The use of atomic bombs means the end of life. It poses an enduring threat to international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights. As weapons of mass destruction, nuclear arms violate the foundational principles of IHL—distinction, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering—by their very nature. They cannot differentiate between combatants and civilians, and their long-term radioactive effects cause indiscriminate harm, undermining the principle of distinction codified in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Similarly, their disproportionate impact, including environmental devastation and genetic damage across generations, violates the principle of proportionality. 
From a human rights perspective, the use or threat of nuclear weapons endangers core rights enshrined in instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly the right to life, health, and an adequate standard of living. In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, acknowledged that such use is generally contrary to international law and that compliance with IHL is scarcely reconcilable with nuclear weapons. The possibility of using such weapons due to the events in the past few years in Europe (the Russia-Ukraine war) has increased. 
In the context of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, while nuclear weapons have not been deployed, the region has suffered from chemical weapon attacks and uranium-based munitions during conflicts such as the 1988 Anfal Campaigns (directly) and the 2003 Iraq War (indirectly). In particular, the 1988 Halabja chemical attack—though not nuclear—highlights how weapons of mass destruction can devastate civilian populations and scar regions for decades. Depleted uranium used in munitions by coalition forces after the 2003 war has been linked to increased cancer rates and birth defects, echoing nuclear fallout effects. Thus, the threat of atomic weapons, if ever realized in this region or another, would compound already severe humanitarian challenges, raising profound legal and ethical questions under both IHL and international human rights law.