'Heed our warnings': Nobel laureates plea for diplomacy to prevent nuclear war
CHICAGO − In the fall of 2022, U.S. spies said the chances of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine were 50% − a coin flip.
Nearly three years later, the risk of nuclear war has only increased, top experts say. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' famed "Doomsday Clock" is the closest it has ever been to midnight.
Humanity is 'heading in the wrong direction' on the one threat that 'could end civilization in an afternoon,' warned an assembly of Nobel laureates, nuclear experts, and diplomats gathered at the University of Chicago to mark the 80th anniversary of the planet's first nuclear explosion in 1945 when the U.S. conducted the Trinity test in New Mexico.
Although Russia didn't nuke its neighbor, the brutal war of attrition continues in Ukraine.
Two nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, attacked each other in May. The U.S. and Israel, which both have nuclear weapons, bombed Iran in June to destroy its nuclear program. Popular support for building nuclear weapons grows in countries like Japan and South Korea.
Against this backdrop, more than a dozen Nobel Prize winners and numerous nuclear experts signed a 'Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear War' on July 16 with recommendations for world leaders to reduce the increasing risk of nuclear conflict.
More: 80 years later, victims of 'first atom bomb' will soon be eligible for reparations
'Despite having avoided nuclear catastrophes in the past, time and the law of probability are not on our side,' the declaration says. 'Without clear and sustained efforts from world leaders to prevent nuclear war, there can be no doubt that our luck will finally run out.'
The declaration emerged from days of discussion and debate, said assembly leader David Gross, a University of California, Santa Barbara, physicist and 2004 Nobel Prize winner.
'We are calling on our leaders in the world to consider our suggestions and heed our warnings,' Gross said.
Longtime Vatican diplomat and nuclear advisor Cardinal Silvano Maria Tomasi argued that faith leaders should embrace a role in providing world leaders with independent moral and ethical assessments of nuclear policy and technology.
International agreements key to reducing risk
The declaration and speakers at its unveiling spoke extensively of the crucial role diplomacy and treaties played in building trust between countries with nuclear weapons and shrinking their arsenals after the Cold War.
Clock ticks on nuke treaties
But a key treaty remains unenforced, and the last remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia expires in February 2026.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, is a 1996 international agreement that aims to ban explosive nuclear tests.
Although the CTBT Organization, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, successfully detects even underground nuclear tests (and identifies when suspicious seismic events aren't test explosions), the treaty is not in force. Nine more countries, including the U.S. and Russia (which de-ratified the CTBT in 2023), must formally approve the treaty before it becomes binding international law.
At the assembly, CTBTO leader and former Australian diplomat Robert Floyd joined the Nobel winners in calling the international community to formally approve the testing ban.
Floyd argued that if countries with nuclear weapons resumed testing to build more destructive nukes, it could lead 'other states to develop nuclear weapons and … a renewed global nuclear arms race.'
The declaration also highlighted the need for the U.S., Russia, and China to enter arms control discussions. The 2010 New START treaty, which limits American and Russian nuclear weapons deployments and enables the rivals to verify the other's cooperation, expires in February 2026.
AI and the atom bomb
Artificial intelligence and its role in nuclear weapons matters also weighed heavily.
The declaration emphasized the 'unprecedented and serious risks posed by artificial intelligence' and implored 'all nuclear armed states to ensure meaningful and enhanced human control and oversight over nuclear command and control.'
Tomasi, the Vatican's representative, said scientists, disarmament experts and faith leaders need to study 'the ethical implications of emerging technologies,' such as AI, on 'nuclear stability.'
World leaders, including former President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, generally agree that humans − and not AI algorithms − should control nuclear launch buttons.
But debate rages over the ideal, and safe, extent of integrating AI into other nuclear functions such as early warning, targeting, and communications.
A February 2025 report from the Center for a New American Security think tank on AI nuclear risk warned that 'overreliance on untested, unreliable, or biased AI systems for decision support during a crisis' could potentially lead decision-makers down an escalatory path during a nuclear crisis.
Ultimately, argued Nobel winner Gross, progress in reducing the risks of nuclear weapons hinges on popular pressure on world leaders.
'The main motivation for the advances in reducing the risk of Armageddon was the fear of many … people throughout the world who demanded (action) from their leaders,' Gross said.
Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago activists urge Pritzker to pass law to make polluters pay for climate change damages
Young climate activists from Chicago called on Gov. JB Pritzker to enact legislation that would make the fossil fuel industry — instead of taxpayers — responsible for funding green, resilient infrastructure and disaster response in the face of climate change, following similar bills recently passed in Vermont and New York. 'Illinois can and must do the same,' said Oscar Sanchez, co-executive director of the Southeast Environmental Task Force, at a Sunday rally. 'Kids get asthma before they learn to ride a bike. Cancer becomes a ZIP code issue. Our elders breathe toxic poison in their own home,' he said. 'It's not just the pollution, it's the climate crisis bearing down on us right now. We see streets turn into rivers after storms, basements flood, families lose everything. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies — the same ones fueling this crisis — are posting record-breaking profits.' The group, a coalition led by the local Sunrise Movement chapter, gathered across the University of Chicago's David Rubenstein event venue in Woodlawn, where the Aspen Ideas Climate Conference officially kicked off Sunday afternoon with hundreds of leaders from business, government, academia and other fields. Pritzker was set to discuss green tech and infrastructure investments; also invited were Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who were expected to talk about their approaches to energy and economic development. Some of the young activists praised Pritzker for his commitment to climate issues and said he has an opportunity to demonstrate that by standing with Illinoisans and holding corporate polluters accountable. Passing a 'Make Polluters Pay' law, they say, would make these companies responsible for the public health and climate change impacts in Illinois that are a direct result of their activities. In Chicago, for instance, such legislation would help address what activists have long protested as discriminatory zoning practices, which have pushed heavy industry into poor communities of color — exposing residents to toxic chemicals and pollutants and leading to a higher prevalence of negative health effects in the population, including cardiovascular and respiratory disease. 'We know what environmental racism looks like, because we live it every single day,' Sanchez said. Some primarily Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and suburbs, like Chatham, Austin, Cicero and Berwyn, also experience severe flooding during heavy rains. 'If I'm going to be honest with everyone, I don't like being here. Because this shouldn't have to be our reality — that polluters are polluting Black, Latino, working-class communities across Chicago and Illinois,' said Gianna Guiffra, a Sunrise Movement volunteer. 'We shouldn't have to be protesting simply to tell them that we are human beings too. These big oil and gas companies make it very clear to everyone that they are choosing profit over life, that they are choosing profit over human beings, that they are choosing profit over our planet.' In 2024, Vermont became the first state to require oil companies to pay for damages from extreme weather driven by climate change, after catastrophic flooding that summer. Later last year, New York also passed its own Climate Change Superfund Act, which would raise $75 billion over 25 years from the fossil fuel industry to fund climate change adaptation and mitigation projects in the state. 'These polluters should pay for the damage they have done to our communities,' Guiffra said. Following suit, the activists say, means Pritzker would be standing up to the Trump administration, which has made 250 million acres of federal public land eligible for sale to the highest bidder, led regulatory rollbacks on polluters, and cut tax incentive programs for renewable energy projects. 'This could be the ground zero of a mass movement that puts the billionaires in check, takes power back for the people and guarantees hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of good, clean energy jobs,' said Sage Hanson, a Sunrise Movement volunteer.
Miami Herald
13 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Are Americans hungry for political violence? This info might surprise you
We know the bad news well enough: Violence targeting elected officials is on the rise. The attack on lawmakers in Minnesota last month that left two dead and two injured is but the most recent example. There is increasing political violence initiated by the federal government, arising from its efforts to deport millions of people and suppress dissent. But this is only part of the story. Research by our group and others has repeatedly found that there is also room for hope and clear guidance for actions all of us can take to prevent political violence from spiraling out of control. Our group at the University of California, Davis has conducted a survey of the American public's views on political violence each year since 2022, gathering data from the same people over time to allow for accurate monitoring of trends. Participants are members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, recruited through an address-based, equal-probability sampling system such that — with statistical weighting — they accurately represent the adult population of the United States. The survey is conducted online. (Panel members who do not have internet access are given the necessary equipment and service, free of charge.) Ours has been an unusually large survey, with nearly 13,000 participants in 2022 and response rates of at least 84% each year thereafter. In 2022, two-thirds of our respondents rejected political violence altogether, though we gave them more than a dozen opportunities to endorse it. This proportion rose to 75% in 2023, and, contrary to our expectations, did not fall in 2024 — an election year, when concern for violence was high. In 2022, an are-you-kidding-me 14% of our respondents — 1 adult in 7 — strongly or very strongly agreed that 'in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.' But agreement fell to 6% in 2023 and stayed there in 2024. What's more, of the minority of our respondents who endorse political violence in principle, the vast majority (roughly 80%) are unwilling to engage in such violence themselves. We explored this more deeply in 2024 and got more good news: Of the small percentage (about 4%) of respondents who thought it very likely they would engage in combat if civil war broke out, a remarkable 45% said they would change their minds if urged to do so by their families; 20% to 30% were open to persuasion by friends, respected religious and community leaders and the media. We can work with this. The vast majority of us who reject violence must make our positions loud and clear to our families and friends and to the public at large. There are clearly identified groups at high risk for committing political violence, and engaging directly with these individuals deserves extra effort. In our surveys, these groups have included young men; MAGA Republicans; endorsers of many forms of fear, hatred and enmity toward others (racism, hostile sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia and antisemitism) and people who approve of violent extremist organizations and movements such as the Proud Boys, Christian nationalism and the militia movement. Our actions will produce some awkward conversations, and not all of them will be successful. But even when we don't affect individual behavior, our collective efforts will help create a climate of intolerance for violence in our social networks and in our society. Preventing the normalization of violence can, by itself, reduce the risk that violence will occur. But that reduction won't be to zero. Our second responsibility is, 'If you see something, say something.' In most cases, those who are planning violence tip their hands, and any one of us could be that person who prevents a tragedy by calling 911 and relaying key information to those in a position to do something about it. Violence initiated by the government is a special case, and we're likely to get much more experience with it in the near future. Our third responsibility is not to oppose violence with violence. In this country, at this time, violent opposition will almost certainly accelerate a downward slide into authoritarianism. Our model must be the civil rights movement, not the American Revolution. Those who confront violence with nonviolence hold the moral high ground, and their example mobilizes others to join them. There is no room on the sidelines this time. For the United States to survive — let alone to thrive — we must remain a nation that does not resolve its differences through violence. Each one of us now faces this question: 'What will I do to make that happen?'
Washington Post
14 hours ago
- Washington Post
Allergies seem nearly impossible to avoid — unless you're Amish
Whether triggered by pollen, pet dander or peanuts, allergies in this day and age seem nearly impossible to avoid. But one group appears virtually immune, a mystery to experts who study allergies. Despite the increasing rate of allergic diseases, both in industrialized and in developing countries, the Amish remain exceptionally — and bafflingly — resistant. Only 7 percent of Amish children had a positive response to one or more common allergens in a skin prick test, compared with more than half of the general U.S. population. Even children from other traditional farming families, who still have lower rates of allergic disease than nonfarm children, are more allergic than the Amish. In fact, one Amish community living in northern Indiana is considered one of the least allergic populations ever measured in the developed world. 'Generally, across the country, about 8 to 10 percent of kids have asthma. In the Amish kids, it's probably 1 to 2 percent,' said Carole Ober, chair of human genetics at the University of Chicago. 'A few of them do have allergies, but at much, much lower rates compared to the general population.' Now, Ober and other researchers are trying to discover what makes Amish and other traditional farming communities unique, in the hopes of developing a protective treatment that could be given to young children. For instance, a probiotic or essential oil that contains substances found in farm dust, such as microbes and the molecules they produce, could stimulate children's immune systems in a way that prevents allergic disease. 'Certain kinds of farming practices, particularly the very traditional ones, have this extraordinary protective effect in the sense that, in these communities, asthma and allergies are virtually unknown,' said Donata Vercelli, a professor of cellular and molecular medicine at the University of Arizona. 'The studies that have been done in these farming populations are critical because they tell us that protection is an attainable goal.' The Amish are members of a Christian group who practice traditional farming — many live on single-family dairy farms — and use horses for fieldwork and transportation. As of 2024, around 395,000 Amish live in the United States, concentrated mostly in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. Over the past century, the incidence of allergic diseases — including hay fever (allergic rhinitis), asthma, food allergies and eczema — has increased dramatically. Hay fever, or an allergic reaction to tree, grass and weed pollens, emerged as the first recognized allergic disease in the early 1800s, climbing to epidemic levels in Europe and North America by 1900. The 1960s saw a sharp increase in the prevalence of pediatric asthma, a condition in which the airways tighten when breathing in an allergen. From the 1990s onward, there has been an upswing in the developed world in food allergies, including cow's milk, peanut and egg allergies. Urbanization, air pollution, dietary changes and an indoor lifestyle are often cited as possible factors. The 'hygiene hypothesis' — first proposed in a 1989 study by American immunologist David Strachan — suggests that early childhood exposure to microbes protects against allergic diseases by contributing to the development of a healthy immune system. The study found that hay fever and eczema were less common among children born into larger families. Strachan wondered whether unhygienic contact with older siblings served as a protection against allergies. Subsequent findings have given support to the hygiene hypothesis, such as that children who grow up with more household pets are less likely to develop asthma, hay fever or eczema. Perhaps even more beneficial than having older siblings or pets, however, is growing up on a farm. (More than 150 years ago, hay fever was known as an 'aristocratic disease,' almost wholly confined to the upper classes of society. Farmers appeared relatively immune.) This 'farm effect' has been confirmed by studies on agricultural populations around the world, including in the United States, Europe, Asia and South America. But even among farming communities, the most pronounced effect appears to be in the Amish. In a study of 60 schoolchildren by Ober, Vercelli and their colleagues, the prevalence of asthma was four times lower in the Amish as compared with the Hutterites, another U.S. farming community with a similar genetic ancestry and lifestyle. The prevalence of allergic sensitization — the development of antibodies to allergens and the first step to developing an allergy — was six times higher in the Hutterites. The researchers first ruled out a genetic cause; in fact, an analysis showed that the Amish and Hutterite children were remarkably similar in their ancestral roots. Instead, the main difference between these two populations seemed to be the amount of exposure as young children to farm animals or barns. 'The Hutterite kids and pregnant moms don't go into the animal barns. Kids aren't really exposed to the animal barns until they're like 12 or so, when they start learning how to do the work on the farm,' Ober said. 'The Amish kids are in and out of the cow barns all day long from an early age.' When analyzing samples of Amish and Hutterite house dust, they found a microbial load almost seven times higher in Amish homes. Later experiments showed that the airways of mice that inhaled Amish dust had dramatically reduced asthmalike symptoms when exposed to allergens. Mice that inhaled Hutterite dust did not receive the same benefit. Now, Ober and Vercelli are beginning to identify the protective agents in Amish dust that prevent allergic asthma. In 2023, their analysis of farm dust found proteins that act like delivery trucks, loaded with molecules produced by microbes and plants. When these transport proteins deliver their cargo to the mucus that lines the respiratory tract, it creates a protective environment that regulates airway responses and prevents inflammation. 'We don't really talk about the hygiene hypothesis as much anymore because we now understand that it's not really about how hygienic you're living,' said Kirsi Järvinen-Seppo, director of the Center for Food Allergy at the University of Rochester Medical Center. 'It's more like a microbial hypothesis, since beneficial bacteria that colonize the gut and other mucosal surfaces play a significant role.' During the first year or two of life, a baby's immune system is rapidly developing and highly malleable by environmental stimuli, such as bacteria. Some experts believe that exposing young children to certain types of beneficial bacteria can engage and shape the growing immune system in a way that reduces the risk of allergic diseases later in life. Farm dust contains a hodgepodge of bacteria shed from livestock and animal feed that isn't harmful enough to cause illness, but does effectively train the immune system to become less responsive to allergens later in life. In 2021, Järvinen-Seppo and her colleagues compared the gut microbiomes of 65 Old Order Mennonite infants from a rural community in New York with 39 urban/suburban infants from nearby Rochester. Like the Amish, the Old Order Mennonites follow a traditional agrarian lifestyle. Almost three-fourths of Mennonite infants in the study were colonized with B. infantis, a bacterium associated with lower rates of allergic diseases, in contrast to 21 percent of Rochester infants. 'The colonization rate is very low in the United States and other Western countries, compared to very high rates in Mennonite communities, similar to some developing countries,' Järvinen-Seppo said. 'This mirrors the rates of autoimmune and allergic diseases.' These clues about the origin of the farm effect represent a step toward the prevention of allergic diseases, Järvinen-Seppo says. Whatever form the treatment takes, the impact on prevention of allergic diseases, which affect millions of people worldwide and reduce quality of life, could be enormous, experts say. 'I don't know that we can give every family a cow. … But we are learning from these time-honored and very stable environments what type of substances and exposures are needed,' Vercelli said. 'Once we know that, I don't think there will be any impediment to creating protective strategies along these lines.'
