As we hear much moaning about budget cuts impacting urgent public-health programs, an article in the current The Lancet wants to waste money studying the “health consequences” of nuclear war. From, “Ending Nuclear Weapons Before They End Us” (citations omitted):

In May, 2025, the World Health Assembly (WHA) will vote on re-establishing a mandate for WHO to address the health consequences of nuclear weapons and war. Health professionals and their associations should urge their governments to support such a mandate and support the new UN comprehensive study on the effects of nuclear war…

All UN member states are encouraged to provide relevant information, scientific data and analyses; facilitate and host panel meetings, including regional meetings; and make budgetary or in-kind contributions. Such an authoritative international assessment of evidence on the most acute existential threat to humankind and planetary health is long overdue.

Do these authors really think that the deleterious health effects of nuclear war aren’t already known? Indeed, the authors summarize the catastrophe that would result from a nuclear exchange:

Even a fraction of the current arsenal could decimate the biosphere in a severe mass extinction event. The global climate disruption caused by the smoke pouring from cities ignited by just 2% of the current arsenal could result in over two billion people starving.

In other words, this is a call to spend time, energy, and resources studying the obvious.

Preventing nuclear war is certainly a matter of urgent public concern. That being a given, I did find it curious that the authors decry countries that have modernized or increased their nuclear arsenals in recent years, but didn’t once mention Iran — the tyranny that worked feverishly for decades to obtain nukes and the regime most likely to use them.

That made me wonder whether the authors would support the recent “obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the U.S. military. Now that was disarmament! Somehow, I bet they wouldn’t.