Global Nuclear Disarmament: Putting Fear back in its Holster

Weighing the Pros and Cons

Should we focus on complete disarmament, or crisis stability?

Because of a perceived

threat, nuclear

weaponry is developed.

These weapons provide

immediate power and status, and

threaten territorial and

global enemies.

Nuclear Arms Proliferation

What is being done?(4)

Many global policies and treaties reflect the desire of the world to engage in a disarmament movement.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed by Russia and the USA in 2011.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has been ratified by 159 states, and 24 more have signed it.

The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) is in negotiations—it would prohibit the production of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium.

The UN Conference on Disarmament (CD) is supported by 65 nations.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has 189 state signatures.

Changing Times, Changing Minds (2)

Technological advancements, such as space travel, begin to

alter our perception of Earth and it’s inhabitants.

Images such as Apollo 8’s

Earthrise and Apollo 17’s Blue Marble influence

this.

Movies begin to

show other perspectiv

es, and depict the “what-ifs” of nuclear

fallout.

Photo courtesy of Google Images.

Photo courtesy of Google Images.

If we disarm, what will protect us? (1) (4)

If we disarm, won’t we be vulnerable?

While some say that disarmament is impossible due to territorial threats to vulnerable states, policies that include global collaboration for security and safety encourage disarmament while decreasing nuclear threat.

How can states disarm safely?

States in positions of territorial threats would engage in treaties with larger, more powerful countries. Global accountability, active pro-disarmament voices and policies and setting peaceful examples, such as signing the new START and NPT, all encourage disarmament and discourage proliferation.

How can we stay “nuke-free”?Treaties and policies that demand rigorous checks on nuclear states, regulation of nuclear materials, surprise inspections, and powerful alliances would serve as deterrents for proliferating, selling, manufacturing, or harboring nuclear weapons.

States stay armed,

ensuring that if a nuclear

threat is made, they have an

equally destructive answer. This

would deter the use of nuclear weapons. (3)

Seventy six percent of the world desires global

disarmament. (6)

States build policies around

security through nuclear

weaponry, causing

proliferation. (1)

States without secure

regulation or security in

hostile areas increase risk of

terrorist s utilizing nuclear weaponry. (7)

(8)

Using nuclear weapons

commits the greatest atrocity:

indiscriminant killing of the guilty and innocent

persons. (6)

Without disarming,

nuclear states pose a

constant threat to non-

nuclear states. This breeds fear

and mistrust. (1)

Internal politics create different motivations for developing or maintaining

nuclear weapons, making it difficult to

reach global consensus. (5)

Nuclear weapons have a dramatic and devastatingly

permanent effect on our planet—from it’s inhabitants to

it’s ecosystem, the power to utterly destroy has never been

more apparent than it is during nuclear fallout.

Understanding the myriad reasons that methodical

disarmament is necessary is the first step to successfully and completely eliminating these massively destructive

weapons. (All photos courtesy of Google Images.)

Human Cost: Nuclear weapons, while promising safety, threaten utter destruction. The effects of nuclear fallout on humans range from immediate vaporization to fatal burns; from radiation resulting in cancer and infertility to reproductive malformations. Predominantly, the result is death, by varying degrees of time.Environmental Cost: If only

0.03% of the world’s nuclear weapons were used, the ozone would be depleted by 40-70% in certain areas. Crops would take up to a decade to grow after the fallout, and the atmosphere would be so polluted that many areas would be uninhabitable by any life forms.

Global Implications: The detonation of nuclear weapons—for testing or warfare, creates a world of mistrust, fear, and destruction. Weapon deployment by one state threatens the entire planet, and calls into question the role of each nation in protecting the only place we have to live, and therefore, the life of everyone sharing it.

1. Blair, B., Brown, M., Burt, R., Joffe, J., & Davis, J. (2011). Can disarmament work?. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 173-178.2. Burkett, J. (2012). The campaign for nuclear disarmament and changing attitudes towards the earth in the nuclear age. The British Journal for the History of Science, 45(04), 625-639. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S00070874120010943. Joffe, J., & Davis, J. (2011). Less than zero. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 7-13.4. Kelleher, C., & Reppy, J. (2011). Getting to zero: The path to nuclear disarmament. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.5. Knopf, J. (2012). Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation: Examining the linkage argument. International Security, 37(3), 92-132.6. Nebel, J. (2012). The nuclear disarmament movement: Politics, potential, and strategy. Journal of Peace Education, 9(3), 225-247. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2012.6684947. Sagan, S. (2012). Policy: A call for global nuclear disarmament. Nature, 487(7405), 30-32. doi: 10.1038/487030a8. Sauer, T. (2010). U.S. tactical nuclear weapons: A European perspective. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66(5), 65-75. doi: 10.1177/0096340210381338

References

By M

elin

a Za

halka