To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
As corporate influence grows, independent journalism is more important than ever. If you value reporting that puts people and the planet first, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday. We couldn't do it without you—thank you for keeping independent journalism alive.
As physicians and health workers, we must educate our communities that there is no adequate medical or humanitarian response to the use of nuclear weapons. Prevention is the only cure.
80 years following the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nobel Peace Prize Group, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, or IPPNW, has just completed their 24th World Congress in Nagasaki. This congress brought together 324 intergenerational health professionals, medical students, and activists from the Global South and North from 34 of IPPNW‘s 56 member nations. The theme of this meeting was: "A World Without Nuclear Weapons—Nagasaki as the Last A-bombed City.”
The timing of this year's congress in Nagasaki is significant. Our nuclear world at 80 stands at the brink of nuclear war either by intent, miscalculation, or from disruptive technology. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the minute hand of their infamous Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds till midnight, the closest it has been since the atomic bombings. The congress was informed by scientists who included health professionals, radiations experts, climate modelers, members of the disarmament community, elected officials, Hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings), and survivors of the over 2,000 global nuclear tests, in addition to academics of various fields and representatives of the Red Cross and World Health Organization (WHO).
The message and significance overall is the urgency and recognition that we are living on borrowed time as a species, ultimately relying on luck for our survival. For when, not if, deterrence fails there can be no survival in any real sense. Indeed, extinction of the human race is a distinct possibility.
As physicians and health workers, we are first responders and health promoters in our communities, and ultimately the planet. In our role as health promoters, we must educate our communities that there is no adequate medical or humanitarian response to the use of nuclear weapons. As such there is no cure to this last epidemic facing humanity. We must prevent what we cannot cure. The only way to prevent this outcome is through the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.
From a peak of roughly 70,000 nuclear weapons in 1987 to our current level of 12,241, we have eliminated over 80% of these weapons. We know how to do this, but lack the political will to do so. As physicians and health workers around the planet, we are charged with returning to our communities to inform them of this imminent risk. Internationally there is a campaign, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which brought forth the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty, which entered into force in 2021, makes nuclear weapons illegal to have, store, develop, transfer, or threaten to use and provides a time-bound, verifiable legal agreement among nuclear nations to abolish these weapons. A global majority of 99 countries have taken legal action to join the treaty.
In the United States, there is a campaign called Back from the Brink, which is bringing communities together to abolish nuclear weapons. It is a campaign that can be endorsed by all with the ultimate goal of building political will to educate and advance US federal policy change to take a leading role in abolishing nuclear weapons. Currently endorsed by 487 municipal and state officials and 51 members of Congress endorsing US House Res. 317 and Senate Resolution Res. 323. We must reach out to our elected officials and encourage them to cosponsor these resolutions as well and, if they are unwilling to do so, ask why?
In the words of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, “Humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.” While the task before us is daunting and may seem overwhelming, we find hope in the energy, understanding, and commitment of the next generation of health professionals in IPPNW who are joining us in breaking down the silos connecting the twin existential threats of nuclear war and climate change.
Each of us has a role to play with the very real outcome of saving the world and humanity. We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us. This is our Rx for Survival.
At this challenging time, 80 years since the founding of the United Nations and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a world torn apart by war, there is hope for a just, environmentally sustainable, and peaceful world.
With two significant interconnected anniversaries occurring this week, Sunday marked the 44th anniversary of the United Nations International Day of Peace. This year‘s theme, “Act Now for a Peaceful World,“ is a call to action, identifying individual responsibility and collective power in “cultivating a culture of peace.“
Noting that this year finds a time of global turbulence, tumult, and uncertainty, it is easy to find oneself despairing. Surrendering to this challenge fuels despair. Hope is realized in identifying our individual response and working together to realize collective power. We must discard outmoded “us and them” thinking, realizing that we are one interconnected human family on this fragile planet that will either learn to live together or perish together.
Everyone has a role to play, and each of us must decide what that role is. It is not necessarily a large role or a small role, it is our role. We can no longer assume that “they will take care of it.” They, are us! We must speak up against violence, hate, discrimination, and inequality. We must practice respect and embrace the diversity of our world. The International Day of Peace builds on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The theme aligns with the broader UN goals of sustainable development, recognizing that a peaceful world is intrinsically linked to social justice, equality, and environmental sustainability.
This week also marks the 11th anniversary of the “UN International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons” on September 26. With current global nuclear arsenals numbering 12,241 weapons, there is no humanitarian, social, or environmental justice and no sustainability as long as these weapons exist. Everything and everyone we care about is threatened. We must recognize the social and economic costs of the continued existence of these weapons. The United States is spending over $110 billion on all nuclear weapons programs in FY 2025 equating to over $209,000 every minute of every day on these weapons with plans for massive expansion of these expenditures in the years to come under the misguided myths of deterrence and “more is better.“
Ultimately there cannot be peace with the planet until there is peace on the planet.
Fortunately, there is hope in the effort to eliminate these weapons both here at home and around the world. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was instrumental in the development and adoption of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which makes nuclear weapons illegal to have, develop, transfer, use, or threaten to use under international treaty, just as all other weapons of mass destruction are.
At a time when our world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 89 seconds till “Doomsday” per the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, there is a growing movement here in the United States to eliminate these weapons. It is called Back From the Brink. This movement that supports the international effort is bringing communities together to abolish nuclear weapons and making the connection between our future and sustainability goals. Currently there are 502 national organizations, 78 municipalities and counties, eight state legislative bodies, 487 municipal and state officials, and 51 members of Congress endorsing. The people‘s voice is rising and being heard and is the best way to affect federal policy. When the people speak, the leaders will follow. This movement can be endorsed by all, and everyone is encouraged to take the simple action of reaching out to your elected officials, both in the US House, Senate, and local officials to endorse this campaign.
So at this challenging time, 80 years since the founding of the United Nations and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a world torn apart by war, there is hope for a just, environmentally sustainable, and peaceful world. Ultimately there cannot be peace with the planet until there is peace on the planet. The choice is ours. It is in our hands on this week of the International Day of Peace.
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival.
In the grim competition between environmental destruction and nuclear war over which one will cause the demise of civilization, the nuclear option gets considerably less media coverage than global warming. This is unfortunate, for nuclear weapons are no less of a threat. In fact, given how many close calls there have been since the 1950s, it’s miraculous that we’re still around to discuss the matter at all. In a global geopolitical environment that continues to see rising tensions between the West and both China and Russia, as well as between India and Pakistan and between a genocidal nuclear-armed Israel and much of the Middle East, few political agendas are more imperative than, to quote US President Donald Trump in early 2025, denuclearization.
The signs are not auspicious, however. For one thing, the last remaining missile treaty between Russia and the US, New START, expires in February 2026. New START limits both countries to 1,550 deployed warheads on no more than 700 long-range missiles and bombers. If Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin don’t come to an agreement before then, the end of this treaty could lead to a dangerous increase of deployed nuclear arsenals, and possibly a new arms race. On the other hand, if the two countries embrace the opportunity presented by the impending expiration of New START to forge a new and ambitious arms control regime, that could at least set the Doomsday Clock back a few seconds.
Russia wants a new treaty to limit arms, as it proposed that topic for discussion at the Alaska summit in August between Trump and Putin. Sadly, it is doubtful that Washington wants the same thing. On multiple occasions Trump has said he wants “denuclearization” talks with Russia and China, but the Washington establishment is much more ambivalent. In October 2023, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the US endorsed a very belligerent stance. Among other things, it recommended that the US fully modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal; mount on delivery vehicles “some or all” of the nuclear warheads it holds in reserve; increase the planned procurement of B-21 bombers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles; “re-convert” SLBM launchers and B-52s that New START rendered incapable of launching a nuclear weapon; deploy nuclear delivery systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific; and prepare for a two-theater war against China and Russia.
Similarly, in February 2024 the head of the US Strategic Command recommended a return to deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple nuclear warheads. Incredibly, some officials even advocate resuming explosive nuclear testing, on which the US declared a moratorium in 1992. Such a resumption would doubtless encourage other nuclear states to do the same thing, which could trigger an arms race.
If there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
It is worth noting that Washington’s aggressive posture is nothing new. Since the start of the Cold War, the US has been by far the most globally imperialistic state and by far the most responsible for escalating arms races. Its military and Central Intelligence Agency interventions in countries around the world have been on a vastly larger scale than the Soviet Union’s or Russia’s, and it has typically rebuffed Russia’s frequently expressed desire for peace. In their magisterial book The Limits of Power (1972), the historians Joyce and Gabriel Kolko argued that as early as the 1940s, “Russia’s real threat [to Washington] was scarcely military, but [rather] its ability to communicate its desire for peace and thereby take the momentum out of Washington’s policies.” Because of the Soviet Union’s relative economic and military weakness, Joseph Stalin sponsored international peace conferences and made numerous peace overtures to the Truman administration, all of which were dismissed. Such overtures continued in the months and years after Stalin’s death, but in most cases they met with a chilly reception.
Decades later, Mikhail Gorbachev enraged American officials by pursuing “public diplomacy” around nuclear disarmament. In 1985 he unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear weapons tests, hoping the US would follow suit. It didn’t. The following year, he announced his hope of eliminating all nuclear weapons everywhere by the year 2000. The Reagan administration was flabbergasted and generally appalled by the idea, though Ronald Reagan himself was sympathetic. But at the summit later that year, Reagan followed his advisers’ recommendations and rejected Gorbachev’s pleas to eliminate nuclear weapons. At least something was salvaged the following year, when Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty.
In our own century, as NATO expanded ever farther east—blatantly threatening Russia—the Kremlin responded, yet again, with what amounted to peace initiatives. Putin floated the idea of joining NATO (as Boris Yeltsin and even Gorbachev had), but the US had no interest in that. A few years later, in 2008, Moscow proposed a pan-European security treaty, arguing that this was necessary in order to overcome all vestiges of the Cold War. That idea went nowhere, much like Moscow’s 2010 proposal of an EU-Russia free-trade zone to facilitate a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, “which would provide mutual economic benefits and contribute to mitigating the zero-sum format of the European security architecture,” to quote the analyst Glenn Diesen. In the end, the US rebuffed all Russian attempts to thaw relations.
Evidently, for many decades the US has rarely had much interest in respectful coexistence with Russia. As outlined in a very revealing RAND Corporation report from 2019, its priority has been to “stress” Russia, to “overextend” it, for instance by provoking it to invade Ukraine. Because “some level of competition with Russia is inevitable,” Washington has to wage a “campaign to unbalance the adversary” and “caus[e] the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.” This campaign has been going on since the 1940s.
Indeed, in its report RAND even tentatively suggested that “US leaders could probably goad Russia into a costly arms race by breaking out of the nuclear arms control regime. Washington could abrogate New START and begin aggressively adding to its nuclear stockpile and to its air and missile delivery systems. Moscow would almost certainly follow suit, whatever the cost.” In 2023, as we have seen, the Commission on the US Strategic Posture endorsed these recommendations.
The only hope for peace, and particularly for a reduction of nuclear arsenals, is that American citizens will relentlessly pressure their elected representatives to stop marching toward Armageddon and act to ensure human survival. After all, if there is a danger of a two-front war with Russia and China, as the Congressional Commission reported in 2023, the obvious way to avoid such a horror is through diplomacy. Not through a massive arms race that could precipitate this very war.
From the anti-war left to the MAGA right, we all must demand that, for once, politicians choose the path of sanity.