I’m about to blow your mind. Put down your coffee. Stop walking to class—it can wait. This issue is bigger than you and me, and it’s bigger than American politics in general. The issue is nuclear weapons.

You no doubt reacted in one of two ways to the words “nuclear weapons”: uninterested completely or completely intrigued. I challenge you, regardless of your reaction, to take the next few minutes and read this article, thoughtfully and carefully, as this issue, already a large player in global politics, might flare up sooner than we all expect, and it would be advantageous to be prepared.

We certainly have all heard about nuclear technology in many facets: Pearl Harbor and the ensuing attack on Japan, Homer Simpson’s employment in the nuclear power plant, the threats of Iran and North Korea or perhaps from other media outlets such as the TV series “24” or films like “Dr. Strangelove.” Whatever your impression on nuclear technology, it is far more grave than you most likely predict.

Looking back at our only use of the atomic bomb against people, the ten-kiloton warheads that were dropped on Japan are estimated to have each killed about 100,000 people, with about another 100,000 people dying as a result of radiation and other related causes. One ten-kiloton warhead will kill roughly 100,000 people. Current warheads are 10 times more powerful, coming in closer to 100-kilotons. Multiply that by the 100,000 people dead per 10 kilotons, and you’ve got the beginning of a problem. This is only the beginning because if you multiply that by the nuclear capacity of, say, China, a nation with about 200 warheads, you’ve got the makings of a real problem. Multiply again by the number of weapons contained by Russia and the United States, which is upwards of 25,000 weapons, and you have the absolute end to societies and civilizations.

Wait, you think, we really wouldn’t use these weapons on anyone again unless we really needed to. I believe this is true. This is not my fear. The real threat is terrorism and non-state actors who, if given the opportunity, can use these weapons with fewer repercussions than a state. Because they don’t have a people or a land, the threat from mutually assured destruction (the idea that if you bomb us, we will bomb you) is negligible. While whether terrorist groups have nuclear weapons is questionable, it is not something that I want to find out.

A second risk involves sheer human error. How comfortable do you feel knowing that weapons in Moscow and other international cities are pointed at us and, if triggered either intentionally or accidentally, can be launched toward, land in and destroy New York, Washington and yes, even St. Louis in about 15 minutes? Yes, launched from Moscow hitting Los Angeles. Fifteen minutes. That’s about three miles per second. And it’s real.

This is not an attempt to scare you. It is an attempt to provoke thought. The fact is that this issue is one we need to be talking about. Democrats and Republicans and Independents and others.

We need to discuss this issue on a global scale. I certainly have my own opinion as to what should be done, but I will let you make your own. Recently five Wash. U. students traveled to China to engage in conferences aimed at opening a dialogue between young people of the two nations. While they were very successful, I was constantly reminded of the differences in culture, politics, religion and otherwise that might act as obstacles to this deliberation.

We have a very large, looming security threat that has passed under the radar for the last few decades. We cannot continue to discount the security concerns brought forth by the reality that is nuclear weapons. I challenge you as students and young and future leaders (scary as that may sound) to begin to consider the possible effects of nuclear arms on our nation and others and its effects on both national and international security. Discover for yourself: What is your stance on the issue? What needs to be done? And, most importantly, how can you go about implementing that change?