Chris Zielinski writes that the nuclear era’s reliance on digital technology and AI makes it is a valid concern for IFIP’s WG9.2 on Social Accountability
Further to the WG 9.2 Update on Information Processing in the May issue of IFIP Insights, I’m pleased to report the initiative to raise a resolution at the World Health Assembly to renew WHO’s mandate to report on nuclear weapons and health was a resounding success.
It took over a year – based on an initial proposal tabled by international Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), and with energetic action by IPPNW and a number of key countries, supported by an editorial that was published in medical journals around the world, with the official backing of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) – and it came to a successful conclusion at the World Health Assembly on 26 May 2025, when 86 countries voted in favour of “Pillar 3, 18.1 Effects of Nuclear War on Public Health”: WHO regained its mandate to re-engage with nuclear weapons and health and committed to preparing new reports on the subject.
WHO had lost this mandate in 2020 in a routine conclusion of its term. Reports on nuclear weapons and health had been published in 1983, 1987 and 1993, but nothing since then. Now, with this new mandate, WHO resolves to update the reports, cooperate with relevant parties and other United Nations bodies and international organisations, and report to the World Health Assembly in 2029 on progress in the implementation of this resolution.
Ably led by the Marshall Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu, the draft resolution attracted 34 co-sponsoring countries. This gave the resolution a powerful initial push at the Health Assembly. Professor Sir Andy Haines delivered the IPPNW statement at the Health Assembly and the debate started.
The principal objections can be summarised in the statement of the UK delegate who, in his post-vote explanatory remarks, expressed his government’s concern that the proposed report and work would “duplicate that of other international bodies when a constrained WHO budget is driving an urgently needed prioritisation exercise.”
In fact, the UN General Assembly had agreed in late 2024 to establish an independent scientific panel to carry out a new study on the effects of nuclear war. Rather than duplicate effort, proponents of the WHO resolution noted that WHO had a constitutional responsibility and unique authority to provide the international community with this research, as the UN’s specialised agency on health. As to the financial requirements for such a study, the funding required is quite modest in the context of WHO’s overall budget.
In conclusion, we should note that, even without detonation, nuclear weapons pose significant health risks at all phases of their preparation, testing, storage and other operations. Nuclear war would of course be a catastrophe for human health. The risks of intentional or accidental nuclear war increase with the production of every bomb. As our editorial said, we need to end nuclear weapons, before they end us.