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
Stop the New Arms Race: North Korea's Nuclear Test Highlights Worrying Development
'It is urgent that states concerned about humanitarian law and humanitarian values act upon these beliefs and prohibit the most destructive and inhume weapon of them all.'
Jan 06, 2016
On 6 January, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed it carried out a successful test of its first hydrogen bomb. While the nature and details surrounding the test are still unconfirmed, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization - which has monitoring stations positioned around the world to detect underground seismic activity - announced that it detected a seismic event similar to DPRK's test in 2013 took place this morning.
The DPRK's nuclear test would be their fourth in just a few years, and regardless of whether or not it was successful, whether it was a hydrogen bomb or not, their announcement today reminded the world about its nuclear weapons.
The test comes at a time where the world has seen escalating tensions between nuclear-armed states, fueled by hostile rhetoric and expensive modernization programs.
"We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited."
In 2015, Russian state media "accidentally" publicized plans for a new nuclear torpedo, armed with a hydrogen bomb that, if used against a city, would cause unprecedented radioactive fallout that could last for decades. While it's not clear if these plans are real or intentionally antagonistic propaganda, Russian "nuclear-saber rattling" during the conflict in Ukraine highlights that nuclear weapons are still considered a concrete military option.
And it's not just North Korea and Russia boosting their nuclear weapons arsenals today. China, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom--are also developing or deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so. The U.S. alone is planning to invest 1 trillion dollars in the next 10 years. China's strategy might entail an increase in the number of warheads it possesses. And this all comes against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between some of these countries.
A return to a nuclear standoff today would be a devastating development for international peace and security. Numerous accidents, near misses and security breaches throughout the Cold War have shown us how close to a nuclear catastrophe we have been. Today the risk of a nuclear detonation is on the rise and national security experts predict an increased risk of nuclear war.
If this happened today, it wouldn't be two blocks of states challenging each other in a deadly arms race, but also the "new kids on the nuclear block" such as India, Pakistan, Israel and DPRK. Proliferation might escalate further and cause additional instability and conflict in already volatile regions.
Nuclear weapons inflict indiscriminate and inhumane harm on humans and produce disastrous environmental impacts. Any detonation--either by intent or accident--would cause unacceptable humanitarian consequences, and no humanitarian relief agency could provide any meaningful assistance in the aftermath.
Despite this knowledge, the nine nuclear-armed states and the 28 members of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, believe that nuclear weapons are acceptable means of warfare and defense. The continued argument that nuclear weapons are essential to their security will only encourage other states to follow suit.
It is therefore urgent that states that are concerned about humanitarian law and humanitarian values act upon these beliefs and prohibit the most destructive and inhume weapon of them all. This must be done before a new arms race throws the world into duck and cover exercises all over again.
We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited.
Next month, new nuclear weapon talks will start in Geneva, Switzerland to develop legal measures against nuclear weapons. 121 states have endorsed the "Humanitarian Pledge", which recognize that no explicit prohibition of nuclear weapons exists and commits to fill such legal gap.
The international community must use these talks in Geneva to develop a new legally binding instrument that prohibits nuclear weapons.
We cannot allow the world to slide into a new Cold War. We might not be so lucky this time.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Beatrice Fihn
Beatrice Fihn is currently the Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) where she is managing the campaign consisting of more than 420 NGOs working together to achieve a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Shehas worked with disarmament issues and multilateral negotiations since 2006. Prior to her work at ICAN, Fihn managed the disarmament programme at the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the Reaching Critical Will project and worked for the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. She has written extensively on disarmament processes and civil society engagement. She has a law degree from the University of London.
On 6 January, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed it carried out a successful test of its first hydrogen bomb. While the nature and details surrounding the test are still unconfirmed, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization - which has monitoring stations positioned around the world to detect underground seismic activity - announced that it detected a seismic event similar to DPRK's test in 2013 took place this morning.
The DPRK's nuclear test would be their fourth in just a few years, and regardless of whether or not it was successful, whether it was a hydrogen bomb or not, their announcement today reminded the world about its nuclear weapons.
The test comes at a time where the world has seen escalating tensions between nuclear-armed states, fueled by hostile rhetoric and expensive modernization programs.
"We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited."
In 2015, Russian state media "accidentally" publicized plans for a new nuclear torpedo, armed with a hydrogen bomb that, if used against a city, would cause unprecedented radioactive fallout that could last for decades. While it's not clear if these plans are real or intentionally antagonistic propaganda, Russian "nuclear-saber rattling" during the conflict in Ukraine highlights that nuclear weapons are still considered a concrete military option.
And it's not just North Korea and Russia boosting their nuclear weapons arsenals today. China, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom--are also developing or deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so. The U.S. alone is planning to invest 1 trillion dollars in the next 10 years. China's strategy might entail an increase in the number of warheads it possesses. And this all comes against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between some of these countries.
A return to a nuclear standoff today would be a devastating development for international peace and security. Numerous accidents, near misses and security breaches throughout the Cold War have shown us how close to a nuclear catastrophe we have been. Today the risk of a nuclear detonation is on the rise and national security experts predict an increased risk of nuclear war.
If this happened today, it wouldn't be two blocks of states challenging each other in a deadly arms race, but also the "new kids on the nuclear block" such as India, Pakistan, Israel and DPRK. Proliferation might escalate further and cause additional instability and conflict in already volatile regions.
Nuclear weapons inflict indiscriminate and inhumane harm on humans and produce disastrous environmental impacts. Any detonation--either by intent or accident--would cause unacceptable humanitarian consequences, and no humanitarian relief agency could provide any meaningful assistance in the aftermath.
Despite this knowledge, the nine nuclear-armed states and the 28 members of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, believe that nuclear weapons are acceptable means of warfare and defense. The continued argument that nuclear weapons are essential to their security will only encourage other states to follow suit.
It is therefore urgent that states that are concerned about humanitarian law and humanitarian values act upon these beliefs and prohibit the most destructive and inhume weapon of them all. This must be done before a new arms race throws the world into duck and cover exercises all over again.
We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited.
Next month, new nuclear weapon talks will start in Geneva, Switzerland to develop legal measures against nuclear weapons. 121 states have endorsed the "Humanitarian Pledge", which recognize that no explicit prohibition of nuclear weapons exists and commits to fill such legal gap.
The international community must use these talks in Geneva to develop a new legally binding instrument that prohibits nuclear weapons.
We cannot allow the world to slide into a new Cold War. We might not be so lucky this time.
Beatrice Fihn
Beatrice Fihn is currently the Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) where she is managing the campaign consisting of more than 420 NGOs working together to achieve a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Shehas worked with disarmament issues and multilateral negotiations since 2006. Prior to her work at ICAN, Fihn managed the disarmament programme at the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the Reaching Critical Will project and worked for the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. She has written extensively on disarmament processes and civil society engagement. She has a law degree from the University of London.
On 6 January, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed it carried out a successful test of its first hydrogen bomb. While the nature and details surrounding the test are still unconfirmed, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization - which has monitoring stations positioned around the world to detect underground seismic activity - announced that it detected a seismic event similar to DPRK's test in 2013 took place this morning.
The DPRK's nuclear test would be their fourth in just a few years, and regardless of whether or not it was successful, whether it was a hydrogen bomb or not, their announcement today reminded the world about its nuclear weapons.
The test comes at a time where the world has seen escalating tensions between nuclear-armed states, fueled by hostile rhetoric and expensive modernization programs.
"We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited."
In 2015, Russian state media "accidentally" publicized plans for a new nuclear torpedo, armed with a hydrogen bomb that, if used against a city, would cause unprecedented radioactive fallout that could last for decades. While it's not clear if these plans are real or intentionally antagonistic propaganda, Russian "nuclear-saber rattling" during the conflict in Ukraine highlights that nuclear weapons are still considered a concrete military option.
And it's not just North Korea and Russia boosting their nuclear weapons arsenals today. China, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom--are also developing or deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so. The U.S. alone is planning to invest 1 trillion dollars in the next 10 years. China's strategy might entail an increase in the number of warheads it possesses. And this all comes against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between some of these countries.
A return to a nuclear standoff today would be a devastating development for international peace and security. Numerous accidents, near misses and security breaches throughout the Cold War have shown us how close to a nuclear catastrophe we have been. Today the risk of a nuclear detonation is on the rise and national security experts predict an increased risk of nuclear war.
If this happened today, it wouldn't be two blocks of states challenging each other in a deadly arms race, but also the "new kids on the nuclear block" such as India, Pakistan, Israel and DPRK. Proliferation might escalate further and cause additional instability and conflict in already volatile regions.
Nuclear weapons inflict indiscriminate and inhumane harm on humans and produce disastrous environmental impacts. Any detonation--either by intent or accident--would cause unacceptable humanitarian consequences, and no humanitarian relief agency could provide any meaningful assistance in the aftermath.
Despite this knowledge, the nine nuclear-armed states and the 28 members of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, believe that nuclear weapons are acceptable means of warfare and defense. The continued argument that nuclear weapons are essential to their security will only encourage other states to follow suit.
It is therefore urgent that states that are concerned about humanitarian law and humanitarian values act upon these beliefs and prohibit the most destructive and inhume weapon of them all. This must be done before a new arms race throws the world into duck and cover exercises all over again.
We have banned biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions because of their inhumane impacts, but the biggest bomb of them all is yet not prohibited.
Next month, new nuclear weapon talks will start in Geneva, Switzerland to develop legal measures against nuclear weapons. 121 states have endorsed the "Humanitarian Pledge", which recognize that no explicit prohibition of nuclear weapons exists and commits to fill such legal gap.
The international community must use these talks in Geneva to develop a new legally binding instrument that prohibits nuclear weapons.
We cannot allow the world to slide into a new Cold War. We might not be so lucky this time.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.