nuclear-news

A new nuclear arms race

With this in mind, the official representatives of most of the world’s nations, gathering in 2017 under UN auspices, met and crafted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Endorsed by a vote of 122 to 1 (with 1 abstention), it banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons.  The treaty entered into force in January 2021, and has been signed, thus far, by 94 nations.  Opinion polls and declarations by hundreds of cities in a variety of nations indicate that it has substantial public support.

 July 13, 2025 by beyondnuclearinternational. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/07/13/a-new-nuclear-arms-race/

Are we headed towards one, or already in it, asks Lawrence Wittner

Amid growing international chaos, it should come as no surprise that nuclear dangers are increasing.

The latest indication is a rising interest among U.S. allies in enhancing their nuclear weapons capability.  For many decades, remarkably few of them had been willing to build nuclear weapons―a result of popular opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear war, progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament, and a belief that they remained secure under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.  But, as revealed by a recent article in London’s Financial Times, Donald Trump’s public scorn for NATO allies and embrace of Vladimir Putin have raised fears of U.S. unreliability, thereby tipping the balance toward developing an expanded nuclear weapons capability.

This growing interest in nuclear weapons is especially noticeable in Europe, where Trump’s berating of NATO and Putin’s threats of nuclear attack are particularly unsettling.  Although Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, dismissed any notion of Germany developing its own nuclear weapons, he has stated that it must explore “whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, could also apply to us.” Furthermore, several German think tank experts have floated the idea of building the infrastructure that, if necessary, could produce German nuclear weapons. 

In Poland, too, a nuclear weapons capacity has become increasingly appealing.  Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently raised the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons or, at least, seeking an agreement for sharing France’s nuclear arsenal.  A board director of PGZ, Poland’s state-controlled military manufacturer, remarked:  “There are suddenly a lot of words and different opinions about what to do, but they all show Poland believes in stronger nuclear deterrence against Russia.”

In South Korea, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its growing military relationship with Russia, combined with Trump’s unreliability, have contributed to growing support for the nation’s acquiring its own nuclear weapons. Although neither of the two major parties has announced this policy, Cho Tae-yul, the foreign minister, informed parliament that acquiring nuclear weapons was “not off the table,” for “we must prepare for all scenarios.”

Similarly, the idea of developing nuclear weapons is drawing increasing scrutiny in Japan.  Sharing South Korea’s fear of a North Korean attack and Trump’s unreliability, Japanese leaders also worry about China’s growing assertiveness.  If a North Korean or Chinese nuclear strike occurred, Japan would have only 5 minutes of warning time.  Moreover, thanks to its nuclear power plants, Japan already holds enough plutonium to build several thousand nuclear bombs.

In addition, of course, a nuclear arms race is well underway among the nuclear weapons-producing nations:  the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.  All of them are either expanding their nuclear arsenals, building a new generation of nuclear weapons, or both.  Most of the nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements of the past have been abandoned, while the remaining agreements are on life support.  The New Start Treaty between Russia and the United States, the two nations possessing almost 90 percent of the world’s 12,331 nuclear weapons, is scheduled to expire in February 2026, and there are no negotiations underway to replace it.  Meanwhile, in recent years, the top officials of three nuclear-armed nations―Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un―have issued numerous statements threatening nuclear war.

Against this backdrop, this January the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset their “Doomsday Clock,” established in 1946, at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest ever to human extinction.  The following month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, deploring the unraveling of international security arrangements, warned that nuclear weapons provided a “one-way road to annihilation.”

These escalating nuclear dangers suggest that, if nuclear weapons, whether possessed by an alliance or by individual nations, are unable to safeguard humanity from total destruction, then a different approach to survival in the nuclear age is needed:  one grounded in international security.

With this in mind, the official representatives of most of the world’s nations, gathering in 2017 under UN auspices, met and crafted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Endorsed by a vote of 122 to 1 (with 1 abstention), it banned the use, threatened use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, stationing, and installation of nuclear weapons.  The treaty entered into force in January 2021, and has been signed, thus far, by 94 nations.  Opinion polls and declarations by hundreds of cities in a variety of nations indicate that it has substantial public support.

Although the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides a useful framework for creating a nuclear weapons-free world, it has not, as yet, rolled back the nuclear menace.  The reason is that its provisions are only binding on the nations that have signed it.  And the nine nuclear weapons-producing nations, joined by the nations under their nuclear umbrella, refuse to do so―at least so far.  Convinced that, in a world of independent and often hostile nations, their security rests upon possession of nuclear weapons, they remain unwilling to abolish them.

Even so, their resistance to the treaty might be overcome by a further step toward international security:  the strengthening of international organizations.  At present, the United Nations lacks the power to effectively enforce its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security.  But that power could be expanded by providing the global organization with an independent source of income, restricting the role of the veto in the Security Council, and expanding the role of the General Assembly.  International security would also be enhanced by increasing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and of the International Criminal Court.

Strengthening international security might seem impractical at this time of overheated nationalist claims and the global chaos they produce.  Even so, times of crisis sometimes produce historic breakthroughs, and the prospect of nuclear annihilation might have that effect.

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

July 14, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment