“We should not be surprised that the Air Force and Navy think about actually employing nuclear weapons rather than keeping them on the shelf and assuming that will be sufficient for deterrence.”

This statement was made by Adam Lowther, a research professor at the Air Force Research Institute, in an article for The National Interest, in which he attempts to convince readers that, as the title says, “America Still Needs Its Nukes.” The comment is strikingly similar to one made by Donald Trump’s spokesperson, who said, “What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad, if you’re afraid to use it?”

Lowther wrote this article as a rebuttal to people like former Defense Secretary William Perry, who have been calling for a reduction of our nuclear arsenal. However, his arguments in support of his pro-nuclear weapons stance — and of his frighteningly pro-nuclear war stance — do not take into account some of the greatest concerns about having such a large nuclear arsenal.

Among the biggest issues is simply that, yes, a nuclear war would be bad. First, it’s nearly impossible launch a nuclear strike without killing innocent civilians. Likely millions of innocent civilians. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII killed approximately 100,000 people. Modern hydrogen bombs are 10 to 1000 times more powerful, and a single strategically targeted bomb can kill millions.

Then, we still have to worry about the aftermath. Recent climate models have shown that a full-scale nuclear war might put enough smoke into the upper atmosphere that it could spread around the globe and cause temperatures to plummet by as much 40 degrees Farenheit for up to a decade. People around the world who survived the war – or who weren’t even a part of it – would likely succumb to starvation, hypothermia, disease, or desperate, armed gangs roving for food. But even for a small nuclear war — the kind that could potentially erupt between India and Pakistan — climate models predict that death tolls could reach 1 billion worldwide. Lowther insists that the military spends a significant amount of time studying war games, but how much of that time is spent considering the hundreds of millions of Americans who might die as a result of nuclear winter? Or, as Dr. Alan Robock calls it, self-assured destruction.

A nuclear war could be horrifying, and preventing one should be a constant goal.

This brings up another point that Max Tegmark mentions in the comments section of the article:

“To me, a key question is this, which he never addresses: What is the greatest military threat to the US? A deliberate nuclear attack by Russia/China, or a US-Russia nuclear war starting by accident, as has nearly happened many times in the past? If the latter, then downsizing our nuclear arsenal will make us all safer.”

Does upgrading our nuclear arsenal really make us safer, as Lowther argues? Many people, Perry and Tegmark included, argue that spending $1 trillion to upgrade our nuclear weapons arsenal would actually make us less safe, by inadvertently increasing our chances of nuclear war.

And apparently the scientists behind the Doomsday Clock agree. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who run the Doomsday Clock, announced today that the clock would remain set at three minutes to midnight. In their statement about this decision, they reminded viewers that the clock is a metaphor for the existential risks that pose a threat to the planet. As the Bulletin said,

“Three minutes (to midnight) is too close. Far too close. We, the members of the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, want to be clear about our decision not to move the hands of the Doomsday Clock in 2016: That decision is not good news, but an expression of dismay that world leaders continue to fail to focus their efforts and the world’s attention on reducing the extreme danger posed by nuclear weapons and climate change.

“When we call these dangers existential, that is exactly what we mean: They threaten the very existence of civilization and therefore should be the first order of business for leaders who care about their constituents and their countries.”

According to CNN, the Bulletin believes the best way to get the clock to move back would be to spend less on nuclear arms, re-energize the effort for disarmament, and engage more with North Korea.

In what one commenter criticizes as a “bait-and-switch”, Lowther refers to people who make these arguments as “abolitionists,” whom he treats as crusading for a total ban against all nuclear weapons. The truth is more nuanced and interesting. While some groups do indeed call for a ban on nuclear weapons, a large majority of experts are simply advocating for making the world a safer place by: 1) reducing the number of nuclear weapons to a number that will provide sufficient deterrence, and 2) eliminating hair-trigger alert — both in an effort to decrease the chances of an accidental nuclear war. Lowther insists that he and the military don’t maintain a Cold-War mindset because they’ve been so focused on Islamic militants. However, it’s his belief that we should not rule out the possibility of using nuclear weapons that is precisely the Cold-War mindset concerning most people.

As Dr. David Wright from the Union of Concerned Scientists told FLI in an earlier interview:

“Today, nuclear weapons are a liability. They don’t address the key problems that we’re facing, like terrorism … and by having large numbers of them around … you could have a very rapid cataclysm that people are … reeling from forever.”