By Aurora Weiss
Nuclear weapons were a global threat even before Vladimir Putin began using them as a means of blackmail, before an Israeli general threatened to use them to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza, and before Iran began enriching uranium, which led to the imposition of US sanctions, keeping that Islamic state even more isolated. All threats with nuclear weapons are not only to be taken very seriously, they are also completely unacceptable and irresponsible. Due to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences and the great risks of nuclear weapons, we need a paradigm shift. It is clear that nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence aren’t a guarantee of security. ｜GERMAN｜JAPANESE｜
The nuclear risks are higher than they have been for decades. Europe has been exposed to an alarming degree of nuclear disaster since the beginning of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. In recent years, it has been afraid of the threats that have come from Russia, but also of a nuclear disaster that could be caused by damage to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
Back in 2022, Russian troops set fire to the administrative buildings and the main transformer of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, the largest such facility in Europe, and prohibited firefighters from entering the power plant. After the alarming situation, the power plant is now, fortunately, under the supervision of experts from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who reacted promptly. Russia and Ukraine accused each other of planning a terrorist attack on that power plant. Alarmed by this situation, “Physicists for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)” called for a ban on military attacks on nuclear power plants. We should know that proper disaster management during war is not possible.
The security price of nuclear power countries: It is the question of the time when something will go wrong!
It is clear if nuclear weapons were to be used, whether through deliberate use, escalation or an error or human or technical mistake, the consequences would be catastrophic. We are not just talking about the immediate destruction and loss of innocent life. We must also be aware of the impact on the economy and on refugee movements, for example through mass panic. Even a limited nuclear conflict could lead to a massive nuclear winter with a collapse of the global food supply. The consequences would be terrible, so prevention is the only option. But prevention can only succeed if there is a total ban of these weapons. The new technologies, such as artificial intelligence or vulnerability to cyber attacks, also contribute to nuclear risks. For this reason, the 150+ states that do not have nuclear weapons want to see that risk reduced, and the gold standard would be for states that do have nuclear weapons to completely ban their nuclear weapons. The nine countries that possess nuclear weapons: the United States of America, Russia, France, China, Great Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea – do not want that at all. On the contrary, they are working on perfecting weapons of mass destruction and increasing their arsenal. In total, the global nuclear stockpile is estimated at around 13,000 weapons.
Iran nuclear talk and race for power in the Middle East
As a reporter, I have been covering the talks on the Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA) in Vienna. I could not close my eyes from the fact that American representatives were not allowed to be present at the negotiations with the nuclear superpowers. However, at the end of the day-long negotiations, the Russian representative on behalf of China and Iran went to the hotel across the street, where representatives of the United States of America were waiting to negotiate the lifting of the imposed sanctions. Proponents of the deal have argued that the JCPOA helps prevent the revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and thereby reduces the prospect of conflict between Iran and its regional rivals, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, United Nations inspectors reported in early 2023 that Iran had enriched traces of uranium to near-weapon-grade levels, causing international alarm. If Iran could soon officially join the countries with nuclear weapons, it would encourage the development of nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia and Israel for security reasons and open the possibility of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East.
Despite the risk, the nuclear countries are enriching their arsenal, and those that do not have it are developing it with great effort despite the rigorous sanctions. Those countries that do not have it want the disarmament of nuclear powers. Are you wondering what is the position of countries without nuclear weapons that are NATO members?
It is unlikely that any member of the NATO alliance will be a signatory to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in the near future. NATO has so far refused to participate constructively in meetings related to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) under the pretext that it is not compatible with the NPT, which is not true.
It is clear that NATO still sees nuclear weapons as a guarantee of security. But, dissarmament expert are worning that it is just the question of the time when something will go wrong, caused by human error – intentional or unintentional, technical error, for example, a cyber attack. Possessing and storing such weapons is too big security risk of itself.
Can we be sure that Donald Trump will not use nuclear weapons? The USA has that tradition!
Since taking the USA presidential office on 20th January 2025., Donald Trump has already taken some radical steps, from canceling aid to international humanitarian organizations to the disturbing ambition to take Iceland and Canada and join them to the United States of America. The international community is in an alarming position because they do not know how far Trump’s ambitions can go and which tools he is ready to use to achieve them. One tiny wrong move in this globaly chalanging times could lead to nuclear war. When it comes to the launch of nuclear weapons by America, they have written history with it. Anyone who has watched Oppenheimer movie is struck by the moment when President Harry Truman welcomes the creator of the nuclear bomb into his office and comments that everyone will remember him as the president who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was proud to mark history regardless of the consequences.
However, he is not the only American president who ordered the dropping of an atomic bomb on the enemy. Many behind him wanted to repeat it.
We can refer to Daniel Ellsberg and his book “The Doomsday Machine”. The legendary whistleblower has published the first insider exposé of America’s seventy-year-long nuclear policy. When Ellsberg, a former presidential adviser, released the Pentagon Papers, top-secret memos related to the United States’ nuclear program in the 1960s, it was revealed that a drunken Richard Nixon had ordered a nuclear attack on North Korea. Provoked by the downing of an American spy plane, the president spoke on the phone with the military commanders and ordered a tactical nuclear attack with specified targets. Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser at the time, also talked to the military commanders and got them to agree to wait until Nixon woke up sober the next morning. In the coming years, the president would even send nuclear aeroplane-bombers toward the Soviet Union accompanied by rumors that he was so crazy he might actually start World War III.
Current US policy does not limit the president’s ability to order a nuclear strike for any reason at any time. The military can refuse an order deemed to violate the laws of war, and there are legal concerns about Congress’s role in authorizing the use of force, but as a matter of broad understanding, the president can launch nuclear weapons when and if he wants to. Adopting the “No first use” (NFU) policy would reaffirm Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war. The Constitution clearly states that no president can start a war on his own, so it makes sense that a president should not be able to start a nuclear war on his own, which is why the adoption of a No First Use (NFU) policy is urgently needed.
This article is produced to you by INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.
INPS Japan