Latest news with #nuclear disarmament
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump once openly discussed nuclear disarmament. What happened?
On Feb. 13, President Donald Trump did something truly rare — he made sense. In an Oval Office press meeting, for the first time in decades, a sitting president openly discussed nuclear disarmament: 'There's no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many... You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they're building nuclear weapons,' he said. He's right. China and India have unconditional no-first-use pledges in place. So did Russia until we continued to expand our already insane nuclear arsenal and exit such arms control agreements as the ABM Treaty and INF Treaty. The United States refused to come to the table. That's why Trump's expressed desire to return to negotiations was so promising. Returning to negotiations refers to multilateral nuclear reduction agreements on the premise of minimum effective deterrence. The commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Hiroshima and its deadly toll this past week gives us an opportunity to understand just what is at stake. That devastating first use of the atomic bomb killed at least 70,000 people instantly, a legacy of tragedy the world will not forget. Alas, Trump's initial promise of nuclear disarmament was short-lived. And what has actually happened since this unexpected moment of clarity from a leader who thrives on chaos? More chaos. Trump violated the war powers clause in launching a military strike against Iran's nuclear bases, and now, he refuses to rule out more strikes. Even if he deterred Iran's nuclear program, it put the U.S. directly at odds with other nuclear powers. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has even come out to say that other countries would simply provide Iran with nuclear his actions, Trump pushed us closer to the brink of nuclear war once more. The U.S. war machine and its many benefactors will stoke this, spurring on a new arms race to line their pockets. The fact is, more bombs will not solve nuclear proliferation — not by building them, not by hoarding them, and certainly not by using them on other countries. The president must make a choice: Protect our nation and the world, or instigate nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. could take the lead on denuclearization, cut back our bloated military budget, finally sign a no-first-use pledge, and actually make the world safer. Or we could keep feeding the weapons manufacturers, spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon while ignoring the fact that our biggest threats — climate change, poverty, and access to health care — can't be solved with bombs. But right now, we're on the wrong path — the path of excessive militarization and the risk of total annihilation. The path that mortgages our environment, livelihoods, and our souls to feed the insatiable war profiteers. Eighty years ago, one nuclear bomb incinerated over 100,000 people in Hiroshima. Right now, the U.S. has the equivalent of 50,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. And the Pentagon is spending $2 trillion on a whole new generation of nuclear weapons. The time of mutually assured destruction between two nuclear superpowers is over. The last thing we need is a new nuclear arms race. But that's what our corrupt Congress and war profiteers are betting on. Should Trump decide to take the denuclearization path, it could change the very fabric of America. Imagine the impact of just 15% of the Pentagon's budget going toward lead-free pipes and safe drinking water, affordable housing, and universal health care. It could single-handedly revitalize the American dream. Would we really be less secure if we spent only $850 billion a year preparing for war instead of our current $1 trillion? This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Why are we commemorating Hiroshima's 80th anniversary with new nuclear weapons?
Three-year-old Shinichi Tetsutani was riding his beloved yellow tricycle when the atom bomb exploded over Hiroshima. He died that night from his injuries. His heartbroken father, Nobuo, buried Shinichi's body in the backyard, along with the tricycle, so that he could ride it even after his death. You can still see the skeletal form of that tricycle today, preserved now in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, after Nobuo decided to place Shinichi's remains in the family grave. It is just one of many haunting reminders of the day that normal life came to an instantaneous halt – incinerated, devastated – 80 years ago this week. I visited this week while attending the commemorations in my role as vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Despite all we know about the events which unfolded, first in Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and three days later in Nagasaki, nothing prepares you for the horror of being in this city, hearing stories directly from the few remaining first-generation Hibakusha – the survivors of the atomic bombs who for years have suffered from radiation sickness, psychological trauma, stigma and discrimination. It is a horror that is compounded by the fact that the world's nine declared nuclear-armed states have amassed a firepower equivalent to 145,000 Hiroshima bombs – enough to destroy the world many times over. But that, apparently, is not enough. In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer recently announced plans to spend an additional £15bn on developing submarine-launched nuclear warheads, as well as the purchase of F-35A fighters to enable the UK to re-introduce air-launched nuclear weapons. It brings the prospect of nuclear war measurably closer – all in the name of making Britain, in his words, 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation'. And all, it might be added, in breach of our international obligations under Article Six of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits nuclear states to pursue 'good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.' Successive UK governments have simply ignored this legal duty. Theresa May seemingly couldn't even be bothered to send a minister to the UN talks back in 2017, which sought to negotiate what became the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It entered into force in 2021 and, with over 90 signatories, is now supported by almost half the world's nations. It's hard to see what moral authority Starmer can think he has to try to prevent countries like Iran from pursuing their nuclear ambitions while he upgrades our own. If he believes nuclear weapons are essential to the UK's security, shouldn't the logic be that all countries have a right to seek their own in the same way? And does Starmer believe the world would be safer if they did? Starmer has justified his obscene raid on the international aid budget to fund his nuclear weapons spending spree on the grounds that, 'to deter conflict', the UK must be 'ready to fight and win'. Consider that flawed theory of deterrence, which is entirely unproven, nor can it be proven. In logic, one cannot prove a negative – that doing something causes something else not to happen. That a nuclear attack has not taken place could be down to a range of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune – so far, at least. Indeed, many military experts themselves argue that the possession of nuclear weapons makes us far less safe, primarily because their very existence increases the likelihood that they'll be used, contributes to the volume of nuclear material circulating the world, and exacerbates the risks of mistakes and miscalculations. This summer's Strategic Defence Review has urged the government to run a campaign to convince people of the 'necessity' of a growing nuclear arsenal – a recommendation that it has accepted. If those of us who find such a proposal both morally repugnant and militarily reckless are to have any success in challenging their manoeuvres, then we need to get far more serious about promoting a far-reaching citizens' engagement and public education campaign, which sets out the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. Recent polling from More in Common suggests the door is already open with young people: those between the ages of 18 and 24 already believe nuclear conflict is the greatest threat to Britain. There's a chilling irony in that the same government that is now planning its glossy new pro-nuclear ad campaign is simultaneously trying to shut down greater examination of the impacts of those same nuclear weapons. Shockingly, the UK was one of just three countries to vote against the creation of a UN scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war – a panel which would update our knowledge, including the latest horrific findings about the consequences of a planet-wide deep freeze precipitated by a full scale nuclear war that have been published in a number of scientific journals, and which are set out in terrifying detail by in his recent book, Six Minutes to Winter. Not everyone has the privilege of visiting Hiroshima. But at the very least, it's surely the responsibility of all of us who seek a safer, more secure future to do everything else we can to ensure everyone is aware of what Keir Starmer's government would prefer we didn't know.
The Guardian
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
In this time of rancour, fear and war, peaceful nuclear cooperation in the Middle East is still possible
Ten years ago, after the Iran nuclear deal, I wrote in the Guardian about the urgent need for global nuclear disarmament – starting with the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. A decade later, as our region teeters on the edge of catastrophe, that call is no longer just noble – it is essential. The proposal was not a new Iranian initiative. As far back as 1974, Iran proposed a zone free from nuclear weapons in the Middle East at the UN, and was soon joined by Egypt. That proposal passed overwhelmingly in the general assembly. After Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, the initiative was expanded in 1990 to cover all weapons of mass destruction. But for half a century, progress has been blocked by Israel and its main patron, the United States. This paralysis is no accident. Despite overwhelming annual support in the UN general assembly and repeated commitments in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the Middle East remains one of the only regions on Earth without a nuclear weapon-free framework. More than 100 non-aligned states at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference made progress towards such a zone a condition of the treaty's indefinite extension. Yet 30 years on, little has changed. In fact, the situation has deteriorated, showing that while possession of nuclear weapons usually leads to reckless adventurism, such weapons in no way assure success, provide invincibility or safety for citizens. Recent unlawful military action by the nuclear-armed Israel – which is not party to the NPT – against Iran's internationally monitored nuclear facilities brought our region dangerously close to an abyss. The failure of Israel to achieve its unwarranted objectives, and the inability of the US to bring Iran to its knees, could and still can engulf this region and by extension the entire world in a forever war. Enough is enough. We must take the future of our region's security into our own hands. It is time for the Middle East and north Africa to move beyond empty rhetoric and towards genuine regional cooperation – based on mutual respect and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That is why we propose the creation of the Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement, or Menara, which fittingly means 'lighthouse' in Arabic. Menara would be a regional body designed to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation among its members. Open to all qualified states in the Middle East and north Africa, to join, countries must reject the development or deployment of nuclear weapons and commit to mutual verification of their compliance. In return, Menara would help them benefit from peaceful nuclear technology, including energy production, medicine, agriculture and scientific research. Such a body is not a substitute for disarmament – it is a step towards it. Regional nuclear cooperation, with strong safeguards and mutual oversight, can strengthen non-proliferation and enhance energy security without enabling militarisation. It has long been argued that progress on regional disarmament must wait for Israel to disarm. But a regime that has shown no regard for international legitimacy by committing international crimes such as apartheid, genocide and, most recently, mass starvation will hardly be influenced by this negative pressure – it certainly has not been for more than 50 years. And its perilous nuclear arsenal has been and will always remain the gravest threat to international non-proliferation and regional and global peace and stability. Holding hundreds of millions of people hostage to one regime's nuclear arsenal and political impunity is a recipe for permanent instability. We must find a new way forward. Menara would also help reframe the nuclear debate in the region. For too long, nuclear issues have been cast solely in terms of risk and threat. But nuclear science also offers solutions – to the climate crisis, water scarcity, food security and energy diversification. As oil and gas reserves dwindle, nuclear energy will be vital for regional growth and sustainability. Menara can make this future a shared, secure reality. Here's how it would work. Menara would coordinate research, education and development across member states. It would support joint ventures in fields ranging from uranium enrichment and waste management to nuclear fusion and medicine. Members would share facilities, pool expertise and ensure transparency through a joint regulatory board. Contributions would be proportional to each country's capacity, but every member would benefit. The network would be headquartered in one of the participating countries, with branch offices and potentially shared enrichment facilities in others. Oversight would be conducted by a board of governors composed of national representatives, with international observers from the UN, the security council and the International Atomic Energy Agency invited to participate. Crucially, Menara would include robust mutual safeguards to prevent the diversion of materials for military use. Today, more than ever, we in the Middle East and north Africa region have been woken up to a collective cognisance of the horrifying picture of our future unless we seize this moment. We know that mistrust runs deep in our region. Iran has its grievances and so do others. But history must not define our destiny. We call on the nations of the Middle East and north Africa to endorse Menara and begin formal negotiations on its structure, mandate and membership criteria. A regional summit – under the auspices of the UN and with support from global powers – could lay the foundation. Such a step would not only reduce the risk of nuclear conflict but also offer a model for cooperation in a fractured world. The status quo is unsustainable. The nightmare of escalation and its inherent potential to cause proliferation is no longer hypothetical; it is dangerously close to becoming real. But there is still time to choose a different path. Menara can be a beacon guiding us towards a future where the Middle East is no longer a battleground for nuclear brinkmanship, but a leader in peace, progress and responsible energy. The time to act is now. Javad Zarif is associate professor of global studies at the University of Tehran. He was Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator from 2013-21. His co-author is Mohsen Baharvand, who was Iran's deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the UK Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Guardian
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
In this time of rancour, fear and war, peaceful nuclear cooperation in the Middle East is still possible
Ten years ago, after the Iran nuclear deal, I wrote in the Guardian about the urgent need for global nuclear disarmament – starting with the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. A decade later, as our region teeters on the edge of catastrophe, that call is no longer just noble – it is essential. The proposal was not a new Iranian initiative. As far back as 1974, Iran proposed a zone free from nuclear weapons in the Middle East at the UN, and was soon joined by Egypt. That proposal passed overwhelmingly in the general assembly. After Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, the initiative was expanded in 1990 to cover all weapons of mass destruction. But for half a century, progress has been blocked by Israel and its main patron, the United States. This paralysis is no accident. Despite overwhelming annual support in the UN general assembly and repeated commitments in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the Middle East remains one of the only regions on Earth without a nuclear weapon-free framework. More than 100 non-aligned states at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference made progress towards such a zone a condition of the treaty's indefinite extension. Yet 30 years on, little has changed. In fact, the situation has deteriorated, showing that while possession of nuclear weapons usually leads to reckless adventurism, such weapons in no way assure success, provide invincibility or safety for citizens. Recent unlawful military action by the nuclear-armed Israel – which is not party to the NPT – against Iran's internationally monitored nuclear facilities brought our region dangerously close to an abyss. The failure of Israel to achieve its unwarranted objectives, and the inability of the US to bring Iran to its knees, could and still can engulf this region and by extension the entire world in a forever war. Enough is enough. We must take the future of our region's security into our own hands. It is time for the Middle East and north Africa to move beyond empty rhetoric and towards genuine regional cooperation – based on mutual respect and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That is why we propose the creation of the Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement, or Menara, which fittingly means 'lighthouse' in Arabic. Menara would be a regional body designed to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation among its members. Open to all qualified states in the Middle East and north Africa, to join, countries must reject the development or deployment of nuclear weapons and commit to mutual verification of their compliance. In return, Menara would help them benefit from peaceful nuclear technology, including energy production, medicine, agriculture and scientific research. Such a body is not a substitute for disarmament – it is a step towards it. Regional nuclear cooperation, with strong safeguards and mutual oversight, can strengthen non-proliferation and enhance energy security without enabling militarisation. It has long been argued that progress on regional disarmament must wait for Israel to disarm. But a regime that has shown no regard for international legitimacy by committing international crimes such as apartheid, genocide and, most recently, mass starvation will hardly be influenced by this negative pressure – it certainly has not been for more than 50 years. And its perilous nuclear arsenal has been and will always remain the gravest threat to international non-proliferation and regional and global peace and stability. Holding hundreds of millions of people hostage to one regime's nuclear arsenal and political impunity is a recipe for permanent instability. We must find a new way forward. Menara would also help reframe the nuclear debate in the region. For too long, nuclear issues have been cast solely in terms of risk and threat. But nuclear science also offers solutions – to the climate crisis, water scarcity, food security and energy diversification. As oil and gas reserves dwindle, nuclear energy will be vital for regional growth and sustainability. Menara can make this future a shared, secure reality. Here's how it would work. Menara would coordinate research, education and development across member states. It would support joint ventures in fields ranging from uranium enrichment and waste management to nuclear fusion and medicine. Members would share facilities, pool expertise and ensure transparency through a joint regulatory board. Contributions would be proportional to each country's capacity, but every member would benefit. The network would be headquartered in one of the participating countries, with branch offices and potentially shared enrichment facilities in others. Oversight would be conducted by a board of governors composed of national representatives, with international observers from the UN, the security council and the International Atomic Energy Agency invited to participate. Crucially, Menara would include robust mutual safeguards to prevent the diversion of materials for military use. Today, more than ever, we in the Middle East and north Africa region have been woken up to a collective cognisance of the horrifying picture of our future unless we seize this moment. We know that mistrust runs deep in our region. Iran has its grievances and so do others. But history must not define our destiny. We call on the nations of the Middle East and north Africa to endorse Menara and begin formal negotiations on its structure, mandate and membership criteria. A regional summit – under the auspices of the UN and with support from global powers – could lay the foundation. Such a step would not only reduce the risk of nuclear conflict but also offer a model for cooperation in a fractured world. The status quo is unsustainable. The nightmare of escalation and its inherent potential to cause proliferation is no longer hypothetical; it is dangerously close to becoming real. But there is still time to choose a different path. Menara can be a beacon guiding us towards a future where the Middle East is no longer a battleground for nuclear brinkmanship, but a leader in peace, progress and responsible energy. The time to act is now. Javad Zarif is associate professor of global studies at the University of Tehran. He was Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator from 2013-21. His co-author is Mohsen Baharvand, who was Iran's deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the UK
NHK
27-07-2025
- Politics
- NHK
Nobel Committee Chair calls on young people to carry on legacy of peace
The chair of the committee which awarded last year's Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo has called on the young generations to pass down the experiences of atomic-bomb survivors. Nihon Hidankyo, the Japan Confederation of A- and H- Bomb Sufferers Organizations, represents the survivors of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are known as hibakusha. Norway's Joergen Frydnes attended an event on nuclear disarmament at Tokyo's Sophia University on Sunday. He appeared at a news conference with Nihon Hidankyo co-chair Tanaka Terumi. Frydnes said his trip marked the first time ever for the Nobel Committee to travel to the home country of a Peace Prize laureate. He said, "This is a unique opportunity to us, and it's a unique time because we are here to listen and to learn, and we believe the world should listen and learn to the voices of the hibakusha." Frydnes said Nihon Hidankyo members "have been instrumental in turning memory, turning pain and suffering into a force for change into a force for peace." He added that ever since the committee announced Nihon Hidankyo's award in October last year, they have seen "social movements, anti-nuclear movements, and civil society and private individuals from all over the world who are re-engaged in the issue of nuclear disarmament." Frydnes said that he believes the 80th anniversary of the attacks in August could be an opportunity for a turning point on the issue. In a speech he gave after the news conference, Frydnes said that many analysts now warn the world is standing on the edge of a "new and more unstable nuclear age." He said the survivors and their supporters "helped the world see with clear eyes what nuclear weapons really mean." He called them "the light the world needs." Frydnes addressed the young people in the room, telling them that they are "the future custodians of this memory" and "the new stewards of this truth." He urged them: "Take up the torch. Do not let silence grow. Tell the stories. Study the history. Resist the forgetting. Raise your voice."
