Radiation Risks: The Human Cost of Military Strikes on Nuclear Sites

Sher Ahmed Durrani

The recent Israeli military action against Iran is an ambitious effort bordering on high-stakes that the Israeli nation is undertaking to destroy the Iranian controversial nuclear program. Israel has carried out a number of selective attacks, mainly on the three centric facilities of Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, besides high-profile scientists involved in nuclear research and development.

The humanitarian consequences of attacking nuclear sites are far-reaching and complex.

With evaluations of the harm still in progress, initial studies based on satellite photos and specialists’ assessment forecast serious effects at both Natanz and Isfahan. Nevertheless, there remains a lot of uncertainty, especially considering that the most sensitive and sensitive Iranian nuclear infrastructure is far underground. Values of the effectiveness of such strikes have turned out conflicting: one Israeli military official believed that significant damage was done to the nuclear facilities, whereas Iranian officials believed the effects of the strikes were minimal.

“The whole (nuclear) supply chain has been disrupted,” remarked Ali Vaez, the Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group. He stressed how essential every one of the targeted facilities had been and how each of them is vital to the complex chain of events necessary to develop a nuclear weapon.

Although the motives of the actions of Israel are based on the assumption that the ambitions of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons are a threat to its existence, the effects of such military actions should be carefully analyzed. According to experts, the strikes may lead to high numbers of civilian casualties, and there is an indication that thousands of lives could be lost immediately. There are concerns of long-term health effects, especially radiation exposures and environmental pollution, which necessitate immediate attention, especially to the populations living near these nuclear facilities.

The humanitarian consequences of attacking nuclear sites are far-reaching and complex. The precedents in history, including the Chernobyl disaster and the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can still provide a graphic example of the disastrous consequences that nuclear accidents may trigger. The agony of radiation poisoning, ecological impairment, and societal resettlement must alert the international community that it has to act right now. It is the lives of innocent people that are under threat, and the likelihood of any large-scale suffering makes it imperative to think about the human toll involved in any military action.

The fact that Iran might retaliate further derails the matter. In the event Iran responds with force, the region might enter into chaos, making a fragile geopolitical situation even worse. The presence of a well-established network of proxy forces in Iran increases the threat of a much wider war, adding stress to the Middle East region.

Thousands of lives could be lost immediately, with long-term health effects from radiation exposure.

In this critical point, well-established international protocols to protect the nuclear sites take greater significance. The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions emphasize the need to protect installations that harbor dangerous forces, such as nuclear installations. In addition, the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material highlights the need to protect nuclear materials against theft and other forms of sabotage. These frameworks not only encompass interests in national security but also goals to address humanitarian crises linked to nuclear events.

As the war unfolds, the international community must demand restraint. The possible effects of the military action, immediate and long-term, are so serious they cannot be ignored. Such kind of strikes can offer a short-term tactical advantage, but can threaten to weaken international non-proliferation efforts. These measures may encourage other states to develop their nuclear programs, further undermining the mechanisms put in place to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons.

Such a tangled geopolitical environment requires one to evaluate the consequences of the military intervention carefully. Security cannot be provided by the use of force, but should be provided by dialogue and diplomatic action.

Security cannot be provided by the use of force, but should be provided by dialogue and diplomatic action.

Considering all these, the world should focus on peace and find non-belligerent solutions towards the nuclear dilemma within the Middle East region. The perils are dangerously high and the world cannot afford to suffer another catastrophe brought about by a nuclear clash. The way ahead should be about collaboration, cooperation, and unwavering effort in making sure that every nation is safe. Under such turbulent circumstances, it is critical to understand that real strength is not in the ability to build destructive arguments but rather in creating a positive negotiation and creating solid commitments toward a safer future.

The author is a Ph.D. candidate at SPIR, Quaid-e-Azam University. He can be reached at Sherahmed.durrani@gmail.com