International Meeting
2024 World Conference against A and H Bombs
Session 3
Sean Conner
Executive Director, International Peace Bureau (IPB)
Dear colleagues, comrades, and friends,
Last year, I had the opportunity to join you for the World Conference against A- and H- Bombs in-person. I heard firsthand the accounts of the Hibakusha, visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and gained a deeper understanding of the inhumane destruction wreaked by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyone who comes and sees this with their own eyes must ask themselves how anyone could justify the possession, let alone the use or threat of use, of nuclear weapons.
We know that last year after the leaders of the G7 visited Hiroshima for themselves, and afterwards pledged for an eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, all while continuing to justify their possession of the weapons for deterrence purposes. This alone was an insult to all those who suffered from nuclear weapons — both the direct victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the victims of nuclear testing all around the world. After all, we know that the mere possession of nuclear weapons puts us all at risk — one small error, even if accidental, such as a malfunction of detection systems or a misunderstanding of a conventional attack as a nuclear one — would cause uncountable suffering and destruction, primarily of innocent civilians.
But since the G7 last year, the picture is even bleaker. As great power confrontation is on the rise, and prolonged conflicts escalate, we are moving closer to accidental or purposeful use of nuclear weapons. While some countries like Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and Israel make their threats openly, other countries are quietly exacerbating nuclear tensions. One of the most recent examples is the US-German agreement to deploy intermediate-range, dual capability Tomahawk cruise, SM-6 and hypersonic missiles to Germany in 2026 — a direct threat to Russia which also announced a build up its own capabilities to strike European countries with both conventional and nuclear intermediate-range missiles. Europe is also building up its own capabilities for Intermediate-range missiles. These weapons can reach enemy country’s territories in a matter of minutes, giving adversaries little to no time to determine whether the missiles are nuclear and how to respond to them. It is absolutely a recipe for disaster — and one that leaders of the Cold War recognized in 1987 when the INF treaty was signed.
The nuclear rhetoric is on the rise in Europe and beyond. In April, French President Emmanuel Macron commented that nuclear weapons should be a part of the European defense debate. Belarus now hosts Russian nuclear weapons, joining the club of nuclear sharing states in which Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey which all host US nuclear weapons with little transparency. The conversation on returning US nukes to the UK also continues. Belarus itself has adopted a new military doctrine around nuclear weapons and has already conducted nuclear drills. In recent years, leading politicians in both Japan and South Korea have made comments about extending the host of nuclear weapons to their territories and US nuclear-armed submarines are again docking in South Korea. Israeli leaders have often made veiled comments about using nuclear weapons in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran — and while it appears that Iran still does not have nuclear weapons, it certainly has the capabilities. There is at least a chance that the new leader will return to the negotiation table to ensure it does not produce nuclear weapons, but this depends on US disposition, which is very likely to be in jeopardy following November’s elections. In fact, Project 2025, drafted by US thinktanks and largely seen as Trump’s “game plan”, should he win the election in November, also calls for a resumption of nuclear testing in the US. Russia has already withdrawn from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Meanwhile, nuclear weapons spending in all countries that possess them is on the rise, as illustrated by ICAN’s report on 2023 spending, with the US leading the way at 51.5 billion dollars and 80% of the total increase in spending from the previous year. The total spending figure of 91.4 billion dollars shows an increase of 10.7 billion from 2022 figures. It is equivalent to 2,898 dollars per second. But if these states, most of whom are states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and who are G7 nations, are committed to nuclear disarmament, how is it that spending continues to rise? The modernizations programs that many are undergoing will produce new command, control and communication systems, new ways to deliver the nuclear weapons including upgraded missiles and land- air- and sea-based launch systems. These developments will only serve to make nuclear weapons more destructive, reduce response time of adversaries, and push us deeper into a nuclear arms race.
What makes all of this even more frightening is the still unregulated use of new technologies in warfare, from artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems to cyber warfare, weapons capabilities in space and unmanned aerial vehicles or drones. Many of these technologies can specifically target nuclear early-warning and command and control systems which create new elements of uncertainty and instability. In just May this year, a Ukrainian strike on Russian Early-Warning Radars led to deep concerns even by the country’s allies of nuclear escalation.
Friends, these are deeply concerning moments. Nuclear and non-nuclear tensions are at an all-time high and even the basic agreements that have been in place for decades to decrease nuclear risk are being actively dismantled. The G7 and P5 recognitions that a nuclear war must not be fought and cannot be won have all but disappeared and have been replaced with nuclear saber-rattling and a new arms race. The rhetoric between nuclear powers is increasingly that of a new Cold War — all of this while the leadership of these states actively ignore the unmistakable humanitarian disaster that any use of these weapons poses.
But we are not without hope. As we move more and more toward a Cold War-like scenario, the states of the Global South, who great powers see as a contested ground for power and influence, are the leaders of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It is more important now than ever that these countries take the lead for nuclear disarmament and use their renewed influence in geopolitics to fight for nuclear abolition and an alternative to great power confrontation. They indeed understand the dire consequences of nuclear weapons.
Of course we need civil society more than ever, in all countries around the world, and particularly in the nuclear-armed or nuclear umbrella states, to take a stand. We need to deepen our education efforts so that everyone truly understands the danger we now find ourselves in — the utter destruction posed by nuclear weapons to innocent civilians, the increasingly polarized rhetoric of our leaders and their dangerous moves toward increasing nuclear tensions as well as the complete insanity of relying on nuclear deterrence in times of increasing uncertainty and instability. And we need to rally civil society around the TPNW, as well as other calls for nuclear disarmament. One of particular significance this year is the UN Summit of the Future in September in New York — where both the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ New Agenda for Peace and the draft Pact for the Future call for complete nuclear abolition. We need to support and spread these calls.
Finally, we need to clearly outline what alternatives to nuclear armament and deterrence look like — Common Security is the proven way. It was the basis for nuclear reductions in the final decade of the Cold War, including the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces or INF treaty, one that urgently needs to be reinstated. But with Common Security we can go further — the central principle that no nation can make itself secure at the expense of another is exactly what we argue with nuclear abolition — nuclear weapons cannot make a nation safer because they lead to a nuclear arms race and threaten the entire global population. By contrast, mutual nuclear reductions with the goal of complete abolition can build trust and dialogue between nations and take us back from the brink of destruction. Through Common Security, diplomacy, and dialogue, we can move away from the growing Cold War rhetoric and find common solutions to common problems.
Let us work together, across the globe, to strengthen the global movement for nuclear abolition through education, organization, and activism. Let us outline how continued reliance on nuclear deterrence and politics of division and competition are pushing us closer than ever to the brink. Let us clearly paint a picture of what the use of nuclear weapons really means — mass indiscriminate destruction in which no one can possibly come out a winner. And let us argue for the alternatives in the TPNW, Common Security, and cooperation. Thank you.