Nuclear diplomacy continues to be structurally flawed because it excludes doctors

AI Summary

Nuclear diplomacy is critiqued for excluding medical expertise, a vital perspective in the discussions surrounding nuclear disarmament. The implications of such exclusion could lead to underestimating the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons.

Last year, Abbasi and colleagues highlighted the lack of progress towards nuclear disarmament.1 Recent US-Iran nuclear diplomacy probably followed a familiar script.2 Diplomats discussed enrichment levels, deterrence, regional security, and escalation risks, with input from intelligence, military, and foreign policy experts. But one voice was noticeably absent: doctors.Nuclear weapons are often treated as political tools, but their use would cause mass death, illness, and system collapse. Yet nuclear diplomacy proceeds as if medical expertise is optional, excluding doctors.In humanitarian settings, doctors are trained to anticipate unlikely scenarios with severe outcomes, from emerging infectious diseases to mass casualty events. By contrast, nuclear policy regards catastrophe as theoretical until it occurs, excluding professionals equipped to evaluate its medical consequences.Negotiators often rely on invisible medical optimism. They assume that healthcare systems would function, with hospitals operating, supply chains intact, doctors available, and long term care assured. These assumptions are infrequently stated, stress tested...