Have you been thinking about your holiday shopping? I’ve been thinking about gifts for the grandchildren and there are the usual questions about gifts. How much to spend? Will they be useful? Is that what kids today want, or is it a now outdated choice?

I have also been thinking about my grandchildren’s future. There are so many uncertainties for that future. Nuclear weapons are one of those.

Even though the number of nuclear weapons has been reduced worldwide, there still are 17,000 of them in nine countries. What risks do they create for the future?

I have been thinking about that after reading a report that Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War made public this week. The title is “Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk.”

The report is a scientific analysis of the climatic consequences if India and Pakistan had a “limited” nuclear war. (The “limited” nuclear war would be the use of 100 nuclear weapons each equal in size to the bomb used at Hiroshima.)

The conclusion reached is that in addition to the millions of lives lost immediately and then during the following decade, climate and atmospheric changes would degrade the ability to grow food in China and the other countries of the Northern Hemisphere. The predicted consequence of such a failure in food growth is that 2 billion people would be at risk of starvation.

A humanitarian catastrophe of that magnitude could be caused by less than one percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

As a physician, prevention is the only possible answer for this risk to world health. Prevention ultimately means securely eliminating all nuclear weapons and the ability to produce them.

What steps can any of us ask of our government to bring that gift to our children?

In Maine, we are fortunate to have thoughtful and responsive senators representing us. We know that both Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King are in Washington trying to form a federal budget to avoid another government shutdown. Nuclear weapons are one part of the budget. The budget could be a way to lower the risk caused by nuclear weapons.

Sen. Collins is a member of a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that directly controls the budget for the Department of Energy. It is the Department of Energy’s budget that provides for the maintenance and availability of nuclear weapons.

Sen. King serves on the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This subcommittee considers the budget spending for the equipment and personnel to deliver nuclear weapons.

As Sens. Collins and King work for us, will they ask if nuclear weapons fit the military needs of today? Many military experts believe spending on nuclear weapons can be reduced, and thus allow budget choices that better meet military requirements for current-day security.

For example, spending is being considered to extend the useful life of the oldest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal — a long-range bomber gravity bomb named B-61. There are 400 of these weapons. The current estimate is that the life extension program will cost $10 billion.

It is not certain that these weapons will continue to have use by the time the work is completed. Even a reduction in the program could save $5 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report in November titled, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014-2023,” which also suggests delaying development and production of a whole new generation of nuclear submarines and bombers, saving an estimated $35 billion.

As we think about how to buy gifts that “fit” and are what our family wants, shouldn’t we ask Sens. Collins and King to choose a budget that reduces nuclear risk?

We need a federal budget that will bring us the military force that fits our nation’s requirements and provides the security we want. Reducing spending for nuclear weapons can do that.

Douglas Dransfield, M.D., is secretary for the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine Chapter. He lives in Cape Elizabeth.