The Coming Ban on Nuclear Weapons

Mar 24, 2017 Zia Mian

On March 27, the United Nations will start negotiations on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states will finally be put to the test: Will they keep their promises to disarm and join the treaty, or will they reject international law and the will of the global community?

PRINCETON – On March 27, the United Nations will start negotiations on an international treaty to ban nuclear weapons. It will be a milestone marking the beginning of the end of an age of existential peril for humanity.

This day was bound to come. From the beginning, even those who set the world on the path to nuclear weapons understood the mortal danger and moral challenge confronting humanity. In April 1945, US Secretary of War Henry Stimson explained to President Harry Truman that the atomic bomb would be “the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Stimson warned that “the world in its present state of moral advancement compared with its technical development would be eventually at the mercy of such a weapon. In other words, modern civilization might be completely destroyed.”

Soon afterwards, the newly created UN, established with the express purpose “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” took the threat posed by nuclear arms as its first priority. In January 1946, in its very first resolution, the UN called for a plan “for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons.”

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

Peter Schaeffer Mar 27, 2017

A successful ban on nuclear weapons would be great for the U.S. and even better for the Trump folks in the U.S. In a world without nuclear weapons, the U.S. would enjoy the services of the two most powerful admirals in history (Admiral Atlantic and Admiral Pacific). Without nuclear weapons the U.S. could easily defend itself and ignore the problems of the rest of the world.

However, this is just a fantasy. The countries that count, China, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, etc. aren't about to give up their nuclear arsenals. This is just another silly dream.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adam Saxe Mar 26, 2017

Henry Stimson was right, of course. But is the very fact that nuclear weapons have such destructive power is what gives them "appeal" to states. The Chemical Weapons Convention was a great accomplishment, but not terribly difficult. CWs are not effective deterrents on their own. They're tactical devices. States with nukes or under a nuclear umbrella had little trouble in practice giving them up, knowing that their survival was still assured by the nuke.

But it is the power of the nuclear weapon that gives logic to states like Britain or France maintaining relatively small nuclear arsenals. At the end of the day, if forced to stand alone in conflict with another great power, they can inflict a seemingly unacceptable cost on their adversary, thus deterring him from trying to destroy their countries. Israel's "secret" arsenal probably does not exceed 200 devices, if that. But it doesn't need to. Israel does not to take on the world, but simply has to possess the capability to destroy its most likely adversaries. At the end of the day, the Arab states and Iran know that if they truly attempt to wipe Israel off the map, they too will be annihilated.

The point is the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal or the alliance with a nuclear power is not irrational. It is actually inherently logical if one accepts the traditional model of international relations--the "self help" model. Despite all the international organizations, sovereign states will put survival and pursuit of national interests at the top of their agendas. That's just how it is.

And all the major powers either have their own nukes or under an umbrella--and that includes states that might not "officially" be part of a nuclear security agreement but, de facto, are. For an example, if somebody nuked Brazil, the US would not stand idly by.

A nuke-free world may come about some day. But it would require a radical shift in the thinking of the great powers. It is almost akin to an addict giving up drugs or alcohol. In recovery, it's a day to day battle to stay away from the bad stuff. But the temptation is always there. Such would be the case for great powers in a (supposedly) nuke-free world. And, of course, there would always be the fear of a rogue state. If everybody destroys their nukes, the state that has just one bomb has now become the most powerful country in the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G GEO Mar 25, 2017

Starting war with someone that has nuclear bombs its unbelievable stupid. Its a move with only negative expectations. Its not an accident that since we developed nuclear weapons there was never a serious conflict between 2 nuclear powers.
I cant imagine any state that would make the choice for a direct confrontation with a nuclear power. If it wins then the looser doesn't have anything to loose and its likely to use nuclear weapon.

I do believe that non of the wars that happened after world war 2 would have happened if the states that were attacked had nuclear bombs. Not even world war 2 would happened if polland and germany had nuclear bombs.

Besides my beliefs i find really difficult that a ban of nuclear weapons could happen.
First of all its high unlikely for everyone to agree.
Second some states can simply develop them or get them and deny their existence. (for example Israel)

If history can teach as something is that humans NEVER backed up or stop using any innovation they developed except from the instances they didn't need to use it. Sad but history confirm it.

ps.I would agree that its a balance and peace of terror.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Mar 25, 2017

There is one thing that those considering the political ramifications of nuclear weapons seem to forget and that is that even a small, localised nuclear conflict like for instance between India and Pakistan, would result in an amount of dust and debris being thrown into the upper atmosphere that would result in wiping out several years worth of harvest in the world's most populous regions. There is a future for humanity and western civilisation but there are no nuclear weapons in that future. A future where humans thrive, will be free from nukes. There is simply no way you can have both.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 24, 2017

It would create a worse situation where those with them will keep them secret, like Israel currently does. Better that they kept out in the open like the US and Russia do.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jurgen Peter Mar 24, 2017

Will they keep their promises to disarm and join the treaty, or will they choose their weapons over international law and the will of the global community?
==
I assume that this a rhetorical question. Obviously the U.S., Russia, Israel, Pakistan, etc are not about to give up their nukes anytime soon. They will never give up these weapons of mass-delusion until the weapons destroy them, in part or in whole. Then the survivors will pick up the pieces and finally nuclear weapons will be no more. But I would love to believe differently.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Mar 24, 2017

It probably would be helpful to create the general instrument and and a body of signatories. Then each of the nuclear weapons states can negotiate among themselves and with the signatories regarding the conditions on which they might join.
- Adam Saxe Mar 26, 2017
  
  You do realize--I hope--that this is never going to happen. The UNGA can pass a resolution that the Earth is flat. There is no power in any movement unless the Big Five agree to it. And there is no chance in hell that any of those powers are going to commit to abandoning their nuclear arsenals.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Mar 24, 2017

I hope so, but... realistically? How strong is the commitment to the quaint form of rule-of law-internationally, in which the rules are the same for all? No WMD's for you! But for me?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Mar 24, 2017

Australia, Canada, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Spain oppose making nuclear weapons illegal. However it is US opposition which will render this initiative utterly farcical. China previously abstained on this issue but, clearly, isn't going to unilaterally get rid of its nuclear arsenal. Neither will India and Pakistan. The combined population of states with nuclear weapons, or states- like Australia or Germany- reliant on a nuclear umbrella, exceeds half the World's population. No doubt, the UN has plenty of small countries which don't have such weapons and who may vote against them- unless pressurised by the Americans, if that is, they care enough to do so- and, no doubt, certain Islamic countries have an interest in pushing this agenda because they lack what Israel has, still, this entire exercise seems entirely pointless.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Mar 24, 2017

Sadly the geni called Little Boy wont fit back in the bottle and Fat Man is an even harder fit. The conflict of the position is Little and Fat were justified to end a war but any replication is viewed as a crime against humanity which would certainly indicate Fat Man used in full knowledge of Little Boy was a crime, just the law hadnt been passed. The major players wish to retain hold of a weapon whose use is criminal, on what moral ground are they going to stop minor players wanting what is now a mature technology. On what strategic argument grounds are they going to stop minor players when nukes give them parity. If the use is criminal then holding the weapon indicates criminal intent because otherwise holding it is pointless. I have never seen laws stopping criminals and those wanting to hold nukes are simply arguing they are a better criminal than other criminals, which may well be the case, but is still remarkably weak moral high ground
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/olX2CJq

Cookies and Privacy

The Coming Ban on Nuclear Weapons

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Nationalists and Globalists

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The Coming Ban on Nuclear Weapons

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification