SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons
Not Just an Abstract Moral Appeal: Ending the Nuclear Age Is a Requirement for Survival
Humanity faces a choice, whether consciously or not, to continue down a path of conflict that leads toward ultimate destruction or to renounce its old ways and center peace at the heart of all its efforts.
May 01, 2026
This speech was delivered to the 11th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on May 1, 2026.
Honorable President, Distinguished Delegates, Colleagues, and Friends,
We are living in a decisive moment. Humanity faces a choice, whether consciously or not, to continue down a path of conflict that leads toward ultimate destruction or to renounce its old ways and center peace at the heart of all its efforts.
International law, built painstakingly over decades and even centuries to prevent such an unfathomable catastrophe, is under brazen and relentless attack today. At the heart of this divergence lies a fundamental question: whether states may claim a right to wage war without restraint, and whether use and even possession of weapons with potential to end human civilization can ever be justified. These are precisely the issues at the core of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—whose future we have gathered to discuss at this Review Conference.
Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are not separate tracks toward a safer world—they are intertwined and inseparable paths.
Our world is a time-ticking bomb. There are more than 12,000 nuclear warheads in existence—each capable of killing hundreds of thousands, some even millions of people, and any one of which could trigger a chain reaction leading to full-scale nuclear war in less time than this session will last.
More than 40 years ago, Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev reminded us that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” And yet today, we hear renewed calls to use nuclear weapons in the name of “saving lives,” alongside threats that contemplate the destruction of entire societies.
The five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the NPT, the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France, and China, possess over 95% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. With that power comes not only a moral responsibility, but a clear legal obligation under Article VI of this Treaty: to pursue negotiations in good faith to achieve not only nuclear disarmament, but also total and complete general disarmament.
Nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are not separate tracks toward a safer world—they are intertwined and inseparable paths. As Joseph Rotblat warned in his 1995 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: “If the militarily most powerful and least threatened states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster.”
We join the voices of hibakusha and countless others who have come before us in urging all NPT States Parties to take immediate and meaningful action:
- Condemn and cease all military combat, including wars that risk escalation toward nuclear conflict, and reaffirm the primacy of international law and peaceful resolution of disputes.
- Unequivocally renounce the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and reject policies such as “launch on warning” and “first-use” that heighten, rather than reduce, the risk of nuclear war.
- Commit to a concrete, time-bound path toward a world free of nuclear weapons, including by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The first step in this journey must be clear to all: The United States and the Russian Federation, which together possess more than 85% of the world’s nuclear arsenals, must urgently restart bilateral negotiations to reduce and ultimately eliminate their stockpiles. The remaining nuclear-armed states must pause all modernization and arsenal increase programs, and commit to a transparent, verifiable, and irreversible process of disarmament.
- Recognize and assist all victims of the nuclear age, including survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those impacted by more than 2,000 nuclear explosions during the so-called nuclear testing period, and uranium mining workers and others harmed by the the development of nuclear weapons, ensuring justice, support, and environmental remediation.
This call is not just an abstract moral appeal; it is a prerequisite for human survival. The credibility of the NPT and the future of humanity depend on the actions we take over the next three weeks.
In the words of Joseph Rotblat: “The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, that will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.”
Thank you, Honorable President.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Only True Nuclear Protective Shield Is Global Disarmament
Politicians and the media use deliberately confusing terms that downplay the dangers of a military and nuclear arms race to the general population.
Feb 26, 2026
The use of key security policy terms in public discourse is intended to suggest facts that serve to calm people down. However, there are many reasons for concern that could also trigger peace forces.
The Illusion of a Nuclear Protective Shield
Political scientist and historian Herfried Münkler called for a European atomic bomb as early as 2023. There is currently an increasingly heated debate about whether Germany should seek refuge under France's nuclear protective shield in view of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. The leader of the Social Democrats in the European Parliament, Katarina Barley, also raised the issue of acquiring nuclear bombs as part of European armament in 2024. The German and French heads of government, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron, are also paving the way for talks on European nuclear armament and the extension of France's nuclear umbrella, according to Merz in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early 2026.
There is repeated talk of a nuclear umbrella. The problem is already clear in this choice of words. Such a protective shield, which one would only have to deploy to be protected, does not exist. This term suggests that Germany or even Europe would be protected from attacking missiles with nuclear warheads if the nuclear protective shield were installed. However, there is no protection against dozens of hypersonic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads attacking simultaneously. The few minutes of reaction time are not enough for a successful counterattack.
Anyone who promises a nuclear protective shield in this sense is trying to deceive people about the real danger of a nuclear conflict in order to achieve their actual military-strategic goals.
So-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Those who are more knowledgeable know that the term “nuclear protective shield” refers more to the nuclear deterrence of a potential attacker. This deterrence would result from the nuclear second-strike capability if a nuclear first strike is underway or has already taken place. The question here, of course, is whether a nuclear second strike is still possible if the first strike with nuclear weapons could not be repelled. Here, too, the talk of a nuclear protective shield is problematic.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold Through ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapons
The distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons also poses a semantic problem. Here, technological language suggests that there is a clear distinction between the two. Tactical nuclear weapons are weapons that are intended for limited use due to their lower explosive power, shorter range, and deployment. However, the boundaries are fluid, and Russia also considers tactical weapons to be strategic. If this distinction is nevertheless used, the use of more limited (tactical) nuclear weapons could then be viewed fundamentally differently from the use of larger and longer-range nuclear weapons in terms of explosive power.
The conceptual problem is further exacerbated by so-called “mini-nukes.” Thus, the gradation and differentiation of nuclear weapons pretends that a nuclear war could be confined to a regional or local level. This merely lowers the nuclear threshold and thus downplays the risk of nuclear escalation. Incidentally, so-called "mini-nukes" have a yield of between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent, which is roughly the same as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is therefore also a linguistic distortion and trivialization of a terrible weapon.
Putin's Special Military Operation as a Crude Semantic Deception
Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a clear act of war, albeit without a declaration of war. Russia's war against Ukraine, which has now been going on for over four years, has been disguised as a “special military operation.” To this day, the Kremlin refuses to acknowledge the conceptual truth of its war. In doing so, it attempts to downplay the illegality and barbarity of its aggression to its own population and to the world. "Special military operation" sounds more like a clean, technical intervention. Language could not be used in a more manipulative way, considering that hundreds of thousands of people have already fallen victim to this war, millions have fled, and Ukraine's vital infrastructure and ecology have been destroyed.
When people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them.
Equally problematic is the term "Russian world" (Russkij Mir), which Russian President Vladimir Putin uses repeatedly. A Russian world as such does not even exist in Russia, as it is a multiethnic state created by coercion and military force, with very different cultural characteristics among its peoples. Thus, talk of the "Russkij Mir" serves to justify military aggression against other states with the argument that the Russian world and the Russian-speaking people there are under threat.
This ethnically charged term is also the central ideological construct used to restrict the state independence of countries such as Belarus and Ukraine.
Deception Through the Term ‘Nuclear Sharing’
Since Germany is not permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the 2+4 Treaty and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NATO has agreed on the principle of "nuclear sharing." However, this term also serves to obscure harsh security policy realities. According to reports, up to 20 US B61-3/4 nuclear bombs are stored in Büchel (Rhineland-Palatinate), combined with German Air Force Tornadoes capable of delivering nuclear warheads to an enemy target.
However, the American nuclear capabilities stored there—and also in other European NATO countries—do not allow for participation by the German federal government. Participation implies the possibility of having a say. But the US government repeatedly makes it clear that the possible use of these nuclear weapons is exclusively subject to the respective US government. This undermines and circumvents the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear sharing among NATO countries, while at the same time obscuring the fact that these weapons are controlled by a foreign power.
Misuse of the Term ‘Modernization’ of Nuclear Weapons
The potential dangers of the "modernization" of nuclear weapons are also being downplayed. The term "modernization" as used in security policy also implies a positive development of nuclear weapons—after all, "modern" represents a positive innovation in language usage—and obscures the increasing danger of these weapon systems.
A particularly problematic aspect of this modernization is the integration of artificial intelligence and the expansion of its functionality within the framework of nuclear strategies. However, AI works on the principle of probability calculation and is extremely prone to error. The information from hundreds of sensors, which an AI uses to make a statement in a very short time, e.g., about attacking nuclear missile swarms, cannot be reliably verified by those responsible in the few minutes of time available. However, this development could make an accidental nuclear war more likely.
War Readiness Versus Defense Capability—the Importance of Conceptual Usage
When German Defense Minister Pistorius says that Germany must become “war ready,” this contradicts the defense mandate of the Basic Law and the prohibition of wars of aggression (GG Art. 26 (1) and 115a). The concept of war includes both defense and attack. Therefore, if the federal government adheres to the Basic Law, it should only talk about and take appropriate measures to become defensible.
War readiness is based on the postulate of military strength through deterrence. Since no state wants to voluntarily face the military superiority of an enemy state or military alliance, that state will devote an increasing share of its national budget to further armament measures in order to surpass its opponent in military strength. This leads to an arms race and—as World War I shows, for example—ultimately to war.
Defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties.
Defense capability means prioritizing military defense capabilities, e.g., with regard to defending against drone attacks, in conjunction with improved “resilience” of critical infrastructure. Even this kind of resilience is currently unachievable for any state. Today's industrialized nations in the digital age are virtually impossible to protect against hybrid attacks, especially hacking of power and heating networks. Anyone who suggests that this is entirely possible creates a false sense of security.
But when people are satisfied with their governments' security policy, which is secured by a system of terminology that obscures the facts, then a false consciousness is hegemonically induced in them. They are deprived of the civil society power to resist their government's risky course. This also characterizes the dilemma of the current peace movement. Although it clearly addresses the dangers of military escalation and nuclear war in its appeals, it does not find the resonance that would actually be expected in the current crisis situation.
Deployment of US Missiles in 2026 as a ‘Security Policy’ of Deterrence
The deployment of three different missile systems, including hypersonic weapons, planned for November 2026, follows the verdict of strength through deterrence. These weapon systems will be stationed in Germany under US command. This was agreed upon between former US President Joe Biden and former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the sidelines of the NATO summit in New York in the summer of 2024, without any debate in the Bundestag. The deployment will take place without any accompanying offer of negotiation to Russia. These are so-called "decapitation weapons," i.e., weapons that are not primarily intended for defense, as stipulated in the Basic Law.
In this case, too, it is problematic to speak of "security policy" in relation to the US missile deployment. It could well be that this deployment could increase uncertainty and the risk of escalation for Germany. These weapon systems, which certainly pose a threat to Russia, could become targets for Russian missile attacks, which in turn would trigger a corresponding spiral of retaliation, possibly even nuclear.
But defense capability relies on the priority of negotiations, diplomacy, and systematically coordinated control and disarmament treaties. In this context, building up military defenses and attempting to secure critical infrastructure is entirely necessary and legitimate. However, the planned US missile deployment undermines this defense policy objective. What will Russia do in this case? It should not be forgotten that Russia has already deployed Zircon and Kinschal hypersonic missiles, for example in Kaliningrad, and has already used the Oreschnik hypersonic weapon, which is virtually impossible to defend against, at least twice in the war in Ukraine. If NATO's Western allies are not prepared to renegotiate the disarmament and control treaties, Russia will certainly attempt to expand and upgrade its own arsenal once the US missiles are deployed at the end of 2026.
Conclusion
Disclosing the dangers implied in security policy language in connection with nuclear weapons does not mean defeatism or resignation in the face of an opponent armed to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons.
However, if people allow themselves to be deceived by appeasing terminology and its use in public discourse on security policy, this leads to a dangerous lulling of these people into a false sense of security. The security policy promises behind this terminology give them a feeling of security that does not correspond to the actual risk when states focus on military armament, in particular the further development of nuclear weapons systems, and military escalation. The disclosure of real dangers is not intended to cause anxiety about security policy and paralysis, but rather to raise awareness of actual dangers as the basis for the priority need for improved defense capabilities, in particular through negotiations and diplomacy.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict.
In summary, it can therefore be said that the security policy goal must be defense capability. This also includes a disarmament proposal that has already been mentioned several times, within a framework controlled by the United Nations, that the two major military powers, the US and Russia, should gradually disarm all weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, to the level of the People's Republic of China. In a next step, under the transparent supervision of international institutions such as the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, these three states would have to disarm to the level of smaller states until, for example, the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is fully implemented.
This would be an effective and sensible security policy worthy of the name. Even though there are currently major geopolitical obstacles standing in the way of such controlled and transparent international disarmament, this peace-bringing disarmament strategy must not be lost sight of. The trillions that would be saved by all participating states as a result of disarmament and the elimination of further armament could also be a compelling argument for such an internationally coordinated and balanced disarmament strategy, at least in the medium term.
Historical experience with a policy of deterrence through military strength shows, however, that a spiral of military armament increases the likelihood of military conflict. A security policy that is oriented toward defense capability rather than war capability would also have to use different language. Obscuring terms that are embedded in a context of meaning and semantically designed to conceal rather than reveal military risks are part of a media-mediated military strategy that will not lead to peace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scared of Nuclear War? Don't Panic, Organize!
We have to keep talking about, writing about, and organizing against nuclear weapons to prevent the Doomsday Clock from reaching midnight.
Feb 20, 2026
“I’m not scared, you’re scared!” is the repeated line in a children’s story we recently read to the kids at the Unitarian Universalist version of Sunday school I attend with my children. In that story, a scared bear and a brave rabbit, who (naturally!) are best friends, go on a hike together. Rabbit has to cajole and encourage Bear through every imaginable obstacle, but in the end (of course!) it’s Rabbit who gets stuck at the crucial moment and has to call on Bear for help. Bear (no surprise) sets aside his fears to rescue his friend and (tada!) finds new depths of bravery and adventurousness in the process.
After we read the story, the kids worked together to build paths from blocks and Legos through the imagined obstacles in the story—a bridge over a rushing river, a path through a dark forest, a staircase up a steep mountain. It was one of our most engaging classes in recent memory, while the kids kept saying, “I’m not scared, you’re scared!” and laughing while they played. As we stacked blocks and fit Legos together, we adults were supposed to help the kids identify things they were afraid of and how they could confront those fears. For me, it was just one thing too many. I blanked on that part of the assignment.
Yes, I’m Scared
In fact, I was a little relieved to have done so. Of course, I have fears myself, but I’m not afraid of spiders or heights or small spaces like so many people. I am afraid of nuclear war—not something I would want to confess to a bunch of kids sitting on carpet squares.
What should I have said? “Okay, kids, I know some of you are afraid of monsters or werewolves or the Wither Storm in Minecraft, but I’ll tell you something truly terrifying: the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists just moved its Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to ‘nuclear midnight,’ four seconds closer than ever before.” I would have gotten blank stares and quick subject changes and yet, once I had started, I would undoubtedly have kept on sharing the telltale heart of my own bogeyman. “When I was a kid in the 1980s,” I would have said, “we were at three minutes to metaphorical midnight and my dad, who was an activist, wouldn’t even let me go to the movies. Now, they have pushed it even closer—closer than ever before. With nine countries armed with nuclear weapons, we’ve tick-tocked ourselves to 85 seconds to midnight. Yep, 85 seconds, by the way, is probably less time than it takes you to spell your full name or tie your shoes.”
Trump’s famous wrecking ball that blasted the East Wing and the Kennedy Center is now aimed at the nuclear treaty architecture built up over the decades.
Of course, I kept those long-winded, fact-filled fears to myself at that Sunday school. But I’ll tell you all that, in truth, it’s far worse than even what I thought that day. The Bulletin‘s scientists who made the announcement about those 85 seconds to midnight were contending with more than nuclear dangers (which have, by the way, never been more imminent). Those scientists were also responding to the speeding up of catastrophic climate change and the threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI). In the words of Daniel Holz on the Bulletin‘s Science and Security Board, “The dangerous trends in nuclear risk, climate change, disruptive technologies like AI, and biosecurity are accompanied by another frightening development: the rise of nationalistic autocracies in countries around the world. Our greatest challenges require international trust and cooperation, and a world splintering into ‘us versus them’ will leave all of humanity more vulnerable.”
Yes, all of humanity is vulnerable indeed—like my young friends building Lego bridges across felt rivers for a Bear and a Rabbit birthed in late night comedian Seth Meyers’s imagination.
The End of Arms Control as We Knew It
And as if all of that weren’t terrifying enough, Thursday, February 5 marked the end of arms control as we’ve known it. The last treaty controlling nuclear weapons between my country and Russia expired without a replacement on that day, leaving us all vulnerable to the whims of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. There are reports of a handshake deal between the two countries to extend the principles of the treaty, but haphazard and informal agreements are simply not “arms control” (at least as we once knew it).
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, was signed by US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 and set out a schedule for verifiable and commensurate nuclear arsenal reductions. It was renewed under Republican and Democratic administrations, but it is very “on brand” for strongmen Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to deride international treaties of any sort.
Unfortunately, the sort of muscular bombast they’re known for isn’t what’s kept the world reasonably safe from nuclear war for the last eight decades, since the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Rather, it was a tight web of treaties—the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, START I and II, New START, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—that kept the whole world safe (or as safe as we could be with ever more nuclear-armed powers proliferating across the planet). That alphabet soup of promises, schedules, and commensurate acts of disarmament, as fragile and incremental as it was, resulted in the dismantlement of 80% of the US and Russian arsenals over the decades.
Now, we are all being dragged in the other direction.
Trump’s famous wrecking ball that blasted the East Wing and the Kennedy Center is now aimed at the nuclear treaty architecture built up over the decades. In its place, he proposes to construct a Golden Dome missile defense system to protect the United States from incoming nuclear weapons. And that fool’s errand could not only lead us toward nuclear war, but have a price tag in the trillions of dollars.
I Don’t Feel Fine
With his administration’s gold-plated, AI-enhanced sense of aggression, President Trump is now taking aim at NATO, an alliance the United States helped to build after World War II. His administration is abrogating agreements, leveling tariffs, and threatening to annex Greenland. Europe is getting the message that the United States is no longer a reliable ally, stoking concerns that yet more countries will move to create nuclear arsenals. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is investing more money in nuclear weapons and the Russian strongman has actually threatened to use such weapons, while already at war in a part of Europe.
Of course, Russia and the United States are anything but the only nuclear states these days. China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea round out the rogue’s gallery of—to come up with a word of my own—Obliterables.
In 2024 alone, those nine nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion on such weaponry, an 11% increase over the year before, according to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). For example, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists‘ Nuclear Notebook finds that China is rapidly and aggressively increasing its nuclear arsenal. Beijing, it points out, has “significantly expanded its ongoing nuclear modernization program by fielding more types and greater numbers of nuclear weapons than ever before.”
Throughout Asia and Europe, the leaders of all too many countries are openly discussing regional pacts and the need to develop their own nuclear weapons programs. They are reviving the moribund logic of proliferators—that only more nuclear weapons can protect us against nuclear weapons. And that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw in this already endangered world of ours.
Another Treaty to the Rescue?
Instead of all this unilateralism and nuclear proliferation, nuclear and nuclear-adjacent nations should be signing on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It’s clear and smart, and its goals are achievable. In essence, it prohibits countries from developing, testing, producing, stockpiling, transferring, or threatening to use (no less actually using) nuclear weapons. And if that seems remarkably comprehensive, it actually goes further, prohibiting nations from allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits assisting, encouraging, or forcing any other country to engage in any of these activities.
Thursday, January 22 marked five years since that treaty entered into force as international law and was adopted by a significant majority of the countries on this planet. On that day, I joined a handful of people gathered at the General Dynamics complex in New London, Connecticut (where I live). We celebrated the 74 nations that have ratified the treaty and the 25 more that have signed it and are in the process of ratifying it. My country, the United States, of course, stands outside of the global consensus on nuclear disarmament.
Panic and Fear, Fear and Panic
That same week after the Doomsday Clock moved four seconds closer to midnight, I wrote an essay for my local paper in New London. In less than 800 words, I tried to describe the massive nexus of decisions and dangers that went along with that four-second nudge closer to a metaphorical midnight for us all.
I shared my essay with my 11-year-old daughter Madeline while we sat in the bleachers at a local pool, watching her older brother swim with his swim team. She’s a wise little sixth grader who regularly pays attention when I least expect it. “Look what I did, Madeline,” I said, and showed her a screenshot of my article on my phone. The title was “Closing in on Nuclear Midnight; There’s Still Time to Disarm.” And then I explained to her that it was focused on how the Doomsday Clock had just moved closer to midnight.
“Oh,” she said, “I had a full-blown anxiety attack last week because Joanna told me that the flu shot wasn’t going to work.” Joanna is a seventh-grade friend of hers whose words carry a lot of weight.
I can all too easily spin out into an anxiety attack if I don’t continue to anchor myself to that little speech I made to Madeline, reminding myself of the real work people are doing to make this world a more bearable place.
I struggled to make the connection between that and what I had just shown her. Madeline added flatly, “A whole day of actual anxiety because of that news.”
“You’re going to be fine,” I said, far too quickly. “You’re healthy and, even if you get the flu, you’ll survive just fine.”
Then I slowed down. Of course, she was anxious. There was plenty to be anxious about in this Trumpian world of ours. Masked men in the streets, pulling some people out of cars through broken windows and shooting others in broad daylight. Tear gas, blockades, and crying kids on the nightly news (which we still watch sometimes).
But her fear of a flu shot and the flu she might still get was the right-sized fear for a sixth grader. Flagrant fascism, paramilitary violence, naked racism: those are massive fears for the preteen mind, as large as her mother’s fixation on nuclear war.
I need to tread carefully here, I thought, since panic and fear are contagious and erode rationality. Panic and fear cause isolation and paranoia. And while no one should panic about nuclear weapons, I thought, there’s certainly plenty to be afraid of. So, I pulled her a little closer to me, while remembering a professor at Rutgers who estimated that even a regional nuclear war would have a staggering global impact.
As a group of authors wrote in Nature Food in 2022, “In a nuclear war, bombs targeted on cities and industrial areas would start firestorms, injecting large amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere, which would spread globally and rapidly cool the planet.”
Such an upside-down atomic version of climate change would have a widespread impact on agriculture globally, leading to massive famines. They estimated that more than 2 billion people might die from a “limited” nuclear war between long-time nuclear rivals India and Pakistan.
What Can You Do in 85 Seconds?
Brutal, right? I chose to keep that information to myself in the bleachers at that swimming pool. The flu shot, not global famine, I thought to myself. Stay right-sized in this conversation with her.
But my little girl moves fast and she makes connections—and she’s fascinated by time. She’s worn a watch forever and always wants to know how long something will take. (“When?” is her favorite question.) So, it was no surprise to me that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists clock fascinated her.
“85 seconds is not a long time, Mom. I mean, look,” and she made a quick little circle with her hand. “That’s like 85 seconds, so what does it mean that we’re 85 seconds to midnight?”
“Well,” I began, my voice suddenly breaking as I imagined the hellscapes of Hiroshima, those grim graphs in the Nature Food paper, and my daughter’s future.
“No, Mom,” she said. (She didn’t want my big emotions.) “Just tell me what happens when we get to midnight.”
“Well,” I began again, “if we hit midnight on their clock, that is the end of the world as we know it.”
“But that isn’t going to happen, right, Mom?” She replied with her usual firm confidence that I always admire and am invariably curious about, wondering where it comes from.
“It hasn’t happened yet, love,” was the best I could muster. “And the reason it hasn’t happened is that so many people all over the world all the time are resisting, pushing back, passing legislation, holding up signs, making documentaries, urging divestment from nuclear-related corporations, being creative and brave, calling for disarmament in every language we human beings speak.”
I’m stirred by my own rhetoric! “Nice!” I think to myself, but I can see her attention has slipped away.
I had, however, said the thing she needed to hear—that people are working to keep nuclear midnight from happening. She sees me working to do so, too. She sees me suiting up for another frigid session of sign holding at General Dynamics, the fourth largest weapons maker in this country with a huge complex in our neighborhood in Connecticut. She sees me coming home from a long organizing meeting. She knows I have some of the answers to the questions that her tidy brain can’t quite yet put into words. She thinks I’ve got things under control, so she snuggles closer to me and goes back to worrying about her friend’s flu shot warning, or where she left her library card and what she’s going to wear to school tomorrow that will be warm, cute, and not too matchy.
Of course, I don’t have it under control. I can all too easily spin out into an anxiety attack if I don’t continue to anchor myself to that little speech I made to Madeline, reminding myself of the real work people are doing to make this world a more bearable place.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is engaged in the steady work of adding nations to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while continuing to build a global consensus for disarmament. Ira Helfand and the Back from the Brink network are working on public education, movement building, and the excruciating but important task of trying to get congressional legislation passed to prevent nuclear war. Leona Morgan and many other Indigenous activists are working to protect the environment, halt uranium mining, and win compensation for “downwinders” from what were once nuclear testing sites. Makoma Lekalakala and other international activists are mobilizing to oppose nuclear proliferation, resist the mining of uranium, and deal with other affronts to our world and health. Don’t Bank on the Bomb is leading the effort of individuals, organizations, and financial groups to divest from nuclear industries. And all of that work is indeed yielding dividends!
So, I refuse to let myself be scared. And so should you.
We have to keep talking about, writing about, and organizing against nuclear weapons—not at the expense of all the other work that so desperately needs to be done right now in this dread-inducing world of ours, but to preserve at least those 85 seconds for our children and grandchildren.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New START’s Expiration: A Threat to Humanitarian Disarmament
When major powers abandon restraint in the nuclear field, they send a dangerous message: that international commitments are optional, norms are negotiable, and humanitarian principles can be sidelined.
Feb 05, 2026
In January 2026, I published an article warning that the world was approaching the final hours of the New START Treaty. On February 5, 2026, that warning has become reality. For the first time since the early 1970s, no legally binding limits exist on US-Russian strategic nuclear forces. This moment is not only a failure of arms control; it is a profound threat to human security, humanitarian disarmament, and the credibility of multilateral commitments across all fields.
New START was the last surviving pillar of bilateral nuclear restraint. Its expiration removes the ceilings on deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems, eliminates inspections and data exchanges, and forces both sides to operate in an environment of opacity and worst‑case assumptions. In my earlier article, I argued that this collapse would deepen the crisis of credibility facing the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT), especially the long‑neglected obligations under Article VI. That analysis stands even more firmly today. A world without New START is a world where the NPT’s disarmament pillar is no longer eroding slowly—it is cracking openly.
But the consequences extend far beyond the nuclear domain. The end of New START is a blow to humanitarian disarmament as a whole. Treaties such as the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT) and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CMC) were built on the belief that international law can restrain the most harmful weapons and protect civilians. When major powers abandon restraint in the nuclear field, they send a dangerous message: that international commitments are optional, norms are negotiable, and humanitarian principles can be sidelined when politically inconvenient.
This erosion of respect for international commitments is not isolated. It is part of a wider pattern visible in multiple conflicts, where the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, attacks on medical facilities, and disregard for civilian protection have become disturbingly normalized. The collapse of New START reinforces this trend by weakening the broader culture of compliance that humanitarian disarmament depends on.
Strengthening humanitarian disarmament—from nuclear weapons to landmines, cluster munitions, and all weapons that devastate civilian life—is now an urgent moral responsibility.
The humanitarian and medical consequences of this moment cannot be overstated. Nuclear weapons are not abstract strategic tools; they are instruments of mass suffering. Their use—even once—would overwhelm health systems, destroy infrastructure, contaminate environments, and inflict irreversible harm on generations. The expiration of New START increases the likelihood of miscalculation, escalation, and arms racing at a time when global humanitarian systems are already stretched beyond capacity.
This is why the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has gained renewed relevance. Its humanitarian logic—grounded in the lived experiences of survivors and the realities of medical response—offers a principled alternative to the paralysis of traditional arms control. As nuclear‑armed states retreat from their obligations, the TPNW stands as a reminder that disarmament is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.
Today’s moment demands more than observation. It requires action.
Governments must restore restraint and rebuild trust in multilateral commitments.
Civil society must raise its voice with renewed urgency.
Humanitarian and medical organizations must continue to highlight the human cost of nuclear policies.
And the media must stop treating nuclear risks as distant or technical; they are immediate threats to human life and dignity.
The expiration of New START is not the end of arms control—but it is a warning. A warning that the international system is drifting toward a world where the most destructive weapons are unconstrained, humanitarian norms are weakened, and global commitments lose their meaning.
Strengthening humanitarian disarmament—from nuclear weapons to landmines, cluster munitions, and all weapons that devastate civilian life—is now an urgent moral responsibility, more than ever.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Nagasaki, a Prescription for Survival
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.
Oct 07, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defining Our Role in the Wake of the International Day of Peace
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.
Sep 22, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow Less
80 Years After US Attack on Hiroshima, Rising Threat Fuels Calls to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
The hibakusha, or survivors, "deserve to see their work vindicated and to witness the end of these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons of total destruction in their lifetime," said ICAN's leader.
Aug 06, 2025
Survivors of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and other nuclear abolitionists renewed calls for ridding the world of nukes on Wednesday, the 80th anniversary of the American attack on the Japanese city.
During the annual Peace Memorial Ceremony in Japan, Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui pointed to Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have contributed to the narrative that nuclear weapons are necessary for national defense and elevated global fears of their use.
"These developments flagrantly disregard the lessons the international community should have learned from the tragedies of history," he said. Russia and the United States—which is arming Ukraine and Israel—have the largest nuclear arsenals. The other nuclear-armed nations are China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom.
"Despite the current turmoil at the nation-state level, we, the people, must never give up," Matsui added. "Instead, we must work even harder to build civil society consensus that nuclear weapons must be abolished for a genuinely peaceful world."
Silent prayers were held in the Japanese city of Hiroshima, marking 80 years since the atomic bombing of the city by the US on August 6, 1945.
[image or embed]
— Al Jazeera English (@aljazeera.com) August 6, 2025 at 6:35 AM
The mayor also urged the Japanese government to respect the wishes of hibakusha, or survivors, and join the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was adopted in 2017 and took effect in 2021.
"The treaty not only bans nuclear weapons and all activities related to their production, deployment, and use, but also mandates that countries that joined the treaty provide support for people harmed by nuclear weapons in the past and for the cleanup of areas that were used for nuclear testing," survivor Terumi Tanaka noted Wednesday in a New York Times opinion piece.
Tanaka was 13 years old at the time of the bombing—an experience he recounted last year, while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of a group he co-chairs: Nihon Hidankyo, also known as the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers.
"Our Nobel Peace Prize sends a message to younger people that they need to be aware that we are facing an emergency—and the need to see a larger movement of young activists working to address the nuclear threat," 93-year-old Tanaka wrote Wednesday. "Even here in Japan, not enough people see this as a pressing issue."
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)—which won the Nobel Peace Prize after playing a significant role in building support for the TPNW in 2017—also used the anniversary to advocate for abolishing nuclear weapons.
ICAN executive Melissa Parke, who joined the ceremony in Japan, said in a statement that "it is not possible to come to Hiroshima and attend these solemn commemorations without being moved as well as convinced of the urgent need for nuclear weapons to be eliminated."
"The hibakusha, who were awarded last year's Nobel Peace Prize for their tenacious campaigning for the elimination of nuclear weapons, deserve to see their work vindicated and to witness the end of these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons of total destruction in their lifetime," Parke argued. "That means the nine nuclear-armed countries, most of which were represented here today, must heed their call to join the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and get rid of their arsenals."
As we mark 80 years since the atomic bombings of Japan, CND Vice-President Caroline Lucas writes from Hiroshima and asks why are nuclear powers ditching disarmament for a new nuclear arms race? Read more: www.independent.co.uk/voices/hiros...
[image or embed]
— Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (@cnduk.bsky.social) August 6, 2025 at 8:03 AM
In a Common Dreams opinion piece about the youth impacted by the 1945 bombings, ICAN treaty coordinator Tim Wright wrote: "The fact that children would suffer the greatest harm of all in the event of a nuclear attack against a city today should have profound implications for policymaking in nuclear-armed states and spur action for disarmament. Yet, all nine such states continue to act contrary to that objective. And the risk of a nuclear weapon being used again appears to be at an all-time high."
Common Dreams also published related opinions from Gerry Condon, a Vietnam-era veteran and former president of Veterans for Peace; Austin Headrick, public education and advocacy coordinator for Asia at American Friends Service Committee; and Ann Wright, a U.S. Army veteran who resigned from the U.S. State Department in opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Speaking at the ongoing 2025 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, Wright noted that "there are a multitude of organizations in the United States and around the world that are working for the elimination of nuclear weapons."
"As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago," she said, "we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons, taking on our governments and the industries that make money from the construction and testing of these weapons of mass destruction."
ICAN in June released a report showing that the world's nine nuclear-armed nations spent more than $100 billion on their arsenals last year, up 11% from 2023. A few days later, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's annual yearbook warned that "a dangerous new nuclear arms race is emerging at a time when arms control regimes are severely weakened."
Those reports followed similar warnings from the experts behind the Doomsday Clock, who in January set the symbol of how close the world is to apocalypse at "89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe."
Fueling fears of such a catastrophe, U.S. President Donald Trump said last Friday that he "ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions" in response to "highly provocative statements" by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council.
During Trump's first term, he withdrew the United States from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia—after which the Kremlin declared a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of those missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry announced Monday that it will no longer abide by its rules, citing recent moves by the U.S. and its allies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Movement Continues for a Nuclear-Free World
As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago, we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons.
Aug 06, 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the 2025 World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.
I bring you greetings and solidarity from civil society movements in the U.S. who have been working diligently for a nuclear-free world against a U.S. government that is intent on spending huge amounts of money on “modernizing” its nuclear weapons.
As this is the commemoration of horrific deaths and wounding of hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago in 1945, as an American citizen, I offer my profound apologies to the families of those killed in Japan—Japanese, Koreans, and other nationalities including the U.S. prisoners of war who were there. And to Marshallese and U.S. “downwinders” who suffered from U.S. testing of atomic and nuclear weapons, for the criminal actions of my government in using these weapons of mass destruction. I also apologize to the Vietnamese delegation at the conference for the U.S. dropping millions of gallons of Agent Orange and leaving tons of unexploded ordnance in Vietnam.
The knowledge that the horrific weapons would be used to kill and maim innocent civilians as a strategy to end the war was brutal, reckless, and without any sense of humanity.
80 years later, we are battling our governments as they continue to spend trillions of dollars to “improve, upgrade, modernize” these weapons.
80 years later, we now know the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the testing of these terrible weapons in Nevada in the United States, the Marshall Islands, the Russian Federation, Mururoa, French Polynesia, Australia, and Algeria have resulted in the legacy of genetic medical conditions for the generations that have followed those who were initially exposed to the radiation emanating from the testing of nuclear bombs.
Most of the test sites were on the lands of Indigenous peoples and far from the capitals of the testing governments. Large swathes of land remain radioactive and unsafe for habitation, even decades after test sites were closed.
Slow Ratification of the TPNW
And yet, 80 years later, we are battling our governments as they continue to spend trillions of dollars to “improve, upgrade, modernize” these weapons that have now been banned by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which opened for signature at the United Nations on September 20, 2017 and entered into force on January 22, 2021.
We know the statistics. By the end of 2024, a total of 94 nations have signed the TPNW, but only 73 have signed and ratified the treaty. There are currently 21 signatory countries that have signed but NOT ratified the TPNW, countries in which their citizens must put pressure on their governments.
Citizen pressure must be put on the 44 nations that, incredibly, OPPOSE the treaty including the nine nuclear weapons countries: the U.S., Russian Federation, France, United Kingdom, China, India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. Fifteen other nations are undecided on whether to accept or reject the treaty.
U.S. States and Cities Say No to Nuclear Weapons
The state legislatures of 5 out of 50 states in the United States—California, Oregon, New Jersey, Maine, and Rhode Island—have passed resolutions in support of the TPNW. Five large counties in the U.S. have passed resolutions in support of the TPNW, including the city and county where I live, Honolulu, Hawaii, as well as the city and county of San Francisco, and two counties in Maryland next to Washington, D.C.
Dozens of cities across the country, including Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., have also appealed to the U.S. government to sign and ratify the TPNW. In 2021, New York City resolved to pursue the divestment of public funds from nuclear weapons makers in response to the TPNW’s entry into force.
Japanese-American Rep. Jill Tokuda Cosponsors Stop the Nuclear Arms Race Resolution
In 2025, in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) introduced House Resolution 317 “Urging the United States to lead the world back from the brink of nuclear war and halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.”
Unfortunately, the resolution has only 28 sponsors or cosponsors out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, all from the Democratic Party, none from the Republican Party, meaning we have much work to do in the U.S. Congress.
About House Resolution 317, Jill Tokuda, my congressional representative in Hawaii who is a cosponsor of the resolution and who is Japanese American, one of only four Japanese Americans in the U.S. Congress, stated:
As a Japanese American, my heritage is deeply tied to the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and the atrocities of war. This resolution is about our moral imperative to achieve nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It is not only a call for peace, but a commitment to ensuring that such tragedies are never repeated. This resolution represents a vital step toward a safer, more just world.
The resolution urges the United States to:
- Engage in good-faith negotiations with all nuclear-armed states to halt the buildup of nuclear arsenals and pursue verifiable, time-bound reductions;
- Conclude new arms control agreements with Russia and engage China on nuclear risk reduction;
- Renounce the option of using nuclear weapons first;
- End the Cold War-era “hair trigger alert” posture;
- Rein in the production of new nuclear warheads and delivery systems;
- Preserve the moratorium on nuclear testing;
- Protect radiation-impacted communities and workers through full remediation, compensation, and expanded healthcare, including an expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA); and
- Plan a just economic transition for workers and communities dependent on the nuclear weapons industry.
U.S. Organizations Sending Greetings
There are a multitude of organizations in the United States and around the world that are working for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
They send their greetings to colleagues here in Japan and around the world as they continue their work in the U.S. Congress, in the states and cities and counties of the United States.
From June 8-11, 2025, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s (ANA) held its 38th annual D.C. Days to advocate in the U.S. Congress for safer nuclear weapons and waste policies.
ANA includes 30 organizations concerned with the local and national consequences of nuclear weapons and waste policy decisions. During the week of advocacy in the U.S. Congress, meetings were held with 80 members of Congress or their staff.
Referencing the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating waste in the federal government through the draconian measures taken by the Department of Government Efficiency, ANA published a new resource, “What about WASTE? 80 Years of Nuclear Waste” as a part of this year’s effort in the U.S. Congress.
The Nevada Desert Experience continues its annual spring Sacred Peace Walk from the Atomic Tests Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada, 60 miles out to the Nuclear Test site on Western Shoshone land. The site was the primary testing location of American nuclear devices from 1951 to 1992. Around 928 announced nuclear tests occurred there; 828 tests were underground and 100 were atmospheric tests.
In another initiative for public awareness of the bloated U.S. military budget and nuclear weapons program, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream in June 2025 initiated a $2.3 million, 2-year advocacy project called “Up in Arms.” The campaign is to reduce U.S. military spending, particularly on nuclear weapons; to make cutting the Pentagon budget a debate in the 2026 elections; and to bring a national focus onto nuclear dangers and the necessity of disarmament.
The International People’s Tribunal on the 1945 U.S. Atomic Bombings continues to bring international attention, and hopefully justice, to the Japanese and Korean victims and survivors of the effects of the horrific U.S. atomic bombs used in 1945.
The Lakenheath Peace Camp held in May 2025 at the U.S. Air Base in Lakenheath, U.K. focused on stopping nuclear weapons being sent again by the U.S. to be housed on U.K. soil.
NO to NATO events were held in June in The Hague, Netherlands to protest the 5% increase for NATO countries in national spending for military at the expense of social programs for the people and to alert the world to the dangers of the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.
The International Peace Forum in Brussels, Belgium also in June 2025 focused on the increased militarization in Europe and the necessity of eliminating nuclear weapons.
The annual STOPP RAMSTEIN camp and demonstration, held in June at the largest U.S. air base in Europe, underscored the need to challenge the continuing U.S. dominance in European security issues and the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The Gaza Freedom Flotilla attempted to sail two ships in May and June to break the Israeli genocide and the illegal Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, the complicity of the U.S. and other countries in the genocide, and the refusal of Israel to acknowledge its nuclear weapons.
Individuals Continue to Take Action to Bring Attention to Ending Nuclear Weapons
In 2024-2025, 81-year-old U.S. citizen Susan Crane spent 230 days in prison in Germany for cutting a fence into Büchel Air Force Base, climbing atop earthen bunkers used to store both nuclear weapons and German Tornado fighter jets to protest the stationing of American nuclear weapons in Germany, and for refusing to pay a fine. For three decades, Crane protested nuclear weapons in the U.S. and in Europe. She’s poured her own blood on a nuclear destroyer and taken a hammer to warplanes. In total, she said she’s served around seven years in prison.
Büchel Air Force Base trains German soldiers to drop hydrogen bombs on behalf of the United States as part of NATO's nuclear sharing arrangements.
Susan van der Hijden from the Netherlands and Gerd Buntzly from Germany were both in prison in Germany starting in June 2024 for similar actions at the Büchel Air Force Base.
Four U.S. peace activist have been incarcerated in Germany over protests at the Büchel Air Base: John LaForge; Dennis DuVall; Susan Crane; and Brian Terrell, a long-time Catholic Worker and human rights activist from Maloy, Iowa who works with the Nevada Desert Experience and served 15 days in the Wittlich Prison south of Cologne, from February 26 to March 12, 2025.
In June 2025, Veterans For Peace members held a 40-day fast at the United Nation and the U.S. and Israeli missions to the U.N. in New York City to stop the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza as well as for a nuclear free world.
Pledge to Continue Working for the End of Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction
As we commemorate the lives lost and damaged by nuclear weapons 80 years ago, we commit ourselves to work harder for the elimination of these weapons, taking on our governments and the industries that make money from the construction and testing of these weapons of mass destruction.
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Profiteers Benefit as Nuclear Weapons Spending Soared Above $100 Billion Last Year
New analysis reveals that global nuclear weapons spending "could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Jun 13, 2025
The world's nine nuclear-armed nations spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year—up 11% from 2023—with the United States accounting for both the largest share and biggest increase in expenditures, a report published Friday by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons reveals.
The new ICAN analysis identifies a $9.9 billion increase in global nuclear weapons spending in 2024, with the U.S.—the only country to ever carry out a nuclear attack on another nation—spending $56.8 billion, more than the combined expenditures of the eight other countries with nukes. In addition to the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have nuclear arsenals. The $5.3 billion annual spending increase by the U.S. was also more than any other nuclear power.
All that spending on doomsday weapons padded the profits of major arms makers. According to the report:
In 2024, at least twenty-six companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance held significant contracts for their work. These companies earned at least $43.5 billion in the year and hold at least $463 billion in outstanding contracts. In 2024, new contracts worth around $20 billion were awarded to these companies. The companies identified in this report paid lobbyists in France and the United States more than $128 million to represent their interests last year. They also had 196 meetings with high-level U.K. officials including 18 with the prime minister's office in 2024.
"Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report states. "They could feed all of the 345 million people currently facing the most severe levels of hunger globally, including starvation, for nearly two years."
Noting that "98 countries have signed, ratified, or acceded" to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), ICAN—which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on the landmark accord—asserted that "it is up to each government, and the citizens of that country, to decide which path they will choose."
ICAN asserted that the stakes are higher than at any time in a generation.
"With two major wars involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as nuclear tensions escalating between India and Pakistan and on the Korean Peninsula, the risk that nuclear weapons could be used in combat is widely regarded as the highest it has been since the Cold War and possibly ever," the group warned Friday in a separate statement. "In response, the nuclear-armed states are clinging to the doctrine of deterrence which is based on brinkmanship and the threat to use nuclear weapons, exacerbating the risk of conflict."
Susi Snyder, ICAN program coordinator and report co-author, said Friday that the global crisis of nuclear proliferation and out-of-control spending can be solved, but that "doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians."
"The good news," she added, "is a majority are going in another direction. Ninety-eight states, supported by over 700 civil society organizations, have either signed, ratified, or directly acceded to the... TPNW that came into force four years ago."
This year's ICAN report highlighted the "hidden costs" of nuclear weapons.
"It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers in countries that boast of their democratic credentials are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them," ICAN policy and research coordinator and report co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre said. "It is time for these democratically elected leaders to heed the call of their people to remove nuclear weapons from their countries and work for their total elimination."
Responding to the report, Oliver Meier, policy and research director at the European Leadership Network, a London-based think tank, said, "At a time when better transparency and accountability of nuclear weapon states range high on the agenda of many non-nuclear weapon states, the absolute secrecy and lack of engagement on the costs of Russian and NATO nuclear sharing arrangements are an anachronism."
"In democratic societies, legislators and other stakeholders must have opportunities to review these arrangements, including relevant expenditure," he added.
The day before ICAN published the report, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, was joined by retired military officers and national security experts in Washington, D.C. for the launch of Up In Arms, a four-year campaign "to bring common sense to the Department of Defense and the country's budgetary bottom line."
"There will be no peace, there will be no security, until we start using our resources to provide for the needs of our people at home and around the world," said Cohen. "And we have the money to do it, at no additional taxpayer expense. If we take half the money budgeted for the Pentagon and invested in the things people need and want, the American Dream can become a reality again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
No One Wins When Nuclear-Armed States Believe That ‘We Can’t Lose’
Any conflict risks going nuclear if one of the belligerent parties choses to use their ultimate weapon rather than accept the possibility of defeat.
Mar 28, 2025
Nations engaged in wars with conventional weapons are not likely to hold back from using their most powerful weapons if they believe they are losing the war, and for too many countries in our world the most powerful weapons are nuclear. Countries committed to fighting a conventional war are also likely to be committed to the meme of “We Can’t Lose.”
A nuclear war could begin with the losing side in a conventional war making use of a small local tactical nuclear weapon to destroy the supply lines of its enemy. But once one side uses such a weapon the other side will feel that it too must engage with its most powerful weapons. Frustration is likely to set in when it appears that restricting such weapons to the immediate battlefield of the war is not sufficient to win. It might then be seen as necessary to destroy the enemy’s airfields and the power centers in its capital with longer range, more powerful nuclear weapons.
Just such a sequence of escalation in the use of nuclear weapons from tactical use in a local battlefield to strategic use in the destruction of an enemy’s cities was shown to be likely in a 1983 simulation described in a recent article by William Langewiesche in The New York Times Magazine. The simulation was large scale and involved much of the U.S. defense establishment. The simulation began with a conventional war between Russia and the West on the fields of Poland and East Germany. As it began to appear that the West was losing and the Netherlands was threatened, the West initiated the use of small tactical nuclear weapons that it fired onto the enemy’s supply lines in the local battlefield. Russia followed suit. Within a few days the airfields behind the frontlines from which the planes dropping the tactical weapons took off were struck with larger nuclear weapons. Finally, strategic weapons were used against the capitals of Western Europe and Russia.
One fears the near inevitability that one or more of the current wars in our world will end in nuclear war, the accompanying nuclear winter, and the possible end of human life on Earth.
The results surprised those who participated in the simulation. The conclusion was that a nuclear war cannot be controlled.
Our world has many local conflicts such as the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that involve nuclear powers. This is in addition to major geostrategic conflicts between the nuclear powers of U.S., Russia, and China. All of these conflicts have the potential of becoming nuclear.
Russia, for example, has warned the West that it will use a nuclear weapon in its war with Ukraine if it believes it is losing the current war with conventional weapons. Russia is thus telling the west that “we can’t lose.”
Israel has warned that it will exercise “The Samson Option” if it is in a war with its neighbors and believes it can no longer defend Israel with conventional weapons. The Samson Option involves the nuclear bombing of cities such as Damascus, Bagdad, or Cairo with nuclear weapons. More recently, Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu has raised the possibility of dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Israel too is thus telling the world that “we cannot and will not lose.”
It is likely that the United States too believes that “we cannot lose.” If it is in a war with China using conventional weapons and China is gaining the upper hand then it is quite possible that the U.S., with its triad of nuclear-armed submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles, would use these nuclear weapons. In fact, many in the U.S. defense establishment believe that a nuclear war with China can be fought and won by the U.S. Thus, the U.S. too believes that “we cannot lose.” Similar considerations by the U.S. would apply if it were losing a war with Russia.
Other states with nuclear weapons may also believe they cannot lose. North Korea has stated that it would not use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike but would use its nuclear weapons if attacked, and recent events on the Korean peninsula suggest that war between the two Koreas is a real possibility. It also seems likely that if Pakistan or India were engaged in a conventional war and one side was losing, that that side would believe they could not lose and would initiate a nuclear exchange.
The likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons becomes still greater if other nations such as Japan, Brazil, Iran, or Saudi Arabia join the nuclear club in the interest of deterrence (no nuclear armed country has ever been invaded) and adopt the meme of “we cannot lose.”
All this makes one pessimistic. One fears the near inevitability that one or more of the current wars in our world will end in nuclear war, the accompanying nuclear winter, and the possible end of human life on Earth.
What can be done? It seems the only solution is the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as proposed in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that has now been signed by 93 non-nuclear states. Unfortunately, the nuclear states have not signed onto this treaty but should be encouraged to do so.
Skeptics will say that nuclear powers might sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons but would hold in secret a few nuclear weapons so as to be able to dominate their enemies in a conventional war. That may well happen, but the vast reduction of nuclear weapons that the treaty would require and the absence of nuclear fear it would bring with it would make the universal adoption of the treaty a self-perpetuating step toward the world we deserve and must have.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy