawing attention to how gender, in conjunction with race, sex, class, and other identifiable characteristics, can have implications for the future of the NPT.
Ultimately, this paper will resonate most with Constructivist readers, who will welcome the authors’ application of Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem?’ framework, where gender sensitivity is framed as a solution to the failures of the NPT rather than as a critique of its inherent power hierarchies. However, the article’s reliance on discourse leaves space for independent empirical research on how these narratives do, or frequently do not, translate into real-world examples
In a nutshell, Civil society should push beyond tokenistic inclusion and demand a more nuanced intersectional analysis, one that confronts not only gender and masculinity but also colonial legacies, race, and the material violence of deterrence, without dismissing the insights a realist analysis can still offer.
Review by Mila King
Roland Joffé’s Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) presents the Manhattan Project through a distinctly masculine lens, focusing on the authority and rivalry of its two central figures: J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) and General Leslie Groves (Paul Newman). Both embody patriarchal archetypes, consumed by mission and duty at the expense of personal relationships. Their struggle between scientific vision and military discipline cast the bomb’s creation as the product of masculine competition, ego, and authority, framing these attributes in a positive light. The film equates nuclear power with technological mastery, organisation, and large-scale planning, positioning the project alongside wartime operations such as D-Day.
Women, by contrast, are marginalised within the narrative. They appear primarily as love interests or silent supporters, their sacrifices rendered invisible or trivialised in the service of male achievement. When questioned about his absent wife, Groves asserts that “she has the courage to stay in the background”, encapsulating the film’s gender politics; women are important only insofar as they enable men’s focus and productivity.
The Manhattan Project is thus depicted as a triumph of male willpower and ingenuity, with ethical considerations only entering towards the end. Men of this period were expected to possess scientific and technological knowledge, yet they were often poorly equipped with the emotional tools needed to undertake such a project. In sidelining women, the film reinforces a gendered nuclear narrative that aligns power and progress with masculine dominance.
Review by Tabitha Agaba, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
This paper examines the NATO partnership in Europe through the lens of a marriage. It explores the compromises and challenges inherent in such a relationship and the possibility of “divorce” when disagreements cannot be resolved amicably. By viewing NATO through this marital lens, the paper draws a clearer understanding of the alliance and its operations.
It argues that former Soviet countries, seen as recently divorced partners, formed a new union with the United States. In this metaphor, Russia is viewed as a competing masculine figure and the “ex-husband,” making the marriage dynamic with the U.S. challenging. The NATO countries sought a new, powerful husband in the U.S. as a replacement for Russia, which, in the paper, is seen as a way of living together and seeking a partner that would “pamper” them. This metaphorical framework of a nuclear marriage is used to make the complex dynamics of the NATO alliance more accessible and understandable.
Al Jazeera (2025) “The Trillion Dollar War Machine”
Review by Priyakshi Puzari, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Al Jazeera’s The Trillion Dollar War Machine, presented by Hind Hassan, delivers a sharp and unsettling look into how the United States sustains the world’s most powerful and profitable military-industrial complex. The documentary exposes how America’s trillion-dollar defence budget is not just about national security but about sustaining an industry that thrives on constant spending, political lobbying, and manufactured consent.
The film’s core strength lies in showing how deeply entwined arms corporations are with political power. It reveals that major weapons manufacturers like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon invest millions in U.S. election campaigns, targeting influential congressmen whose votes dictate the scale of military budgets. In return, these lawmakers often push for more defence contracts, citing “national interest” while safeguarding jobs in their constituencies. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: companies fund campaigns, politicians approve higher spending, and both sides gain while taxpayers bear the cost.
The film powerfully captures how the military-industrial complex has evolved into a permanent pillar of U.S. politics. It challenges the idea that America’s vast defence machine is purely defensive, instead portraying it as an entrenched economic and political system where profits and influence outweigh public accountability. In short, The Trillion Dollar War Machine is a compelling, urgent exposé of how war and business merge in modern America, making it essential viewing for anyone seeking to understand the politics behind trillion-dollar defense spending.
Mathew Eddy (2016) “A Bold Peace”
Review by Mila King, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Lynn Frederick Dsouza (2025) “Strategic Analysis of the Impact of Global Military Expenditure on SDGs 4, 5, 16, and 17”
Review by Ashoka Bandi Phillips, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
War is not merely fought on the battlefield; It is budgeted into existence. Dsouza’s study reveals the global addiction to militarization by analyzing how every uptick in defense spending sets back four UN Sustainable Development Goals: quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), peace and strong institutions (SDG 16), and global partnerships (SDG 17). By tracing how 2.7 trillion USD flows towards weapons rather than sustainable development, the paper shows how defense budgets are a form of structural violence, with every dollar that could be used to educate instead of funding the global war economy.
This paper will resonate most with Constructivist readers who will appreciate Dsouza’s use of strategic firefight frameworks to demonstrate how militarism reproduces itself through normalized threat narratives. The tri-scenario model ‘Guns Over Growth, Peace Dividend Shift, and Security-Economy Nexus’ reframes defense spending not as inevitable but as a policy choice with measurable consequences. In particular, how gender equality, education access, and institutional integrity have all been eroded.
Ultimately, Dsouza demonstrates how a nation’s security discourse is heavily instrumentalised and is stripped of its relation to human welfare and its possible social ramifications, which inherently reinforces existing power hierarchies rather than challenges them. This leads the reader to the conclusion that civil society should push beyond accepting the security-development binary and confront the gendered, racialized, and colonial dimensions of military spending. Otherwise, SDG advocacy risks becoming tokenistic.
Conflict and Environment Observatory (2025) "How increasing global military expenditure threatens SDG 13 on Climate action"
Review by Stephanie Meciar, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
Amid intersecting global crises of conflict, climate change, and inequality, the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) critically examines the tension between rising military expenditure and international efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 on Climate Action. Militaries and their extensive supply chains are among the world’s largest institutional consumers of fossil fuels, with weapons production, energy-intensive operations, and infrastructure investments locking economies into decades of carbon dependency. CEOBS and Scientists for Global Responsibility estimate that military activities account for approximately 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, suggesting that, if the world’s armed forces were treated as a single entity, they would rank as the fourth-largest emitter globally.
Despite growing recognition of the environmental impacts of military emissions, the lack of transparency and consequent gap in data reporting continues to undermine global decarbonisation efforts, weaken social resilience, and exacerbate the structural inequalities that shape population health outcomes. These effects are particularly salient amongst small island and developing nations, where the disproportionate impacts of climate change are most severely experienced. Reinforcing the United Nations’ call to assess the implications of rising military expenditure for achieving the SDGs, CEOBS argues that meaningful progress on climate and peace requires confronting the environmental footprint of militarisation and reorienting military spending towards sustainable development.
UN Office For Disarmament Affairs (2025) “The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future”
Review by Tabitha Agaba, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
The United Nations report “The Security We Need” highlights that despite rising global military expenditures, wars and insecurity continue to persist. This diversion of resources comes at the expense of essential social services that are urgently needed worldwide. A key finding of the report is the significant environmental impact of military production and operations, from greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem destruction to harm inflicted on wildlife, all of which exacerbate climate change and environmental degradation. Moreover, increased military spending heightens the risks of diversion and misuse of small arms and light weapons, fueling armed violence, terrorism, and organized crime, thereby undermining peacebuilding efforts. Additionally, such expenditures place substantial strain on national financial systems, with some states resorting to borrowing to fund military procurement. This borrowing often leads to fiscal pressures, deepening economic vulnerabilities, and increasing the risk of long-term instability.
The report seeks to explore solutions to the above-mentioned challenges by identifying ways through which countries can address conflict without expanding their military budgets, through sustainable approaches that promote development. Looking ahead, the report proposes five key strategies to strengthen global security: prioritizing the peaceful settlement of disputes and confidence-building measures; advancing diplomacy to reduce military expenditures by tackling their root causes; ensuring transparency and accountability in defense spending; integrating discussions on military expenditure into broader disarmament efforts; and promoting a security paradigm that places human well-being at its core.
NOVEMBER'25 EDITION
Tillman A. Ruff (2025) “The Climate Effects of Nuclear War”
Review by Stephanie Meciar
Tillman A. Ruff’s article ‘The Climate Effects of Nuclear War’ synthesises climate-modelling evidence to underscore the catastrophic environmental and public health consequences of nuclear conflict. He demonstrates that even a limited nuclear exchange would generate immense firestorms that not only cause immediate mass casualties but also propel vast quantities of black carbon into the upper atmosphere. This atmospheric soot would significantly reduce solar radiation, cool global surface temperatures, and disrupt precipitation patterns, effects that could persist for a decade or more. The resulting ‘nuclear winter’ would contribute to severe declines in agricultural productivity, exacerbating global food insecurity, malnutrition, disease, and mortality, particularly in low and middle income countries and settings already affected by conflict.
Against the backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions and ongoing nuclear modernisation, Ruff frames nuclear war as a critical global health issue and urges the global community to actively support United Nations and World Health Organisation initiatives that recognise the abolition of nuclear weapons as the most acute and urgent task of our time, essential to safeguarding both humankind and planetary wellbeing.
Alan Robock et al. (2019) “How an India Pakistan nuclear war could start- and have global consequences”
Review by Tabitha Agaba, Edited by Monalisa Hazarika
In an imagined scenario set in 2025, a terror attack on the Indian Parliament left many politicians dead, prompting the Indian army to move into Pakistan territory with tanks, to which the Pakistan army responded by detonating 10 atomic bombs at low altitude within their borders against the Indian tanks. On the second day, 15 tactical nuclear weapons were released, and in response, the Indian army released 20 strategic weapons detonated as airbursts targeting Pakistan military targets, and so on. In creating a scenario of nuclear weapons exchange in conflict, this article articulates the possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan and the possible devastating global impact.
The example in the article highlights how easily the war can be escalated. The possibility of war between these two comes against a backdrop of four previous conflicts that have been fought between the two countries. The article estimates that if the war took place, between 50 and 125 million people would die. The consequences of such a nuclear war would range from uninhabitable cities to infrastructure damage to climate change, whose impact would go beyond Pakistan and India. This change would lead to a halt in agriculture, hence famine. While the article notes that nuclear weapons were manufactured to deter conflict, it notes their presence hasn’t prevented conflict, though they haven’t been used.
James Scouras, Lauren Ice, and Megan Proper (2024) “Whatever happened to Nuclear Winter?”
Review by Palwasha Khan
The Cold War was all about that one fateful moment when everything would have collapsed into oblivion. Each time scientists and strategists drew doomsday clocks or talked about the nuclear winter, they were personifying the horrors that awaited humanity. Then, after the Cold War ended, it was as if such threats were no longer so serious or believable. As if they were mythical figments of imagination. This report critically highlights two threats: the risk of nuclear exchange is back, and it seems to be accelerating faster than imagined. Whether it is nuclear armed states rolling back global treaties or locking antlers, pushing to the bitter end of conventional warfighting, the need for reimagining nuclear winter is greater than ever. This report, through its scientific assessments and literary déjà vu of the Cold War, is an appeal to see how far the world is from risk aversion and how close it is to a nuclear war.
James Scouras, Lauren Ice and Meghan Proper (2023) “Nuclear Winter, Nuclear Strategy, Nuclear Risk”
Review by Priyakshi Pujari
The report is an incisive examination of one of the most unsettling paradoxes of modern nuclear planning. Despite nuclear winter being among the gravest potential consequences of nuclear war, it has played almost no role in the shaping of U.S. nuclear strategy. The authors, who are experts in physics, nuclear deterrence, and catastrophic risk, offer an analytical, policy-oriented reflection on why this omission persists and why revisiting it is now essential.
A central argument in the report is that uncertainty (while real) is not the primary reason for strategic neglect. Instead, the authors highlight deeper structural incentives. Because nuclear winter is a global risk, no single nation can prevent it unilaterally and any meaningful mitigation would require reductions or doctrinal changes across all nuclear states. Nuclear deterrence depends on the perceived willingness to retaliate. If adversaries believe U.S. leaders would hesitate to respond with nuclear weapons out of fear of triggering catastrophic climate effects, deterrence weakens. This perception problem, the authors argue, quietly incentivizes policymakers to ignore nuclear winter altogether.
The paper then traces how nuclear winter intersects with the three main roles of nuclear weapons: deterrence, warfighting, and crisis management. In terms of deterrence, nuclear winter complicates traditional logic. On the one hand, more catastrophic consequences should make deterrence stronger by making nuclear war unthinkable. On the other hand, if only one side internalizes the danger, asymmetry emerges and adversaries might gain leverage by assuming the more fearful state will be reluctant to escalate. The authors note that deterrence doctrine is built as much on perceptions and beliefs as on material facts, and nuclear winter introduces new vulnerabilities in this psychological landscape.