A Humble Proposition

For Counteracting the Effects of Global Warming by Initiating a Moderate Nuclear Conflict

2024*

It is a sorrowful sight to those who are aware of the state of this world, to see lifeforms diminishing, glaciers melting, fields parched and barren, water undrinkable, natural disasters occurring with ever higher frequency, and the average temperatures constantly rising. As the climate crisis changes our natural habitat, we face dire choices: either abandon our wasteful lifestyle or adapt to a world of extreme weather and scarce resources.

I believe it is universally acknowledged that this escalating crisis of global warming is a most pressing concern. Yet, all solutions proposed so far—from carbon-emission caps to renewable energy—fail to address humanity’s inborn desire for progress, comfort, and most of all growth. And why should we sacrifice our civilization’s dearest achievements, such as coal mining and the V16 engine, and destroy what is left of our natural landscapes with windmills and solar panels, while other nations are constructing dozens of new coal power plants at this very moment? Therefore, whoever could find a fair, simple, and cost-effective method to halt climate change would deserve society’s uttermost respect and indeed be a savior of humankind.

The modest proposition that I am about to make is not merely aimed at saving the well-being of a select few—those fortunate enough to possess the means to adapt. No, my vision is far grander, encompassing all of humanity, from the most affluent societies to the most impoverished communities, who are, in essence, equally incapable of averting the impending tragedies that this crisis promises to unleash upon us all.

Let me now humbly propose my own notions, which I trust will be met with minimal dissent.

I have been assured by a most knowledgeable physicist of my acquaintance, that a minor nuclear conflict, if executed with precision, could result in a nuclear winter of moderate scale. This phenomenon, I am assured, would be most effective in counteracting the current warming of our planet. The ash and soot propelled into the atmosphere would dim the sun's rays, thereby cooling the Earth's surface.

I do therefore humbly propose for public scrutiny, that of the numerous nuclear arms currently at our disposal, a select few could be reserved for this noble endeavor. A well-chosen target will not only cool the Earth but also reduce the surplus population, which promises further relief for the strained planet. When the world’s powers convene, a single detonation could serve as proof-of-concept, and with a dash of international cooperation, the resulting nuclear winter could be achieved quickly and effectively.

It is estimated that currently 12,500 nuclear warheads—which some countries might or might not have, while others most certainly do have—exist. A fraction of this arsenal would suffice to achieve the desired results. I have calculated, based on moderate estimates, that a single nuclear detonation with a capacity of 5 megatons will produce enough ash to cool the Earth's surface by approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius within a year. This seemingly modest reduction in temperature, when compounded over multiple detonations, could have a profound impact on slowing the rate of polar ice melt and sea-level rise. With just a couple of dozen detonations, we could easily reach the goals of the Paris climate agreement without imposing new laws and restrictions that hamper economic growth and development.

A near-sighted objection to this idea is the nuclear fallout caused by the proposed method, which might render the impacted areas uninhabitable for a few decades. To such concerns I respond that nuclear contamination remains mostly a local phenomenon and will only mildly affect the world as a whole, whereas global warming threatens everyone and everywhere. Thus, nuclear fallout is a minor inconvenience compared to a dipping global climate. Moreover, it would be advisable to focus the efforts on the Southern hemisphere, which is far less valuable economically and hardly contributes to the global GDP.

Once all potential objections are nullified, the manifold merits of my humble proposal become clear:

• Firstly, although nuclear conflict might temporarily divide the world in some ways, the ensuing state of emergency will foster a feeling of unity within our society, and eventually the joint effort to stop the climate crisis will bring all of humanity closer together.

• Secondly, as I have previously noted, this plan would significantly reduce the global population, particularly in regions that are economically disadvantaged. These areas are often the most susceptible to the impacts of climate change, and their reduction would alleviate the need for emergency aid and adaptation measures.

• Thirdly, the overall reduction in population size would greatly reduce the strain on the planet—reduced waste, reduced carbon emission, etc.—and further reduce the necessity for progress-hampering climate measures.

• Fourthly, the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal are horrendous and a burden to taxpayers, therefore it is irresponsible to have thousands of warheads idly lying around while they could find much better use by being employed to respond to this immediate crisis.

• Fifthly, although each of these warheads cost millions to produce, the profits generated by the development and sale of new technologies designed to mitigate the effects of a nuclear winter, such as advanced gas masks, vitamin-providing lighting, and smart oxygen dispersal systems, would greatly outweigh the initial investment.

• Sixthly, an increase in genetic mutations due to radiation would have a sustainable impact on birth-rates and infant survival rates, while at the same time it would increase the chances of favorable mutations that could enhance the evolutionary progress of our race.

Numerous other benefits could be named. For instance, the creation of new industries focused on the management and disposal of nuclear waste, the advancement of subterranean living technologies, and innovations in the art of crafting radiation-resistant garments, which would become the new standard in fashion. Moreover, a nuclear winter would undoubtedly inspire new culinary trends, as people adapt to a diet of preserved and canned foods. This would provide a much-needed boost to the tattered hospitality industry, attracting patrons eager to sample these novel delicacies.

I anticipate no objections to this proposal, save perhaps the concern that the global population would be significantly reduced. To this, I say: that is precisely the point. I have tailored this remedy specifically for the global crisis we face, a crisis unlike any other in the history of humankind. Let no one speak to me of alternative solutions: Of transitioning to renewable energy sources; of reducing, reusing, and recycling; of adopting a more sustainable lifestyle; of international cooperation and treaties; of educating the public about the dangers of climate change. These are all noble endeavors, but they have proven insufficient.

Responding to climate change by initiating nuclear conflict is the definitive, the reasonable, the final solution to this unprecedented crisis. I am relieved to see that some of our most trusted leaders, most notably in Moscow, Washington, and Berlin, already seem to grasp the urgency of the matter and apparently are undertaking first steps to prepare this important venture. I put my absolute trust into their competency for completing this mission in an effective and appropriate manner, and I am certain that their enthusiasm for saving the planet will not go overboard and bring us nuclear winter for a longer period of time than absolutely necessary.

“Biden, known for his sharp mind and strategic foresight, and Putin, an acknowledged humanitarian, are both equally well equipped and qualified to lead us through this time of crisis.”

Of course, we are talking about a highly complex military effort, nothing as simple as raiding a neighbor or sabotaging a pipeline. But looking at the bright, scientifically minded leaders chosen by the well-informed and well-educated electorates of our modern democracies, I have no concerns that technicalities will be an issue. Looking at climate predictions getting grimmer by the day, time, of course, is of the essence. Thus, I urge our dear leaders and their allies not to hesitate any longer to take the necessary steps. In particular, my request is directed at those in control of the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals—Joe Biden, president of the United States, who is known for his sharp mind and strategic foresight, and Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, an acknowledged humanitarian. I believe they are both equally well equipped and qualified to lead us through this time of crisis.

Finally, I declare with utmost sincerity that my intentions are purely altruistic. I have no personal stake in the implementation of this proposal; my sole motivation is the preservation of the planet. I seek to advance global cooperation, provide a more stable environment for future generations, alleviate the suffering of those most affected, and offer some semblance of control to those who feel powerless in the face of impending catastrophe.

*Satire. The author does not endorse the use of nuclear arms under any circumstances. For reference, see Jonathan Swift’s 1729 essay ‘A Modest Proposal’.