By Alexander Sharavin

Unfortunately the possibility of a conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons cannot be completely ruled out unless we have absolute nuclear zero, when there are no more nuclear weapons. Regardless of the defense systems in place, or the warning devices that might be invented, or even if there is political stability – as long as there are nuclear weapons there will be the threat of nuclear war. The threat, of course, is much smaller than 30 years ago, when there was constant tension between the sides – when the strategic nuclear forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO were on alert at all times. Now strategic and particularly tactical nuclear weapons are at a much lower level of readiness. But the threat remains, regardless. In recent years, the threat that a nuclear weapon will be used has unfortunately been growing, but not by members of the nuclear club – which includes the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – but rather by other countries with nuclear weapons. It was feared not long ago that nuclear weapons could be used in a conflict between India and Pakistan, for example. There are other countries, for example Israel, that possess nuclear arms. And we know there is a situation, hypothetically, in which they could be used. So we cannot say we are free of the threat of nuclear warfare. Of course, a global nuclear war is a more remote prospect today than 20 to 30 years ago. On the whole, the threat of a nuclear attack exists, and today, the sad anniversary of the bombing of peaceful Hiroshima that killed 200,000 people should serve as a very serious reminder for us all.

These bombings were a kind of brutal vaccination. If this vaccination had not occurred, it seems to me, a nuclear war could have happened. This brutal and bloody vaccination ensured that the Cold War never escalated into a hot war, which would have inevitably turned into a thermonuclear one. And I doubt we would be speaking now since the results of such a war are hard to predict. In his day, the outstanding Russian scientist, Nikita Moiseyev, modeled the nuclear winter that could result from a nuclear war, killing all life on the planet. We are in the midst of a difficult environmental situation in Moscow. Ordinary smoke from forest fires and peat bog fires is preventing the millions of Muscovites from breathing normally and leading a normal life. This gives you some sense of what a nuclear war could cause, God forbid. It would mean the destruction of all life all over the planet, not only in Russia. Fires in Russia make it difficult for people in Kiev to breathe. The impact from a nuclear war would be orders of magnitude greater. The environmental disaster that would likely follow a nuclear war could be more devastating than the nuclear war itself. For this reason, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not only terrible events, but also a warning to humankind that we must never cross that line again. It helped keep the tensions between the two blocs, the Warsaw Pact and NATO, from escalating.

As it was previously mentioned, the threat of nuclear conflict exists unless we have absolute nuclear zero. This is the reason why I welcome the initiative by the U.S. and Russian presidents to work toward nuclear disarmament and a ban on nuclear weapons. But it is clear that many conditions need to be met before this objective can be achieved. The Russian president said that Russia, too, is prepared to pursue the path toward nuclear disarmament, but we understand that nuclear arms should not be replaced with strategic conventional weapons systems. We must agree that space must not be weaponized, and we should carefully study breakout potentials and other such issues. This is not a benevolent wish that everybody ban nuclear weapons. In my answer to your previous question, I spoke about how nuclear weapons prevented escalation for many decades and continue to today. Therefore, we must fundamentally revise security relations throughout the world. We must change the relations between the world’s leading countries. Only then can we begin to talk about radical cuts in nuclear arms, approaching absolute nuclear zero.