Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
Nobel-winning physicist reignites debate on nuclear risk by linking global instability, strategic arsenals, and rapid military decisions to the possibility that humanity may not survive long enough to see decisive scientific advances.
Theoretical physicist David J. Gross, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics, stated in an interview with Live Science that humanity may not survive long enough to see a theory capable of unifying all the forces of nature.
The assessment was made in the context of a discussion about existential risks and focused on the danger of a nuclear war in an international scenario of increased tension between powers.
In the interview, Gross did not present the statement as an exact prediction.
-
Inspector General’s audit exposes risk of delay in Axion’s new lunar suits for Artemis after NASA failures and $1 billion on xEMU, but company says it has 950 hours of tests and demonstration delivery in 2027
-
Scientists have discovered that the sparse beard in many indigenous people may be linked to a 30,000-year-old genetic mutation, inherited from Asian ancestors and preserved in American peoples as a living mark of human evolution.
-
Tech giant to lay off 8,000 employees, sparking a global warning as it cuts 10% of its team to cut costs.
-
Far beyond the forest, the Amazon functions as a natural humidity generator where giant trees release vapor into the sky and form flying rivers that provide Brazil with rain.
The physicist cited an estimate according to which the annual chance of a nuclear war could be around 2%, equivalent to a one in 50 possibility each year.
Considered in isolation, the number may seem low; accumulated over decades, it amplifies the concern raised by the researcher.
The scientist shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with H. David Politzer and Frank Wilczek for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction.
The contribution helped explain the behavior of the strong nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces of nature, and became an important part of modern particle physics.
Nuclear risk and calculation cited by David Gross
Gross told Live Science that he often highlights the possibility of people not living another 50 years due to nuclear risk.
According to the physicist, previous estimates placed the annual chance of a nuclear war at around 1%, but he believes that the current geopolitical environment allows for working with a hypothesis of 2% per year.
This formulation does not mean that there is a definite date for the end of humanity.
The point presented by the researcher is probabilistic: small risks, when repeated year after year, have a greater impact on the cumulative calculation.
In practical terms, a low-frequency annual threat can become relevant when observed over long periods.
Gross’s argument also relates to the weakening of international arms control mechanisms and the increase in instability among nuclear-capable countries.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Sipri, estimated that, at the beginning of 2025, nine states together possessed approximately 12,241 nuclear weapons, of which 9,614 were in military stockpiles for potential use.
The same survey indicated that all nuclear-armed countries maintained programs in 2024 to strengthen or modernize their arsenals.
The list includes the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
According to Sipri, Washington and Moscow concentrate almost 90% of the world’s nuclear warheads.
Nuclear weapons and international instability
Gross’s interview was published at a time of deterioration of agreements that, for decades, sought to limit part of the nuclear arms race.
In February 2026, the New START treaty expired, the last major bilateral agreement on strategic nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia.
With the end of the treaty, legally binding limits on the strategic arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers ceased to exist.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the expiration of the agreement as a grave moment for international peace and security.
The statement was presented amid calls for Washington and Moscow to resume negotiations on a new arms control arrangement.
In Gross’s assessment, open conflicts and regional tensions increase the difficulty of managing this risk.
He cited the war in Europe, instability hotspots in the Middle East, and the history of rivalry between India and Pakistan as examples of situations that keep the nuclear issue at the center of international concerns.
The existence of nuclear arsenals, by itself, does not summarize the problem.
In times of crisis, political and military authorities may have only a few minutes to evaluate signs of attack, confirm information, and decide on a response.
This reduced interval increases dependence on protocols, alert systems, and communication channels between governments.
Artificial intelligence in military decisions
Another aspect cited by Gross is the advancement of automation and artificial intelligence in military structures.
The physicist stated that automated systems may come to be seen as a way to accelerate decisions in emergency situations, especially when response time is limited.
In the interview, he mentioned a scenario where military officials would have about 20 minutes to decide whether to launch nuclear missiles.
In this situation, according to Gross, pressure could increase to transfer part of the process to AI systems.
The concern attributed to the researcher is that these technologies can also fail, misinterpret data, or respond in an unforeseen manner.
The debate, therefore, involves more than the number of existing warheads.
It also involves who controls the systems, how decisions are verified, and what safeguards prevent human error, technical failure, or incomplete information from producing a military escalation.
As processes become faster and more complex, international security experts often point to the need for additional oversight and containment mechanisms.
Cooperation between powers and arms control
Although he warns of the nuclear risk, Gross does not treat this scenario as inevitable.
In the interview, the physicist stated that there are measures capable of reducing the threat, with emphasis on the resumption of cooperation between powers and the reconstruction of arms control instruments.
The position he presented is based on the idea that nuclear weapons are a product of human decisions and, therefore, also depend on political decisions to be limited.
Gross compared the topic to the debate on climate change, in the sense that scientific and public mobilization can transform a global risk into a permanent agenda item for governments and institutions.
When discussing the matter, the researcher said, “we made them; we can stop them,” referring to nuclear weapons.
The phrase summarizes the argument that the risk does not stem from an uncontrollable natural force, but from military, diplomatic, and technological choices that can be reviewed by governments.
Theory of everything and future of physics
Gross’s statement appears in a discussion about one of the most ambitious goals of theoretical physics: to bring gravity closer to the other three fundamental forces – electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.
The formulation of a unified theory remains a research topic, although there is still no definitive answer accepted by the scientific community.
The physicist’s career is linked to this field of investigation.
His contribution to the understanding of the strong force helped consolidate quantum chromodynamics, a theory that describes the interaction between quarks and gluons.
According to the Nobel Prize, the discovery of asymptotic freedom explained why quarks can behave almost like free particles at high energies.
In subsequent years, Gross also worked on topics related to string theory, an area that seeks to describe particles and forces within a broader theoretical framework.
The debate about unification itself, however, appears in the Live Science interview alongside a concern external to physics: humanity’s ability to get through the next few decades without a nuclear catastrophe.
The Nobel laureate’s statement does not alter the current state of physics nor does it represent scientific consensus on the exact probability of a nuclear war.
It functions, within the interview, as a warning from a researcher about risks involving arsenals, political decisions, military technology, and international cooperation.
Be the first to react!