The Economics of Nuclear War

Instructions: Read this article, analyze it using the Critical Thinking Handout and using the presentation by Mr. Achs, The Dangers of Nuclear Weapons, answer the questions listed below.

Note: When analyzing this article use either:

> 5Ws & H

or

> Analyzing an Article: 9 Questions to Ask

Assignment (30pts):

Part 1 (10pts): Analyze Article, use the Critical Thinking handout (see handout below).

Part 2 (10pts): Tour West HS Fall Out Shelter, students do reflection, one paragraph, 3-4 sentences min. 

Part 3 (10pts): Questions, 1pt each, use complete sentences and proper grammar. Scroll down to see the questions.

Note: If you were absent the day this lesson was presented by Mr. Achs, you must do the following: 1) Read/review the lecture notes: The Dangers of Nuclear Weapons (PowerPoint Presentation), see file in Unit 3 Notes, Click Here, 2) Read War Story #1 and #2. Click Here, and 3) Since you did not go on the tour of the fall-out shelter, watch this video and then reflect on it. Click Here for the video.  Click Here for update on nuclear weapons.

Economic Impacts

of a Nuclear Weapon

Detonation

Source: Article 36: International Steering Group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), www.icanw.org

Many national economies and the world economy as a whole are arguably more vulnerable to the negative economic impact of a nuclear weapon detonation than they were in 1945. A nuclear weapon explosion in an open economy also risks having regional and global ramifications that could set back hard-won development gains and worsen poverty. 

The explosion of even a single, low-yield nuclear weapon, whether intentionally or by accident, can cause massive loss of life and significant material destruction directly through blast, heat and other effects. These effects, ‘will not be constrained by national borders, and will affect states and people in significant ways, regionally as well as globally.

This was one of the key conclusions that emerged from discussions at the first Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Norway in March 2013. Such an explosion would also have profound and long-lasting public health, social, political, economic and environmental consequences. These effects were at the centre of discussions at the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Mexico in February 2014.2 This paper outlines some of the negative economic and developmental consequences that can be expected to result from a nuclear weapon detonation, with a focus on public infrastructure. The full socio-economic impact of such an explosion is difficult to gauge as different scenarios involving many variables are conceivable.3 The paper is therefore not based on a single specific scenario, nor does it cover the full range of possible circumstances. Rather, it draws out some key points that emerge from studies that have been undertaken on the economic and infrastructure impacts of violent events and of major natural disasters.

The world has become more urbanised, more globalised (economically inter-dependent) and because most national economies are today heavily dependent on infrastructures that rely on electricity and electronics, an explosion in or near an urban area can damage infrastructure in a way that has serious negative implications for an entire national economy and beyond. The longer-term consequences of a nuclear detonation and response costs would place a heavy burden on public finances, with a highly uncertain prospect for economic recovery. Furthermore, through disruption of global supply chains and through other propagation mechanisms (such as through international financial markets) a nuclear explosion can have global ramifications.

Nuclear weapons present a very high socio-economic risk that is incompatible with key sustainable development goals. Only the elimination of nuclear weapons can ultimately prevent the unspeakable human tragedy and the socio-economic crisis that a nuclear weapon explosion could induce. 

Over the last decades we have seen a rapid growth of the world’s urban population with two-thirds of the world’s population expected to live in cities by 2030. There is a strong economic logic underpinning this rapid urbanisation. Cities are often described as engines of economic economic growth that draw in human resources, raw materials and capital, which combined with modern urban infrastructure have been the driving force behind national economic development in most countries. About 65% of the world’s economically active population works in industry and services and a very high proportion of all industry and services are in urban areas. Almost 80% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is already generated in cities, with megacities playing a particularly important role. 

The explosion of even a low-yield nuclear weapon in an urban or peri-urban area would cause massive loss of life, injury, sickness and destruction due to the high population density and the concentration of high-value assets. According to a previous Article 36 study, the detonation of a 100kT nuclear weapon above central Manchester (UK) would create blast, thermal and electro-magnetic effects that would kill more than 81,000 people directly (16% of the population), leaving more than 212,000 injured (42% of the population), devastating housing and commercial buildings, and destroying vital public infrastructure. Direct loss of life, injury and sickness, and material damage to homes, commercial premises, public services infrastructure, equipment and supplies are a humanitarian catastrophe. They also represent an enormous and instantaneous loss of human and physical capital. 

A nuclear weapon explosion in or near a city is likely to have economic effects beyond the immediately affected area:

>Certain industries tend to be concentrated in or near urban centres. A nuclear detonation in such a location can completely devastate key sectors of a national economy. This would disrupt supply chains and product distribution and would lead to bottlenecks elsewhere. Business costs would rise, and competitiveness and reputation would suffer. As a result, businesses would close, relocate or go bankrupt.

>Quality educational facilities, that have important links to commercial and governmental research and development, tend to be located in major urban areas too. A nuclear weapon explosion could rob a country of many highly-trained specialists and the institutional framework for research that is the basis of scientific discovery and technological innovation.

>Also concentrated in urban areas are many of the most advanced hospitals and of hospital-based physicians. A nuclear explosion would likely result in an overall degradation of health care throughout the country, possibly for a long time.

>Cities also play a dominant role in the national administration. The loss of qualified staff and elected officials, and the loss of official records and degradation of government structures could jeopardise response efforts and adversely affect citizens’ rights and the maintenance of public order.

The effects of a nuclear weapon explosion are likely to be felt over an extended period of time and to generate immense socio-economic costs. With potentially large numbers of people suffering disability or permanent health effects, such as increased disease occurrence and emotional trauma, degraded living circumstances, homelessness, displacement, interrupted education, and loss of employment, the productivity of affected populations should be expected to be negatively affected over an extended period of time.

*****************************************************************************************************

Questions (10pts)

Use the article above and Mr. Achs' lecture notes on the The Dangers of Nuclear Weapons (see file below) to answer the following questions. Answers must be in complete sentences and use proper grammar.

1. Knowing that it only it only takes 100 15kt (WWII size) nuclear explosions to start a nuclear winter and that current hydrogen bombs are 1000x bigger, does it make sense to have nuclear weapons anymore? Explain your answer. 

2. According to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the group of scientists that manages the iconic Doomsday Clock, humanity is teetering dangerously close to the apocalypse.  This year, the hands of the clock were set 100 seconds to midnight. Explain their position and if you agree or disagree with this grim assessment. Click here for more info.

3. What was the result of the 2019 nuclear war simulation done by Princeton University?

4. Summarize Mr. Achs' war story about working with nuclear weapons (War Story #1). How would you react in that situation?

5. List the three countries that President Bush declared as "Axis of Evil." Which one concerns you today?

6. There are three main effects of nuclear weapons, one of those is radiation. List the other two.

7. What is the football, who carries it, and worse case scenario, how much time does the President have to make a decision?

8. List the 8 countries that have nuclear weapons, what country has nuclear weapons but doesn't acknowledge it, and what country is actively trying to get nuclear weapons?

9. List the four Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

10. The U.S. and Russia signed a treaty in 2010 to limit the number of nuclear weapons to 1,550 each with an estimated total yield of 384 MT. Even with this big reduction in nuclear weapons we can still destroy the world 218 times (only takes 100 15kt (WWII size) nuclear explosions to start a nuclear winter). There are those that say we need to keep our nuclear weapons to counter the other countries with nuclear weapons. This policy started during the cold war and is known as MAD; Mutually Assured Destruction. Perhaps it is time, as a world community, to ban all nuclear weapons and strictly enforce this world-wide policy.  As noted by the Atomic Scientists in charge of the Doomsday Clock, nuclear weapons is a risk to all of humanity. Having said all that, economically, does nuclear war ever make sense? Explain.