Necessary Strides for Nuclear Disarmament Sam Atalla ‘23

Necessary Strides for Nuclear Disarmament

Sam Atalla ‘23

It’s no surprise that nuclear disarmament efforts have fallen short, but the United States cannot expect other countries to strive for peace if we cannot take a leadership role in reducing - if not eliminating - global nuclear weapons stockpiles.

At the height of the Cold War in 1986, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had nearly 65,000 nuclear weapons combined. Over the following decades, both countries agreed to reduce their arsenals to avert the possibility of an apocalyptic altercation and to benefit their strained economies. Now in 2022, the United States and Russia each own around 5,000 nuclear weapons, comprising 90% of the world’s overall reserves.

While disarmament treaties have solidified some gains on paper, they have yet to do so in practice. For example, the 1968 United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”) requires the P-5 (permanent five) nucleararmed states — U.S., Russia, U.K., France, and China — to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at their total elimination. But the pace has been slow. In addition, the bilateral 2011 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) between the US and Russia placed important limits on nuclear missiles, launchers, and warheads. However, the agreement has been largely derailed by the Ukraine war. Although the significant reduction of readily available nuclear weapons is evidence that disarmament is possible, these efforts are not nearly enough.

The United States is currently planning on spending $1.5 trillion over the coming decades to replace and upgrade all of its nuclear weapons, directly contradicting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why is the U.S. rebuilding its nuclear weapons and delivery systems? There is no plausible reason for the US to allocate this amount of funding toward the large-scale development of more nuclear weapons. Instead of squandering taxpayer dollars, the US should take a global leadership role and advocate for reducing nuclear weapons with an eye toward abolition.

Nuclear deterrence, the principle that states have the right to use nuclear weapons in selfdefense against aggressive attacks, should not be a policy relied upon for national security. Will mutually assured destruction save humankind from destroying itself? Probably not. Russia has already declared that it will use nuclear weapons to defend itself or its territory. In September 2022, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, made it clear that “those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them” and that he would use “all available means to protect Russia and our people.” In a recent conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir Putin also warned that U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove that “you don’t need to attack the major cities in order to win.” Meanwhile, with tensions escalating,

U.S. President Joe Biden has said that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” could spiral out of control if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Furthermore, the chances of miscalculation are too high. While it may seem harmless for the US to maintain our current nuclear stockpiles, just one mistake could cause a global catastrophe. Several instances have already occurred over the last 60 years where nuclear war nearly became a reality due to careless

misinterpretations and avoidable blunders. For example, in 1995, Russian President Boris Yeltsin mistook a scientific probe investigating the northern lights in Norway as an imminent attack against Russia and nearly launched a nuclear counterattack.

Can the U.S. help guide the world away from a cataclysmic nuclear abyss? Yes, and we should serve as a model by working with the other eight nuclear-armed states to avoid escalating the brewing nuclear arms race. China, for example, currently owns approximately 350 nuclear weapons and plans to increase its stockpile to 1,000 by 2030. China is taking these steps to develop its nuclear deterrence capacity and catch up with the U.S. and Russia. If the U.S. focused on further reducing its nuclear weapons, however, China would be less motivated to develop new weapons of mass destruction at such rapid rates. By signing the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which 91 countries have already ratified, the U.S. can work to help ensure that no new nuclear weapons are built and that all stockpiles are ultimately abolished.

Instead of developing more nuclear weapons, the US should allocate funding towards nurturing and preserving humankind and life on planet earth. UN SecretaryGeneral Antonio Guterres told delegates at the Environmental Summit in Egypt (COP27), “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.” Rather than producing more destructive nuclear weapons, we can work to spread peace between nations and address the damage we have already done to the environment.

Nuclear disarmament is no simple task and won’t magically happen overnight. But the process can be started by individuals advocating at the local or national level by talking to their legislators. We can express our support for bills aimed at the prohibition of nuclear weapons, a crucial task that should be taken more seriously by all - especially by our so called leaders, who need to take more responsibility for addressing existential threats to humankind and for protecting the collective health, safety, and well-being of the people they represent.