The U.S. and Russia continue to maintain at least 26,000 nuclear weapons between them, with close to 5,000 ready to launch within minutes. The consequences of such a launch, whether full scale or partial, could still result in a nuclear winter, ending most life on earth as we know it. However, new studies have shown that even a smaller-scale regional nuclear war could still change the climate dramatically, decimating modern agriculture and starving billions. Such a war would affect populations far away from the conflict and the climatic effects would be long-lasting.
Although there are only five recognized nuclear weapons states (the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K.), and four unacknowledged ones (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea), there are at least 32 additional countries that could develop nuclear weapons from their substantial supplies of uranium and plutonium produced by civilian nuclear programs. Indeed, all four of the unofficial nuclear weapons states developed their weapons from civilian nuclear programs.
The continued insistence on supplying the technology, materials and know-how for civilian nuclear programs perpetuates the danger that nuclear weapons may also be developed - with speculation over Iran a case in point. Furthermore, a typical 1000 MW nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year for 40 nuclear bombs according to an analysis by Tom Cochran of NRDC.
It makes no sense to demand, on the one hand, that nuclear weapons states eliminate their arsenals while, on the other hand, offering nuclear energy as a reward to countries that promise not to develop nuclear weapons. It nuclear weapons are to be eliminated, this process must be divorced from resolving energy needs which can in any case be better filled by renewable energy, conservation and energy efficiency programs.