If we disarm, what will protect us? (1)
Nuclear Arms Proliferation
(4)
If we disarm, won’t we be vulnerable?
These weapons
provide immediate
power and status,
and threaten
territorial and
global enemies.
Because of a
perceived threat,
nuclear weaponry
is developed.
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.
Changing Times, Changing Minds
How can states disarm safely?
States in positions of territorial
threats would engage in treaties
with larger, more powerful
countries. Global
accountability, active prodisarmament 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.
(2)
The internet
connects cultures
worldwide,
creating a global
village that reveals
our reliance on one
another and our
planet.
Movies begin
to show other
perspectives,
and depict the
“what-ifs” of
nuclear
fallout.
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.
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.
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.
Photo courtesy of Google Images.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has 189 state signatures.
By Melina Zahalka
Photo courtesy of Google Images.
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.
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.
(All photos courtesy of Google Images.)
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.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Blair, B., Brown, M., Burt, R., Joffe, J., & Davis, J. (2011). Can disarmament work?. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 173-178.
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/S0007087412001094
Joffe, J., & Davis, J. (2011). Less than zero. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 7-13.
Kelleher, C., & Reppy, J. (2011). Getting to zero: The path to nuclear disarmament. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Knopf, J. (2012). Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation: Examining the linkage argument. International Security, 37(3), 92-132.
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/10.1080/17400201.2012.668494
Sagan, S. (2012). Policy: A call for global nuclear disarmament. Nature, 487(7405), 30-32. doi: 10.1038/487030a
Sauer, T. (2010). U.S. tactical nuclear weapons: A European perspective. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66(5), 65-75. doi: 10.1177/0096340210381338
Weighing the Pros and Cons
Should we focus on complete disarmament, or
crisis stability?
Seventy six
percent of the
world desires
global
disarmament.
(6)
Internal politics
create different
motivations for
developing or
maintaining
nuclear weapons,
making it difficult
to reach global
consensus. (5)
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)
States build
policies around
security through
nuclear weaponry,
causing
proliferation. (1)
Without
disarming,
nuclear states
pose a constant
threat to nonnuclear states.
This breeds fear
and mistrust. (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)