Ask a Nuclear Physicist: What’s the Difference Between 1,500 and 2,200 Nuclear Weapons?
Today, Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, respectively. According to the Huffington Post, “the agreement would require both sides to reduce their arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons by about a third, from 2,200 now to 1,550 each.” The deal was a bona-fide diplomatic victory: “The presidents agreed that the new treaty marks a higher level of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the development of new strategic relations,” said a statement issued by the Kremlin, as reported in The New York Times.
But are 1,500 nuclear weapons any less capable of completely destroying the world than 2,200 nuclear weapons are? VF Daily checked with two Columbia University nuclear physicists to see what difference, if any, 700 nuclear weapons makes.
Gustaaf Brooijmans, experimental high-energy particle physicist, thinks 1,500 nuclear weapons are more than enough to devastate the planet, although annihilation isn’t a sure bet:
“For all practical purposes, one can safely assume that the use of a substantial fraction (100?) of these things would have catastrophic consequences for mankind, although annihilation is far from being a certain outcome. The actual consequences of a hundred or more nuclear blasts happening in a short time aren’t really known, and will depend on what explodes where. I think one can legitimately wonder about catastrophic geological consequences in addition to ‘atmospheric’ ones. (Under atmospheric I'll include ‘direct fatalities’ and radioactive activation of large areas and injection into the atmosphere of massive amounts of dust with significant change in the Earth albedo leading to nuclear winter and other instabilities.) If there are serious geological consequences, annihilation may indeed follow, but not necessarily on a short timescale.”
John Parsons, experimental particle physicist, doesn’t think there is much of a difference, scientifically speaking, between 1,500 weapons and 2,200, although he notes that today’s reduction included a variety of weapons:
“There is not a fundamental difference in terms of the science itself. However, the reduction in numbers is significant, and covers various types of deployed weapons, including ICBMs, submarine missiles, and heavy bombers. Also important is the fact that the agreement includes new verification procedures, to replace ones that expired last December.”
Two out of two scientists agree: mutual destruction is still assured, but things are looking up!