'Nuclear nightmare' ticks closer: Why any use of nuclear weapons would be a disaster

The threat of a civilization-ending nuclear war increased this year as Russia repeatedly invoked its mighty nuclear arsenal to deter western nations from intervening during its invasion of Ukraine.

That threat was reflected Tuesday in the setting of the Doomsday Clock, which ticked forward to 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to signaling an imminent human-created catastrophe.

"Each time there has been a setback (in the war), Russian President Vladimir Putin has doubled down. I wish we could discount entirely the possibility that he could resort to nuclear weapons but I don’t think we can," said Steve Fetter, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland and specialist in international security and nuclear issues.

The nuclear risks are not limited to Russia and its war against Ukraine, Fetter said.

"China is building hundreds of nuclear silos. There’s the failure to contain the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. And India and Pakistan have increased their nuclear arsenals," he said.

LIVE UPDATES: Doomsday Clock 2023 time says the world is closer than ever to global catastrophe

BIDEN WARNS OF 'ARMAGEDDON': Are Putin's setbacks pushing us closer to nuclear war?

The movement of the clock to just 90 seconds to midnight sends a message that the situation is urgent, with possible broad consequences and long-standing effects, said the Bulletin's president, Rachel Bronson.

"What we're conveying with this clock move is things are not going in the right direction, and they haven't been going in the right direction. Those who are listening who say 'The world doesn't feel safer today,' – they're not alone," she said.

Their hope is that this year's announcement will focus world awareness and push people towards action and away a business as usual mindset. Scientists are unequivocal, said Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"Leaders, wake up! This is your responsibility. This is on your watch," she said.

Nuclear bombs present a unique, grave risk because nations for decades have stockpiled them amid a global taboo on their use, experts say. The result: Even a single, isolated nuclear strike has the potential to open Pandora's Box — an unpredictable, possibly uncontrollable chain reaction of escalation.

Concerns over nuclear tensions mounted even higher Tuesday when Russia refused to reschedule an important meeting with US nuclear negotiators that had originally been scheduled, and then cancelled, in November.

The meeting was to have been about technical consultations related to the New START treaty, the only bilateral nuclear arms agreement between the US and Russia. It had been set to expire in 2021 and was extended for five years.

“The war has done long-term damage to our arms control efforts,” said Fetter. “New START will expire in 2026, that’s the last treaty that constrains Russian and US nuclear forces. We really need to begin working on its replacement and it’s hard to do that during the war.”

Experts don't expect an imminent tit-for-tat nuclear volley that results in a rain of world-destroying bombs in movies like "Dr. Strangelove" and "WarGames." But the detonation of even one single nuclear weapon in anger would have horrific consequences, say experts.

“While we don’t want to create panic, I’ve been concerned about how easily people speak about nuclear weapons these days,” said Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, a nuclear physicist who now studies nuclear nonproliferation.

“It’s important that people realize just how horrible that would be,” he told USA TODAY in November when concerns over Russian nuclear posturing were high.

ENERGY NEWS: Scientists achieve major advance in fusion energy

How the Russia-Ukraine war is affecting the Doomsday Clock

Russia is one of nine nations that possess nuclear weapons: China, North Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The risk of Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine has been ongoing since its invasion in February of last year and has caused varying levels of concern:

►In October, Russia's Strategic Deterrence Forces conducted a training exercise aimed at delivering a "massive nuclear strike" in response to a potential nuclear attack on the country, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said.

►In November, senior Russian military leaders reportedly discussed when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon to reverse its struggles on the battlefields of Ukraine.

►In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed concerns that he would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, calling them a deterrent. While he has said Russia will use “all available means” to protect its territory, he also said, “We haven’t gone mad. ... We are fully aware of what nuclear weapons are."

►On Sunday, Vyacheslav Volodin, chair of Russia's lower house, threatened Europe and the U.S. with “global catastrophe” for continuing to support Ukraine militarily.

That rhetoric has factored into this year's Doomsday Clock setting, a long-running metaphor for just how close the world is to the brink. Midnight on the clock represents a man-made apocalypse from nuclear war, climate change or other technologies. The closer the clock is set to midnight, the greater the chance and the harder humanity needs to work to step back from the brink.

MORE: The times in history the world came close to nuclear disaster

It goes back to 1947, when the clock was launched as a warning of the probability of a technologically or environmentally-induced catastrophe. A project of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it was begun by men and women who helped create the first atomic weapons. They feared the public at the time didn't truly grasp how close the world had come to the possibility apocalypse.

Now the clock has come as close to midnight as it ever has. On Tuesday, the 22 members of the Bulletin's Science and Security Board announced its new setting: 90 seconds to midnight. That's 10 seconds closer than the past two years and the closest it has ever been.

Any nuclear strike would be a disaster

Experts are adamant: There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, no matter how few people were killed. Nuclear bombs are terrifyingly effective at destroying life and damaging the planet.

The first effect of any nuclear bomb is an intense burst of nuclear radiation. A 10-kiloton bomb would extend in a one-mile radius, two nuclear experts told the MIT Press. That thermal flash accounts for more than a third of the bomb’s explosive energy and could ignite fires and severely burn exposed flesh as far as 20 miles away, they said.

A blast wave that contains about half the bomb’s explosive energy would go on to cause most of the physical destruction. This can also cause a firestorm as a large number of buildings to begin to burn, and can in turn consume enough oxygen that even those still alive would suffocate, they wrote.

IMPACT OF NUCLEAR WAR: What to know about the dangers of radiation

There have been efforts to downplay the truly horrific nature of any nuclear detonation, said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which in 2017 won the Nobel Peace Prize for its campaign to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.

"Some people say they would use a very 'tiny, small' bomb and they’d use it where there were no people," she said. "Assuming Putin would do it in a 'nice' way is naive. These are weapons built to wipe out whole cities, to kill many, many people."

Russia's position on nuclear deterrence has long been that nuclear weapons might be used if the very existence of the Russian state were threatened, according to Harvard's Kennedy School.

What it might look like isn't known. Possibilities include a bomb detonated over the sea, a single attack on an air base or supply depot, or a full-scale strike on a city — and everything in between.

The detonation of any nuclear bomb, the first in 78 years, would open a new kind of vista, a dangerous one, said Paul Hare, who teaches global studies at Boston University and was former British diplomat who headed the United Kingdom’s department of nuclear non-proliferation.

"What damage it could do nobody really knows," he said. “The nuclear nightmare is still a real possibility.”

Nuclear weapons would create a crisis for NATO

Russia's war in Ukraine has created a dynamic in which nuclear-armed NATO nations are supporting Ukraine against a nuclear-armed Russia. That simmering conflict raises the question of what NATO would do if Russia were to use such weapons against Ukraine.

A nuclear strike by Russia could mean the war suddenly metastasizes into a Russia-NATO conflict, said Edward Geist, a policy researcher at the RAND Corporation who studies Russian defense policy.

That would turn a small, regional war into an unprecedented conflict between nuclear powers.

“The scenarios people are talking about are one detonation followed by a demand,” said Fetter, who is a member of the Bulletin's Science and Security Board, which sets the clock.

What is NATO? Russia tries to forbid Ukraine membership

In that situation, should NATO then acquiesce to Russian demands to ward off more nuclear strikes, or respond?

It's a deadly dilemma: Doing nothing could embolden Russia to use such weapons in the future. Responding could create direct conflict between nuclear powers.

"If NATO feels threatened, they might use nuclear weapons, and once nuclear weapons are used, people are scared, confused, communications break down and there’s a lot of danger of escalation," said Alan Robock, a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University who studies the possible climate effects of atomic weapons.

Even if a nuclear strike didn't immediately result in a full-blown nuclear exchange, the aftermath could dramatically up the risk: Other countries might then logically begin to think that they need nuclear weapons as well.

“That’s the nightmare proliferation scenario,” Hare said.

People can still say no to nukes

That humanity is closer than ever before to the threat of nuclear annihilation is a reminder ordinary people can influence those who would legitimize such weapons, Fihn said.

"We need all groups in society to take a strong stand against nuclear weapons. We need to stigmatize them, to make them unacceptable," she said.

"The vast majority of countries in the world do not have these weapons, do not want them and have banned them. We can do something to get the 35 or 40 that still support nuclear weapons to join them."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Doomsday Clock: There's no such thing as contained nuclear warfare