Immorality of Nuclear Weaponry

By Azalea

In today’s society, the leaders of powerhouse nations such as the USA, Russia, and China seem to be constantly at odds with one another. The concerning fact of this is that all of these world powerhouses have access to their own nuclear arsenals, and a conflict between them could lead to a nuclear war, resulting in unparalleled deaths and destruction. With the heightened geopolitical tensions around the globe, the constant overbearing threat of nuclear winter is growing ever more omnipresent. So, the question arises, should the use of nuclear weaponry be explicitly outlawed under the Geneva Convention. To answer this question, one must first examine the following topics of interest; The use of nuclear weaponry is immensely immoral and has lasting negative effects on not only the people that it is used upon, but also the environment. Next, the idea of consequentialism must be brought to light, asking if the use of nuclear weaponry is causing more harm than it is good. In addition, the very nature of nuclear weaponry is already in violation of the Geneva Convention. And despite the existence of multiple treaties and nation specific bans on nuclear weaponry, and the use of these weapons is already questioned when examining the articles of the Geneva Convention, there is a notable lack of an international ban on these weapons. Because the use of nuclear weapons causes lasting issues, consequentialism shows their immorality, because their use already violates the Geneva convention, and because the existing treaties are not globally applicable, the use of nuclear weapons should be explicitly outlawed under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

Before examining the specific details that this topic entails, first some background information on important aspects of the question must be shared. Firstly, what is the Geneva Convention and why was it formed, what does it entail and how is it enforced. Next, discussion of the function of nuclear weapons and a bit of history is also necessary to have a fuller grasp of the topic. 

The Geneva Convention is a collection of articles outlining a set of international treaties designed to protect not only civilians, but also combatants during war and armed conflict. The original draft of the Geneva Convention was signed into effect in 1864, with subsequent drafts and revisions in 1906, 1929, and 1949. The 1949 draft of the Convention is what is currently in effect today. The Geneva Convention highlights acts deemed immoral during war and outlaws them, forming the base of what is now international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law, or IHL, is universally applicable and all parties engaged in armed conflict are bound by it. States are obligated to hold their civilians accountable for violations if IHL through domestic courts. (International Committee of the Red Cross. 2023)

Nuclear weapons have a heated but simple history of their development and usage. The beginning of the history starts relatively recently with the founding of the Manhattan Project in August of 1942. The Manhattan Project is the name given to the research and development of the first nuclear bomb, which was nicknamed “Little Boy.” Research and development of nuclear weapons went on for almost exactly three years before Little Boy was finished and dropped on Hiroshima in August of 1945. Then, the bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped 3 days afterwards on the city of Nagasaki. These two instances of nuclear detonations are the most major and well-known instances of nuclear weapon usage. However, since 1945 there have been over 2,000 detonations, mainly in the form of nuclear tests, the majority of which were performed by the USA and the Soviet Union. Despite the number of nuclear tests, the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the only detonations in warfare to date. (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. 2024)

Nuclear weapons, by their very nature, are immoral for several reasons. The lasting and generational effect that nuclear weapons have on a population is measurable and can cause serious damage to entire lineages. Not only does nuclear radiation and fallout have an effect on a human population but also can seriously affect the environment. The use and detonation of nuclear weapons can cause genealogical mutations in plants and animals that can seriously damage the ecosystem. The damage that nuclear detonations can cause is immoral, and by implementing an explicit ban within the Geneva Convention we can prevent these violations of international humanitarian law.

Possibly the most immediately noticeable and impactful effect that nuclear weapons have is on human populations. The radiation that was released by the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectfully, was ionizing radiation. So, while there is minimal information on the long-term effects of ionizing radiation on the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the effects of radiation used in the medical field can also be examined to draw parallels. 

The first nuclear bomb ever dropped was the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. In his article published in 2012, Dan Listwa estimated that between ninety thousand and one hundred, sixty-six thousand civilians died in this explosion. These include deaths from not only the force and excruciating heat from the blast but also deaths due to acute radiation exposure. While the acute radiation exposure can cause near immediate effects by killing the cells in the body, the long-term effects of radiation can also cause serious harm to the body. Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause mutations in cells and DNA resulting in detrimental effects and significantly increased risks of cancer. The deadliest example of the long-term effects of radiation was leukemia, which started to appear in the victims approximately two years after the bombs were dropped. The most heavily affected by the exposure to radiation were the children present, as their growing and reproducing cells were most susceptible to mutations. (Listwa. 2012)

The detonation of nuclear weapons is not the only place that people can be exposed to ionizing radiation. In the medical field, x-rays release low levels of radiation, as well as certain cancer treatments using pinpoint radiation in order to kill cancerous cells. While generally the use of the procedures poses little to no risk there are still extensive safety protocol. Sunil Jain explained the levels of radiation delivered in her article, Radiation in medical practice & health effects of radiation published in 2021, X-rays deliver dosages of radiation that are measured in microsieverts (μSv), and they deliver anywhere from less than 0.01 μSv to 18 μSv. The dose of radiation that begins to cause damage and become fatal is one full sievert which is 1,000,000 μSv. (Jain. 2021)

Despite the low levels of radiation that is released in these instances, there is still extensive safety measures that are required to be taken in order to minimize the risk. According to the X-ray safety manual from the University of Southern California, when taking an x-ray the physician should “Avoid the primary X-ray beam. Wear protective equipment (e.g., lead aprons and thyroid collar…). Use shielding …, when possible. Be aware of the position of the beam. Know how to position themselves and the machine for the minimum dose.” (University of Southern California. 2021) This shows that any amount of radiation is dangerous, and extensive safety precautions must be taken even in low dose, controlled environments. When a nuclear bomb is detonated the amount of radiation that is released is far greater, however there are no readily available sources as to exact measurements. However, as was stated by Shizuyo Sutou in their article titled Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals written in 2018, “The energy of a typical A-bomb comprises three components: 35% thermal radiation (heat and light), 50% blast energy …, and 15% nuclear radiation. Of that latter 15%, 5% is initial radiation …. The remaining 10% is residual radiation” So of the massive amount of energy released, 5% is radiation, delivering well over the dangerous dosage.(Sutou. 2018)

As is to be expected, the effects of radiation on plants and the environment are similar to the effects on the human body. But with the differences between human biology and plant biology, these effects manifest slightly differently. When the nuclear weapons were detonated over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most plant life was utterly obliterated by the force of the blast and the intense heat. Plants that weren’t instantly destroyed within the blast radius were exposed to extreme levels of radiation. Acute radiation exposure to plants results in similar effects to what happens in humans. Reed Miller listed the effects in his coursework submitted to Stanford University in 2015. Miller listed effects such as: “damage to the DNA of an organism, a reduction in the growth rate, infertility and reduced seed germination, as well as overall higher mortality rates and reduced life span.”

Consequentialism is a form of moral measurement used to determine whether an action or set of actions should be considered moral or immoral. The way that this is measured is solely on the effects that the action has, its consequences. So, if an action has severe negative consequences, then it should be considered immoral. Essentially this form of moral measurement weighs whether the positive results outweigh the negative and determines if the action should be considered moral based on this. By applying the idea of consequentialism to the discussion on the use of nuclear weapons, one can begin to grasp whether or not their use is immoral or not. 

As stated, there have only ever been two nuclear weapons dropped in conflict. According to estimates from the International Committee to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, “The  two nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had an explosive yield of the equivalent of about 15 kilotons of dynamite and 20 kilotons of dynamite respectively.” (International Committee to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. 2023) These bombs were considered “low-yield” by today’s standards.  In the article, Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, written by Alex Wellerstein (2020) low estimates put the total death toll of these two detonations at around 110,000 and 210,000 on the high end. (Wellerstein 2020).

Of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals, many of the bombs have yields over 100 kilotons, the detonation of which would cause far more devastation than older bombs such as the ones dropped during WWII. The website NukeMap, created by Alex Wellerstine, allows users to see the approximate results of a nuclear bomb being dropped would be. According to these estimates from NukeMap, a 100 kiloton bomb detonated 1600 feet above New York City would result in nearly 600,000 deaths and more than twice as many injuries. (Wellerstein. 2020) This is simply a 100-kiloton bomb, there are existing bombs in the arsenals of the US and Russia that have more than ten times this yield. 

World War II was the most fatal war in world history to date, killing more than 21 million people according to estimates in the article War and Peace written by Bastian Herre, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, and Max Roser in 2024. The conflicts that go on in more modern society are far less fatal, for example the Iran-Iraq war in the early 1980’s resulted in nearly 600,000 deaths. Even more modern wars have far lower death tolls. Data that had been compiled by Bastian Herre, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, and Max Roser, between the years 2000 and 2011 there were a total of 68,263 deaths. (Roser, et al. 2024). This statistic covers both civil and interstate wars globally, showing that the wars of the modern era are far less fatal than in the past. 

It is abundantly clear that continued use of nuclear weapons would result in unparalleled deaths especially in comparison to more modern armed conflict. Even a relatively small bomb from modern nuclear arsenals would result in nearly ten times the number of deaths that occurred in 11 years of wars globally between 2000 and 2011. By weighing these deaths under the lens of consequentialism it’s obvious that the use of nuclear weapons would cause more harm than it would good in a modern war. Because of this its clear that the use of nuclear weapons should be considered immoral and their use should be outlawed. 

It is often argued that consequentialism is a flawed argument, and therefore most often is not a valid argument. Nobuo Hayahi highlighted in 2015 in the paper “On the ethics of nuclear weapons” he pointed out flaws in the consequentialism argument, one of these flaws being that “Consequentialism has a built-in bias in favor of the status quo.” (Hayahi 2015). However, in this case consequentialism is being used to argue against the status quo, disproving this fact against this argument. Hayahi did point out a valid flaw in the argument, being that “The genie is already out of the bottle: nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented.” (Hayahi 2015). And while this fact is true, it is not the purpose of this argument to dis-invent nuclear weapons, but instead to impose a nuclear ban. 

Many people who advocate for the continued use and development of nuclear weapons have one main argument as to why, and that argument is also consequentialism. They use consequentialism to state that the use of nuclear weapons causes such detrimental harm that they dissuade others from using them. This concept is called the deterrence concept and is explained more in detail by Vanda Felbab-Brown, Martin S. Indyk, Michael E. O’Hanlon, and Steven Pifer as the goal to “persuade a potential adversary that the risks and costs of his proposed action far outweigh any gains that he might hope to achieve.” (Felbab-Brown et al.) However, this concept has some flaws and ultimately ends up supporting the argument of nuclear disarmament. 

The argument of the deterrence concept uses consequentialism to state that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral but then say that their use and development should continue. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation provides the estimates for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Request for the fiscal year 2025. According to these estimates, the total, National Nuclear Security Administration request came out to $25 billion. In addition to this, the DOE Nuclear Weapons Funding Request for Select Programs is also provided and comes to $2.95 billion. (Total National Defense Discretionary Spending. 2024) Those who argue the deterrence theory will state that the death and destruction that is associated with the detonation of nuclear weapons is the reason that their use should not be outlawed. An issue with this argument is if the detonation of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were already enough to cause deterrence, then there should not have to be a nearly 500-billion-dollar budget to make bigger bombs. 

By the very nature of their use, nuclear weapons are immoral and already in violation of the Geneva Convention. The detonation of nuclear bombs is indiscriminate and affects civilians and military members the same. While the use of nuclear weapons does not explicitly stand in violation of the Geneva Convention, their use does violate articles 48, 51 and 52 of the Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention. As is highlighted in Christopher Vail’s article “The legality of nuclear weapons for use and deterrence” (2017) “Under Articles 48, 51, and 52 of Protocol I, a state must distinguish carefully between military targets and civilians in order to protect the latter when an attack occurs.” (Vail 2017). The use of nuclear weapons stands in direct violation of this by the nature of their use. 

Again, Vail explained that “Under article 52(1), states are prohibited from attacking purely civilian structures, while Article 51 prohibits indiscriminate attacks—attacks that are not specifically contained to military objectives and causes a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.” (Vail. 2017) The United States directly violated both articles when they dropped the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both major Japanese cities had very few, if any, non-civilian structures, and both attacks were indiscriminate not caring whether the casualties were militant or civilian. In addition to the violations of articles 51 and 52, the nuclear detonations also violated article 48, which as defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, stated “the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” (International Committee of the Red Cross. 2023) When the United States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they violated this article directly. There was no distinguishing between the civilians in the region and any military personnel or structures. 

So, by the very nature of their use, that being indiscriminate and damaging civilian structures as well as military ones, the use of Nuclear weapons is a violation of the Geneva Convention. The civilians that were killed as a result of the bombing were not taking part in any hostilities, and the buildings that were damaged were not a part of military activity. By dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US, knowingly or not, violated multiple articles of the Geneva Convention. In addition to the history of the use of nuclear weapons standing in direct violation, the very nature of their use does as well, meaning that any further use of these weapons will also be in violation of the Conventions.

There are multiple treaties that exist with the goal of total nuclear disarmament, some of which have the goal to be accepted internationally, however there are none that have been signed and ratified by every state internationally. These treaties include but are not limited to: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968, Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) in 1963, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2021. 

The most recent of the treaties to abolish nuclear weapons is the TPNW which was opened for signature on September 20, 2017 and entered effect into force January 22, 2021. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, as of September 2024 “There are currently 94 signatories and 73 states parties.” In the meeting for the treaty in 2017, the United Nations stated that they were

Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances (p. 1) 

The treaty contains 20 articles all implementing a total halt on the development and use of nuclear weapons. Article one of TPNW states that 

Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to: (a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; (b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly; (c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly; (d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; (e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty (p. 3) 

From the very first article of the treaty, it is clear that the United Nations has a goal of total nuclear disarmament, however despite this fact there are many states that are not a part of the treaty. The three biggest nuclear powerhouses in the world, being the United States, Russia, and China, still are not party to the treaty. If the treaty were to be taken another step further and the articles implemented into the Geneva Convention these major nuclear threats would have no choice but to partake in the nuclear prohibition. 

Given all the relevant information on the immorality of nuclear weapons it should be clear that a total and explicit ban under the articles of the Geneva Convention is the right step. The use of radioactivity as a weapon has lasting effects on not just generations of people but also the environment, and when looking through the lens of consequentialism their use should be considered immoral. In addition to their immorality, nuclear weapons already stands in violation of the Genoveva Convention and there are multiple treaties internationally that aim to outlaw their use. It should be abundantly clear that the use of nuclear weapons violates international humanitarian law and should be explicitly outlawed under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

Atomic Heritage Foundation. (2017, May 12). The Manhattan Project - Nuclear Museum. Atomic Heritage Foundation. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from  https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/manhattan-project/

Felbab-Brown, V., Indyk, M., O’Hanlon, M., & Pifer , S. (n.d.). U.S. Nuclear and Extended Deterrence: Considerations and Challenges. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-nuclear-and-extended-deterrence-considerations-and-challenges/ 

Hayashi, N. (2015). On the ethics of nuclear weapons. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, 2(1) 3. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://unidir.org/files/publication/pdfs/on-the-ethics-of-nuclear-weapons-en-627.pdf

ICAN. (n.d.). How destructive are today’s nuclear weapons? ICAN. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://www.icanw.org/how_destructive_are_today_s_nuclear_weapons 

International Committee of the Red Cross. (2023 July 20). Frequently asked questions on the rules of war. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-FAQ-Geneva-Conventions 

Jain, S. (2021). Radiation in medical practice & health effects of radiation: Rationale, risks, and rewards. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 10(4), 1520. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2292_20 

Listwa, D. (2012, August 9). Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the Long Term Health Effects. Columbia | K=1 Project: Center for Nuclear Studies. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from  https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki

Miller, R. (2015). Effects of Radiation on Plants. Stanford.edu. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/miller1/ 

Total National Defense Discretionary Spending (050) DOD Nuclear Weapons Funding Request for Select Programs. (2024). https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/FY-2025-Comparison-NDAA-Fact-Sheet.pdf

United Nations (2017). Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/tectodevms/pages/2417/attachments/original/1571248124/TPNW-English1.pdf?1571248124

Roser, M., Hasell, J., Herre, B., & Macdonald, B. (2024). War and Peace. OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Sutou, S. (2018). Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals. Genes and Environment, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41021-018-0114-3 

United Nations. (2017). Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. United Nations. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/ 

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (2024). Nuclear Weapons. United Nations. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/ 

University of Southern California. (2021). X-Ray Safety – USC Environmental Health & Safety. Ehs.usc.edu. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://ehs.usc.edu/research/rad/x-ray-safety/ 

Vail, C. (2017). The Legality of nuclear weapons for use and deterrence. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 48, 848-849. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf

Wellerstein, A. (2006). Nukemap by Alex Wellerstein. Nuclearsecrecy.com. Retrieved April 24, 2025, from https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Wellerstein, A. (2020, August 4). Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/