Over 100 medical journals call on health workers to engage on nuclear risk

Editors of more than 100 international journals have jointly published an editorial calling on health professionals to take an active part in public debate about nuclear weapons. Titled "Critical condition: what are we doing about nuclear war?", it appeared in The BMJ and was carried by other titles, among them The Lancet, the Medical Journal of Australia, the East African Medical Journal, the National Medical Journal of India and International Nursing Review. It is a commentary rather than a new study, and it draws on existing modelling and policy developments.

Spending and modelled consequences

The authors report that the nine nuclear-armed states (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) spent just under US$119 billion on their arsenals in 2025. They put this at about $3,768 every second and 19% higher than a year earlier.

They also point to the scale of the stockpiles, with more than 12,000 warheads worldwide, and to the large populations now concentrated in megacities. According to the models they cite, even a limited war using 2%-3% of existing weapons could cause global famine and the breakdown of modern society. Such projections are simulations with their own uncertainties, but they underpin much of the public health case for treating nuclear war as a medical concern and not only a military one.

Reviews under way

The editorial notes two upcoming assessments. The United Nations General Assembly has started a wide-ranging review of current knowledge on the effects of nuclear war, due in 2027. The World Health Organization is set to update its work on the public health impact of nuclear war by 2029. The authors say these are the first major reassessments by either body in almost 40 years, so the evidence base they use will be much newer than the Cold War-era studies that shaped earlier thinking.

Treaty pressure and the deterrence argument

The authors also describe growing activity around the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Seventy-five countries are legally bound by it and a further 26 have signed. However, with the treaty's first review conference due at the end of 2026, none of the nine nuclear-armed states has signed or ratified it.

Deterrence is the main argument made for keeping nuclear weapons, on the grounds that they prevent nuclear war. The editorial disputes how much security this provides, describing it as fragile, uneven between states, reliant on a lasting threat of catastrophe and indifferent to countries without such weapons. The authors add that findings from psychology and neuroscience suggest decisions on nuclear weapons are not made as rationally as deterrence theory assumes. They also say emerging AI and drone technologies, together with misinformation and disinformation, add to the danger.

What the editors ask for

The editorial calls for a verifiable agreement, with a fixed deadline, to eliminate all nuclear weapons. It asks the health sector to keep pressing every country, nuclear-armed states included, to join the TPNW.

For researchers, the piece signals that public health, nursing and medical communities may contribute more to the evidence and debate ahead of the 2027 and 2029 reviews. The editorial does not present new data, and its policy recommendations reflect the authors' position and not a scientific consensus on how disarmament should proceed. Whether the call changes the positions of nuclear-armed states is not something the editorial can address; the TPNW review conference will be an early test of the pressure it describes.

Source: Keep health at the center of public discussions on nuclear risk, researchers urge (Medical Xpress, 15 November 2026).

Image: AI-generated illustration.