Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

These 28 companies are building nuclear weapons

ICAN and its partner organisation Pax have released a report with full profiles of 28 companies connected to the production of nuclear weapons.
Here are the 28 companies on ICAN’s Red Flag list. Download the full report here.
  1. Aecom (United States) 
    Aecom is involved in work at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, it is involved in research, design, development and production of nuclear weapons including the life extension program of the B61 nuclear bomb10 and of the W80-1 nuclear warhead for air-launched cruise missiles. Aecom has held this US $45.5 million (€ 40.1 million) per year contract since 2007.
  2. Aerojet Rocketdyne (United States)
    Aerojet Rocketdyne is involved in maintaining the propulsion systems for Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for the US, under a US $28.9 million (€ 25.5 million) contract initially awarded in 2013. It also produces propulsion systems for the Trident II (D5) missiles for the US and UK.  Aerojet Rocketdyne is also a subcontractor on the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent for the US arsenal. In 2018, Aerojet Rocketdyne secured an additional five-year contract for US $20 million (€ 17.6 million) for solid boost technology that will be applied to the next generation of weapons systems.
  3. Airbus (Netherlands)
    Airbus is a Netherlands based company involved in the ongoing maintenance and development of several nuclear armed missiles for the French nuclear arsenal through ArianeGroup, a joint venture with the French company Safran. Airbus is also part of the joint venture MBDA that supplies medium-range air to surface missiles, also for the French arsenal.
  4. BAE Systems (United Kingdom)
    BAE Systems has a maximum value US$ 368.7 million (€ 328 million) contract originally from October 2014 that will run until 2021 that is paid by the US and UK governments for key components for Trident II (D5) missiles. BAE also has a US$ 951.4 million (€ 830.8 million) contract from the US Air Force for Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) system, which will run until 2022. BAE is also involved in the French arsenal directly, through MBDA Systems, developing the mediumrange air-to-surface missile ASMPA and its successor, ASN4G. In July 2017, BAE got a new US$ 45.2 million (€ 39.6 million) modification to an existing contract for development work on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) intercontinental ballistic missile replacement programme.
  5. Bechtel (United States)
    Bechtel is a family run company involved in nuclear weapon development at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Y-12 Complex, and the Pantex Plant. Bechtel currently has approximately US $ 1,174 million (€ 1,035 million) in outstanding contracts at these facilities. Bechtel is also involved in one of the new nuclear weapons under design in the US, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, though their exact contract amount is unclear.
  6. Bharat Dynamics Limited (India)
    Bhrat Dynamics Limited produces key components for the Prithvi-II and Agni- V nuclear capable missiles for the Indian arsenal.
  7. Boeing (United States) 
    Boeing is building new nuclear weapons for the US. These include a 2017 contract for US$ 349.2 million (€ 297 million) for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the Minuteman III ICBMs. Boeing is also involved in the Long-Range Standoff weapon development and has been awarded several contracts since 2017 for this new nuclear weapon, valued at US $ 344.5 million (€ 304 million). Boeing holds several contracts related to the the US long-range nuclear Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Boeing currently has contracts valued at over US$ 703.3 million (€ 620 million) for key components for the Minuteman system. One of these contracts includes the development of ‘kill switches’ to cause the missile to self-destruct after launch. Boeing received a new US$ 26.7 million (€ 23.0 million) contract from the US and UK for Trident II (D5) work in October 2018.25 This is in addition to existing outstanding contracts for work related to the system valued at over US$ 88.9 million (€ 79.0 million). Boeing is also producing the tail-kit assembly for the new B61 bombs. More than half of all these bombs are currently deployed by the US in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey). The US$ 185 million (€ 163 million) in contracts will mean the new B61-12 bombs are ready for use by May 2019. It is yet unclear when the new bombs will be delivered to their European locations, other companies are currently modifying the storage facilities in the host countries.
  8. BWX Technologies (United States)
    BWX Technologies has a new US$ 76 million (€ 70.8 million) contract for Trident II (D5) components for the US and UK navies. BWXT also got a US$ 505 million (€ 427.5 million) contract to prepare for additional US nuclear materials production for nuclear weapons, this will initially be Tritium production, but there are also plans to produce additional nuclear materials in the near term. BWXT is also involved in the partnership that oversees the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, including the life extension program of the B61 nuclear bomb and of the W80-1 nuclear warhead for air-launched cruise missiles. The partnership receives US$ 45.5 million (€ 37.6 million) a year for this work.
  9. Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (United States)
    Charles Stark Draper Laboratory has a US$ 370.2 (€350.5 million) contract, paid by the US and the UK, for work on the Trident II (D5) system. In 2018, Draper got another US & UK funded to US$ 109.5 million (€ 95.9 million) contract for additional work on the Trident system, including hypersonic guidance and support for hypersonic flight experiments, to be concluded by September 2019.
  10. Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée (France)
    Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée is included for the first time as more information on the specifically designed key components for the French nuclear arsenal has become available. CNIM designs and manufactures the submarine launching systems designed for the nuclear-armed M51 missiles.
  11. Fluor (United States)
    Fluor is involved at several US nuclear weapons enterprise facilities. Through a joint venture, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) it has an US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract for efforts related to key components for the W88 Alt 370 program, the nuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II (D5).
  12. General Dynamics (United States)
    General Dynamics has a number of contracts related key components for the UK & US Trident II (D5) systems. An initial US$ 30.6 million (€ 28.2 million) contract awarded in 2015 has been modified repeatedly (including five times between November 2017 and December 2018) bringing the total contract value to over US$ 174.4 million (€ 155.6 million). Another General Dynamics subsidiary, General Dynamics Electric Boat received a maximum dollar value of US$ 46.5 (€ 43.4 million) contract in September 2017 for integration work for United Kingdom Strategic Weapon Support System kit manufacturing for the Columbia class ballistic missile submarines. In 2018 this contract was modified significantly, first in April for US$ 126.2 million (€ 102.4 million), and again for US$ 480.6 million (€ 414 million) in September 2018.
  13. Honeywell International (United States)
    Honeywell International manages and operates the National Security Campus (NSC) (formerly Kansas City Plant), the facility responsible for producing an estimated 85% of the non-nuclear components for US nuclear weapons under a five year US$ 900 million (€ 817.4 million) contract awarded in July 2015. It is also a co-owner of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) which has a US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract for efforts related to key components for the W88 Alt 370 program, the nuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II (D5). Honeywell is also associated with other US nuclear weapons enterprise facilities, including an outstanding US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract for the Nevada National Security Site and a US$ 2.6 billion (€ 2.5 billion) contract for the Sandia National Laboratory. Both facilities are responsible for warhead production, testing, and design. Also, Honeywell received new contracts in 2018 valued at US$ 19.0 million (€ 16.2 million) for the PIGA guidance instrument for the Minuteman III.
  14. Huntington Ingalls Industries (United States)
    Huntington Ingalls Industries took over the management and operations for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2018 with a five-year contracted with an estimated value of US$ 2.5 billion (€ 2.2 billion) annually. Huntington Ingalls Industries will be providing “personnel, systems, tools and corporate reachback in the areas of pit production, plutonium manufacturing, production scale-up and nuclear operations and manufacturing”. Huntington Ingalls Industries is also part of a US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract at the Nevada National Security Site, and the US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract at the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina.
  15. Jacobs Engineering (United Kingdom)
    Jacobs Engineering is part of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, which currently has a 25-year £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion) contract for maintenance of the UK Trident arsenal. Jacobs was also part of the group that took over management and operations of the Nevada National Security Site in 2017 under a 10-year US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract.
  16. Larsen and Toubro (India)
    are involved in producing key components for the Indian nuclear arsenal. These include the launcher system for the nuclear-capable Prithvi II missile. It is also involved in the Dhanush, the ship-based variant of the Prithvi-II.
  17. Leidos (United States)
    Leidos is a minority partner of Consolidated Nuclear Services LLC (CNS), which took over the management and operation of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant in Texas under the same US$ 446 million (€ 326.5 million) contract in 2014. These facilities are involved in producing Tritium for US nuclear weapons as well as the M76/MK4A, W76-2, W80-1 and, W88 warhead modifications.
  18. Leonardo (Italy)
    Leonardo is an Italian company (formerly known as Finmeccanica) involved in the French nuclear arsenal through MBDA-Systems. In contracts from 2016, MBDA began design and development of the mid-life upgrade of the ASMPA to keep it in the French arsenal through 2035. In the 2019 French Ministry of Defence Budget, three deliveries of upgraded ASMPAs are planned after 2019. MBDA is also involved in work on the successor system (ASN4G) which is meant to be operational after 2035.
  19. Lockheed Martin (United States)
    Lockheed Martin has outstanding Trident II (D5) contracts valued at approximately US$ 6,550.1 million (€5,730.4 million). Of these US$ 918.9 million (€ 801.9) were awarded in between March 2018 and January 2019. Lockheed also has at least US$ 495 million (€ 413.6 million) in outstanding contracts related to the Minuteman III ICBM. It is also involved in a US$ 900 million (€ 764.2 million) research and design contract for the new US the Air Force Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile. Lockheed Martin’s nuclear weapon associated activities aren’t limited to US missile production alone. It is also part of the 25-year £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion) contract for the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment.
  20. Moog (United States)
    Moog has developed launch vehicle and strategic missile controls for the Minuteman III and Trident (D5) missiles. Moog is also part of the Boeing team that won a US$ 349.2 million (€ 297.0 million) contract in 2017 for technology maturation and risk reduction activities for the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.
  21. Northrop Grumman (United States)
    Northrop Grumman is currently handing over responsibilities to BAE Systems as the prime contractor for the Minuteman III ICBM system. This process began in 2013, but there have been repeated ‘bridge’ contracts valued at over US$ 165.0 million (€ 128.3 million), most recently in September 2018. Now the handover process is expected to be complete in April 2019. Although Northrop Grumman is no longer the prime ICBM contractor, it still has additional US ICBM related contracts including those it took over when it acquired Orbital ATK. These additional contracts were mostly awarded in 2015, with a total value of approximately US$ 1,852.9 million (€ 1,642.9 million). Northrop Grumman, via ATK Launch Systems was also awarded another Minuteman related contract for US$ 86.4 million (€ 74.5 million) in September 2018. Northrop Grumman is also involved in the Trident II (D5) systems for the US and the UK, with outstanding contracts valued at approximately US$ 531.3 million (€ 493.2 million). Many of these Trident II (D5) related production activities are meant to conclude in 2020. Northrop Grumman is also connected to the nuclear weapons facilities at the Pantex and Y-12 through at US$ 446 million (€ 326.5 million) contract to the Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS) joint venture.
  22. Raytheon (United States)
    Raytheon has an outstanding US$ 33.4 million (€ 24.8 million) contract for work related to the Minuteman III ICBMs. Raytheon is also involved in new nuclear weapons development for the US. It is part of the Boeing team working on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, and in August 2017, Raytheon received a five-year contract for US$ 900 million (€ 764.2 million) for the new Long-Range Standoff weapon.
  23. Safran (France)
    Safran is a French company and two of their subsidiaries (Snecma and Sagem) are developing key components for the M51 missiles for the French nuclear weapons arsenal. Safran is also part of the joint venture with Dutch company Airbus, responsible for ongoing production and maintenance of the missile system overall.  This joint venture is also contracted to carry out the 2019 budgeted tasks of the French Ministry of Defence for three deliveries of upgraded ASMPAs after 2019.
  24. Serco (United Kingdom)
    Serco is a UK company involved in management and operations of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) under 25-year contract (1999 to 2024) valued at £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion).
  25. Textron (United States)
    Textron has an outstanding US$ 17.2 million (€ 12.5 million) contract to convert up to six Minuteman III MK 12A re-entry vehicles to the Mod 5F configuration.
  26. Thales (France)
    According to the French Ministry of Defence, Thales is one of MBDA’s subcontractors supplying medium-range air-to-surface missile ASMPA to the French air force.
  27. United Technologies Corporation (United States)
    United Technologies Corporation acquired Rockwell Collins in November 2018 and renamed it Collins Aerospace Systems. This company has an outstanding US$ 76 million (€ 67 million) contract for the Airborne Launch Control System Replacement for the Minuteman III ICBM missiles.
  28. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (India)
    Walchandnagar Industries Limited produces launching systems for the Indian Agni series of nuclear armed missiles.

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Washington DC joins ICAN Cities Appeal

Washington D.C. joined a growing number of individuals, organizations, cities and state legislatures that are calling on the United States to take meaningful action to prevent nuclear war. In doing so, it has become one of the first capital cities worldwide to express support for the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, joined by Canberra, Australia and Oslo, Norway. 

On March 5, 2019, the DC Council voted unanimously to approve the Sense of the Council Urging the Federal Government to Prevent Nuclear War Resolution of 2019.

Citing the enormous proposed cost of enhancing our arsenal (over $1 trillion) and the increased risk of conflict due to climate change, the resolution specifically calls for: “renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first; ending any president’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack; taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; canceling plans to replace the entire weapon arsenal with enhanced weaponry; and actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.”

PR23-0081 was introduced by Councilmember David Grosso and co-sponsored by Chairman Phil Mendelson and Councilmembers Charles Allen, Anita Bonds, Robert White Jr.,

“For decades the idea of nuclear war seemed a relic of the past, however there is growing concern that the conflict between India and Pakistan could result in nuclear war, and just last year it appeared that a nuclear conflict between the United States and North Korea was imminent,” said Councilmember Grosso.  “Perhaps most unsettling though, is the reality that the current president has unchecked and complete authority to launch nuclear weapons based on his sole discretion. The use of even a small fraction of nuclear weapons would cause worldwide climate disruption and global famine.”

Soka Gakkai International-USA led efforts to bring the resolution to a vote, joined by United Church of Christ (UCC) and MaryKnoll Office for Global Concerns. The D.C. resolution is part of a national grassroots campaign called “Back from the Brink,” which has support from prominent public health, science, environmental, faith-based and justice organizations. Inspired by the initiative, the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) launched a new “Cities Appeal” last year that is gaining support globally for the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

¿Será España el primer miembro de la OTAN en apoyar la prohibición de las armas nucleares?

En Septiembre del 2018 surgió una buena, aunque inesperada noticia desde Madrid: como parte de un pacto sobre el presupuesto del 2019, el partido político Unidos Podemos consiguió que el Gobierno Español se comprometa a firmar el Tratado sobre la prohibición de las Armas Nucleares (TPAN) de la ONU. Hasta la fecha, el Gobierno aún no ha anunciado como y cuando implementará esta decisión.

Leer en otro idioma

El pacto entre el Gobierno y Podemos

El pasado 7 de Septiembre durante una reunión privada el Presidente Pedro Sánchez y el líder de Podemos Pablo Iglesias, cerraron un acuerdo con un conjunto de medidas que garantizarían el apoyo de Podemos para el presupuesto del 2019. Y ahí, entre la creación de un Museo de la Memoria y un sistema de préstamos para libros escolares, estaba el acuerdo #4: España firmará el Tratado por la Prohibición de las Armas nucleares.

Tweet de Podemos anunciando los acuerdos obtenidos con el Gobierno Español. #4: Firma del TPAN

 

¿Qué significa que España firme el TPAN?

Si España firma el tratado, esto marcaría un gran avance para el TPAN entre los países miembros de la OTAN. Al firmar, España indicaría que apoya un futuro para la Alianza sin armas nucleares. Varios estudios ya han indicado que no hay barreras legales para que miembros de la OTAN se unan al TPAN, pero si existe una clara presión política dentro de la Alianza para mantener distancia del TPAN. Por lo tanto, una firma por parte del Gobierno Español también serviría para alentar a otros países indecisos.

El apoyo español también serviría como una señal positiva para la comunidad del desarme nuclear y la maquinaria de la no-proliferación, las cuales están siendo socavadas por las acciones de los países con armas nucleares. Estos países han tirado por la ventana acuerdos, tratados y obligaciones internacionales sobre las armas nucleares bien establecidos, y en vez han embarcado en costosos programas de modernización de sus arsenales. El reciente anuncio por parte de EEUU de retirarse del Tratado sobre las Armas Nucleares de Alcance Intermedio (INF) es solo un ejemplo de esta actitud peligrosa y provocativa. España y los demás miembros de la OTAN tienen una especial responsabilidad y una gran oportunidad para revertir esta tendencia al rechazar un futuro con armas nucleares. Muchos estarán atentos a los siguientes pasos del Gobierno Español.

Silencio en La Moncloa

En los meses que han pasado desde el acuerdo entre el Gobierno y Podemos no se ha oído mucho sobre los siguientes pasos. Durante una reunión en Madrid a comienzos de noviembre, Podemos confirmó a ICAN que el acuerdo sigue en pie y que ellos esperan que el Gobierno lo cumpla. Sin embargo, el Gobierno Español aún no ha comunicado sus planes para la implementación de este acuerdo, y no ha querido responder a las preguntas de periodistas sobre el tema.

Desde ICAN, apelamos al Gobierno de cumplir con lo acordado en Septiembre, explorar los siguientes pasos para firmar en TPAN y avanzar en el camino hacia un mundo sin armas nucleares.

Traducciones

El artículo original en inglés se encuentra aquí

Gracias a la agencia internacional de prensa Pressenza, este artículo también está disponible en: Francés, Italiano, Alemán, Catalán, y Griego

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Tweet for the Nuclear Ban Treaty: urge these countries to sign on September 26th

September 26th is the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and with many heads of state already attending an event about nuclear disarmament at the UN General Assembly, it’s an ideal moment to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Our campaigners are working hard behind the scenes to encourage as many countries as they can to sign and ratify the treaty on the day. But a little loving nudge can go a long way, so will you tweet some encouragement to the countries below to sign the #nuclearban?

Who should I tweet at?

Any country that is not on this list:

[show_hide title=”Countries that have signed, ratified or acceded to the treaty to date:”]
Signed: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo,Cote d’Ivoire, DRC (Congo), Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana,Guatemala,Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Laos, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, St Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome & Principe, South Africa, Togo, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
Ratified: Austria, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guyana,Holy See, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Palau, Palestine, Thailand, Uraguay, Venezuela, Vietnam
Acceded: Cook Islands
[/show_hide]

You can make the tweet visible to people in the country by using relevant hashtags  (e.g. #Argentina for Argentina or #Australia and #Auspol for Australia), or by using twitter’s user search function to find the country’s foreign ministry

What should I tweet?

That’s up to you, though it really helps to be kind, clear and specific. Kind, because nobody likes a troll. Clear because you want to give your government an unmistakeable signal that nuclear weapons are unacceptable and the Nuclear Ban Treaty is the only way forward. Every time someone speaks up against nuclear weapons and says: “I believe nuclear weapons are inhumane, immoral and illegal. All countries should join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” it chips away at their legitimacy. And specific, because there is a really clear thing you want them to do: sign the nuclear Ban Treaty as soon as possible.

So consider something like:  “Nuclear weapons are inhumane, immoral and illegal. I believe that a world without them is possible and we should do our part to get there! This country should sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on September 26th. #nuclearban” (where you replace THIS COUNTRY of the country you had in mind, obviously!)

Tweet now

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 7 things you should know

Next week marks 73 years since two atomic bombs were dropped over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and maimed, and the effects are still being felt today. But while the mushroom clouds became iconic symbols of mass destruction, and the paper cranes a symbol of hope for a nuclear-free world, there are many things you may not know – or may have forgotten – that are really important if we’re going to make sure this never happens again.

#1 More than 210,000 people were killed

By the end of 1945, the bombing had killed an estimated 140,000 people in Hiroshima, and a further 74,000 in Nagasaki. In the years that followed, many of the survivors would face leukemia, cancer, or other terrible side effects from the radiation.

“Each person had a name. Each person was loved by someone. Let us ensure that their deaths were not in vain.”

– Setsuko Thurlow, survivor of the August 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, December 2017

 

#2 The bombs were detonated in the air

Bombs don’t have to hit the ground in order to detonate. For nuclear weapons, detonating them in the air causes the blast to have a larger geographical impact. Both “Little Boy” (the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima) and “Fat Man” (the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki) were detonated in the air. You can find out more about what impact a detonation on the air or on the ground would have on your city through the Outrider Foundation’s powerful (but terrifying) interactive tool:

Blast Radius of the Hiroshima Blast

 

#3 First responders couldn’t help back then, and they wouldn’t be able to help now.

If a nuclear weapon were to be detonated over a city today, first responders – hospitals, firemen, aid organisations – would simply be unable to help. This powerful video by the Red Cross explains why:

Tthe reason we know this is that the extent of the damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 made it nearly impossible to provide aid. In Hiroshima, 70% of all buildings were razed and burned, 42 out of 45 hospitals were rendered non-functional and 90% of physicians and nurses in were killed or injured. In Nagasaki, ground temperatures reached 4,000°C and radioactive rain poured down. As a result, most victims died without any care to ease their suffering. Some of those who did enter the cities after the bombings to provide assistance later died from the radiation.

#4 The effects last to this day

It takes around 10 seconds for the fireball from a nuclear explosion to reach its maximum size, but the effects last for decades and span across generations. Five to six years after the bombings, incidence of leukaemia increased noticeably among survivors. After about a decade, survivors began suffering from thyroid, breast, lung and other cancers at higher than normal rates. Pregnant women exposed to the bombings experienced higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among their infants; their children were more likely to have intellectual disabilities, impaired growth and an increased risk of developing cancer. And for all survivors, cancers related to radiation exposure still continues to increase throughout their lifespan, even to this day, seven decades later.

 

#5 The Paper Cranes are symbols of peace and action

 

1000 paper cranes at Oslo's Parliament building ahead of Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony

Paper cranes are a traditional Japanese symbol for good health, but they have also come to symbolize the Hibakusha – the survivors of the bombings. From the iconic story of Sadako’s 1000 paper cranes to the tireless efforts by Hibakusha to rid the world of nuclear weapons to this very day, their stories are stories of hope and determination that must not be lost. Survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are living witnesses to the horror of nuclear war and when we talk about nuclear weapons, we must talk about the real unacceptable effects they can have on human beings.  The paper cranes are not just a symbol of peace, but also a call to action. They are a reminder that we must keep pushing to see the #endofnukes.

To learn more, you can find a vast number of Hibakusha testimonies online, but good starting places are Hibakusha Stories and the 1945 project, as well as these resources by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum.

#6 There is a way to make sure it never happens again: the Nuclear Ban Treaty.

On July 7th, 2017, the UN adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This historic treaty bans nuclear weapons and all activities related to them. One it enters into force, this legally binding treaty will prohibit nations from:

  • Developing
  • Testing
  • Producing
  • Manufacturing
  • Transferring
  • Possessing
  • Stockpiling
  • using or threatening to use nuclear weapons
  • or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory.

The treaty also prohibits states from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities and is the first international agreement on nuclear weapons that makes countries take action on the health and environmental legacies of past use and testing.

But the impact of the treaty also extends beyond its legal implications. With a ban in place, it becomes easier for all those who oppose nuclear weapons to call out those countries and institutions that carry out nuclear-weapons related activities. Every time someone speaks up against nuclear weapons and says: “I believe nuclear weapons are inhumane, immoral and illegal. All countries should join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” it chips away at their legitimacy. This kind of stigmatisation has been incredibly successful in the past, for the elimination of other weapons – such as landmines and chemical weapons – to changing social norms around behaviours – such as smoking.  If we all keep pushing, we can create a world where nuclear weapons are an unacceptable, nearly unbelievable thing of the past.  So say it, loud and say it often. And if you’re in a country that endorses nuclear weapons, demand change! You can find 5 concrete ways to take action here >> 

What's next: We have the nuclear Ban Treaty, here's who we're going to achieve it's purpose

 

#7 Countries around the world: hear the calls of the Hibakusha, join the Nuclear Ban Treaty

After decades of campaigning for a world free of nuclear-weapons, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons holds great significance for the Hibakusha. A recent survey among 6000 Hibakusha carried out by Kyodo News showed that a vast majority feel that Japan should join the U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons, underscoring their discontent with the government’s opposition to the agreement. Joining the treaty would represent a recognition by Japan of its affected citizens’ rights and suffering – continuing to oppose it on the other hand could be seen as a rejection of these.

The #nuclearban will enter into force when 50 countries sign and ratify the treaty. World leaders must heed the calls of Hibakusha, and of concerned citizens around the world, for a nuclear-weapon-free future.

 

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

ICAN’s Nobel Medal on display at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum 


A new exhibit at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum will display replicas of the medal and the diploma of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize until August 6th –  The day of the commemoration of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the 140,000 lives that were lost as a consequence of the bombs long-lasting effects. After Hiroshima, the medal will go to the Nagasaki Peace Memorial -from August 8 to August 24- for the commemoration on August 9th –

“We hope [the medal] will inspire everyone who visits this museum to work for nuclear disarmament.” Tim Wright, ICAN’s Treaty Coordinator said as he attended the opening of the exhibit ” We want everyone who visits to go home and work to get their country to sign and ratify this important new agreement.”

Wright is in Japan to gather attention and support for the Nuclear Ban Treaty. In Hiroshima, he met with the Mayor and the governor of the Prefecture as well as with Hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to hear their stories and messages for the Japanese government.

核兵器廃絶国際キャンペーン(ICAN)のティム・ライトさんと広島県被団協(佐久間邦彦理事長)で記念撮影。ライトさんは32歳。向かって左隣の吉岡さんは「年齢が3倍近く」だそうです。 ライトさんは22日午後1時半から広島国際会議場で開かれる国際シンポジウム「平和への扉を開く―核兵器廃絶と、これから」で基調講演をします。中国新聞社、広島市立大学など主催。事前申し込み不要です。 #核兵器禁止条約 #nuclearban #ヒロシマ平和メディア #ICAN #広島 #平和 #中国新聞 #RECNA #広島市立大

A post shared by 中国新聞ヒロシマ平和メディアセンター (@hiroshima_peacemedia) on

Japan, which is the only nation ever to be attacked with nuclear weapons, did not formally participate in the negotiation of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It attended the first day of negotiations, but only to declare that it would be unable to negotiate constructively and in good faith. It voted against the UN General Assembly resolution in 2016 that established the mandate for nations to negotiate the treaty. It claims that US nuclear weapons are essential for its security.

At a symposium organised by the Hiroshima Peace Institute, RECNA and the Chugoku Shimbun, Wright called out this opposition to the Nuclear Ban Treaty by the Japanese government’s as a “betrayal of the survivors of the atomic bombings, who for decades have warned of the horrors of nuclear war and appealed for disarmament. This government has ignored their pleas. It has discounted their suffering.” He went on to reject the Japanese governments attempts to position Japan as a bridge-builder between nuclear and non-nuclear states. “By rejecting the ban treaty, it has sided with the small group of nations that recklessly wield these awful weapons. It has revealed itself as a significant part of the problem that we face as a global community. Japan has signed and ratified the treaties prohibiting biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. It should not hesitate in doing the same for the new treaty outlawing nuclear weapons.” Wright was able to voice these concerns directly to the Japanese Government during a meeting with State Minister Sato at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 
Tim Wright speaks at Symposium

Wright also met with a large delegation of ambassadors and representatives from all over the world to brief them on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 50 countries must join the treaty for it to enter into force, and so far, there has been a steady stream of countries doing so: 59 countries from all over the world have already signed the treaty, and 12 have ratified it. We are well on our way.

“Naysayers told us that we would never succeed in securing a mandate from the UN General Assembly to negotiate this treaty. But we did. Then they told us that the negotiating conference would not result in a treaty being adopted. But it did. Now they tell us that the treaty will not enter into force. But it certainly will. And they tell us that Japan will never join. Again, we will prove them wrong. And we will continue proving them wrong until every last nuclear weapon is dismantled.”

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

One year on: 5 things you can do to support the Nuclear Ban Treaty

This weekend marked an important day for our movement: the Nuclear Ban Treaty’s first birthday! One year ago, on July 7th, 2017 the UN adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Image: Happy birthday Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Can't believe how fast you're growing. Love, ICAN

Visit www.nuclearban.org to see the celebrations and take action →

What a year!

The day after the Nuclear Ban Treaty was adopted, campaigners went straight back to work to ensure that 50 countries join – that is, sign and ratify – the treaty as soon as possible, so that it enters into force. To date, 59 countries have signed the treaty and last Thursday, Costa Rica’s ratification brought the number of States Party to the Treaty to 11!

In December, the campaign had another reason to celebrate: ICAN had the incredible honour of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for our work to achieve this treaty. This has not only helped raise the profile of the campaign, opening doors and new opportunities for conversation, but has also allowed us to set up the 1000 Day Fund to support initiatives that push towards the entry into force of the Treaty. But the loudest endorsement the treaty doesn’t come from the UN, or parliamentarians, or even the Nobel Committee. It comes from hopeful, determined people all around the world. New polls released this week show that a vast majority of Italian, German, Belgian, Dutch and French citizens, want their governments to join the Nuclear Ban Treaty.

So one year on, we are well on track, but there is still work to be done. And everybody can help!

Five things you can do to support the Nuclear Ban Treaty

  1. Join the movement: To stop nuclear weapons, we need everyone: doctors, unions, diplomats, activists, moms, dads, students, friends… and you! Sign up to receive updates on the treaty and ways to take action
  2.  The way we talk about nuclear weapons must reflect their real, unacceptable impact on human beings. So listen to the stories of the survivors of nuclear weapons use and testing and share them far and wide. 
  3. Pressure your elected officials to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, encourage them to take the Parliamentary Pledge
  4. Every time someone speaks up against nuclear weapons and says: “I believe nuclear weapons are inhumane, immoral and illegal. All countries should join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” it chips away at their legitimacy. So say it, loud and often. And if you’re in a country that endorses nuclear weapons, demand change!
  5. Stop investments in nuclear weapons. Under the Nuclear Ban Treaty it will not only be illegal to produce nuclear weapons, it will also be illegal to bankroll them. Many banks are already getting ahead of the curve by pulling out of investing in companies that engage in nuclear weapons activities.  Tell your bank: #DontBankontheBomb
What's next: We have the nuclear Ban Treaty, here's who we're going to achieve it's purpose

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Harvard Law Review: joining Nuclear Ban Treaty will not violate existing security agreements

New publications by the Harvard Law Review’s Human Rights Clinic show that existing security agreements for NATO countries and other US allies do not prevent states from joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

With denuclearization firmly back on the international agenda after last week’s summit in Singapore, all responsible states should be joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). But some countries have questioned whether joining the treaty would conflict with their pre-existing security agreements. Two new reports by Harvard Law Review’s Human Rights Clinic’s B. Docherty have found that there is no such conflict. Here are five highlights from the studies:

#1 Yes, states will have to step out from under the nuclear umbrella

The “nuclear umbrella” refers to military cooperation between at least two countries in which a nuclear-armed state agrees to protect a non-nuclear-armed state with nuclear weapons, and the non-nuclear-armed state ‘consents to, or acquiesces the potential use of unclear weapons in their defense.’ There are also several states that host nuclear weapons for nuclear-armed states as part of these defense treaties.

[show_hide title=”More about nuclear, host and endorsing states”]

[table style=”3″]

Nations with nuclear weapons United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea
Nations hosting nuclear weapons Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey
Nations endorsing nuclear weapons Albania, Australia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain (plus the five host nations)

or read more here

[/table]

[/show_hide]

By their very nature, all of these arrangements contravene the Nuclear Ban Treaty, because they depend on the continued existence of nuclear weapons. A state can’t base its security on its allies’ nuclear arms while being party to a treaty with the explicit goal of total elimination. According to Docherty, umbrella arrangements violate article 1(1)(e) and (f) which prohibits assisting – or seeking assistance-, encouraging or inducing anyone to possess, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

That means that under the TPNW ‘umbrella states’ would have to reject any role for nuclear weapons within their security policies – including the threat of use on their behalf. But this does not mean these countries would have to leave long-standing security alliances…

#2 Stepping out of the nuclear umbrella wouldn’t violate existing agreements with nuclear-armed states (including NATO)

The TPNW does not require states to abandon existing security alliances with nuclear-armed states, and Docherty’s global review of nuclear umbrella arrangements found that collective security agreements generally do not pose insurmountable legal obstacles either. Nuclear umbrella arrangements are often political statements made outside security agreements, not legally binding commitments.

#3 Good news: The North Atlantic Treaty does not actually specifically require (supporting) nuclear weapons

A state that wishes to withdraw from the nuclear umbrella associated with NATO can do so without violating any legal obligations to the alliance, and would in fact have the full right to do so. Docherty found that The North Atlantic Treaty itself does not explicitly mention nuclear weapons, or specify the capacities states need to ‘separately and jointly … maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

This broad interpretation explains why several countries have already been able to adopt different positions on nuclear weapons: Denmark, Norway and Spain don’t allow nuclear weapons deployed on their territories during peacetime, Iceland and Lithuania don’t allow them even during conflict. Similarly, non-member countries with separate security agreements or partnerships are also free to dictate their own terms of agreements. In fact, Austria – a neutral country, but with existing NATO partnerships — recently became the ninth country to join the TPNW, and the Swiss First Chamber approved a motion to sign and ratify the treaty.

In a second article, Docherty looked specifically at Sweden, as an EU nation that has several security agreements with NATO and participates actively in joint military operations and peacekeeping missions with NATO members. Download the full case study here or read the highlights below:

 

#4 Yes, South Korea can and should leave the US nuclear umbrella (and Japan and Australia can too!)

Similarly to the North Atlantic Treaty, Docherty found that none of the collective security treaties that Australia, Japan and South Korea have signed with the US specifically reference nuclear weapons, or require these countries to accept nuclear umbrella arrangement as part of a defense strategy. Instead, their condition as umbrella countries comes from later – non-legally binding – political commitments or statements.

In the case of South Korea particularly, renouncing the nuclear umbrella and joining the TPNW could be an incredibly powerful first step towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Joining the treaty would move the denuclearization process into the realm of multilateral UN-backed agreements. Find out more about our five-step roadmap for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

#5 No, the TPNW would not interfere with joint military operations with nuclear-armed states

In the case of joint military operations, Docherty concludes that participation in a joint operation with a nuclear-armed state does not in and of itself violate the TPNW. Based on the way other humanitarian disarmament treaties have been implemented, the biggest criteria to assess a violation would be the existence of a ‘nexus’ between the operation and the use of nuclear weapons.

For the Mine Ban Treaty, for instance: “a state party would violate the treaty if its troops assisted a state not party by fueling trucks carrying antipersonnel landmines or loading such trucks with mine. These activities would be unlawful because they supported a specific operation involving anti-personnel mines.” And perhaps an equally significant precedent: joint military operations with the US have continued despite the fact that the US has not yet joined the Mine Ban Treaty. In the Swedish case study, Docherty further breaks down how a country could determine the extent of their participation in military operations. “As long as Sweden does not change its activities in a way that would rise to the level of assistance, it could continue to contribute to such operations as a TPNW state party.”

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Trump Kim Summit: ICAN launches roadmap to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula

Tuesday’s historic summit has captured the eyes and hopes of the world, but whether it will lead to the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula remains to be seen. ICAN is in Singapore to present a roadmap – a five step plan- to make such peace a reality, and remind leaders present and watching that they can and must take action for a world free of nuclear weapons.


If Trump and Kim really want tomorrow’s summit to do more than just capture the world’s attention, they must embark on a long-term plan to real and lasting peace. Denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is possible, and can be achieved through following five steps:

  1. Recognize the risk of nuclear use and the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of such use
  2. Reject nuclear weapons by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
  3. Remove North Korea’s nuclear weapons through a verifiable and irreversible plan
  4. Ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
  5. Rejoin the NPT and world community

Read more about each step of the roadmap →
Download the full plan 

Live updates from Singapore:

Archived page


You are viewing an archived version of this page. We will be working to update these pages, but in the meantime, please excuse any quirks on this page as you read it, and use the navigation bar above to visit the rest of the site.

Switzerland’s First Chamber in favour of joining Nuclear Ban Treaty without delay

Bern, 5 June – The lower house of Switzerland’s parliament, the National Council, adopted a motion today calling on the Government to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as soon as possible and submit it to Parliament for ratification. A majority of Swiss MPs from all political parties voted in favour of the motion, reaffirming Switzerland’s humanitarian tradition.

“We are extremely pleased that the members of the National Council let themselves be guided by our humanitarian values in this important matter,” said Annette Willi of ICAN Switzerland. “The support from representatives from all political parties is a testament to the strong public interest and the urgency of this issue.”

The Presidents of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the Swiss Red Cross recently called on the Swiss Parliament not to break with its humanitarian tradition in this matter.

ICAN Switzerland congratulated Socialist MP Carlo Sommaruga on introducing the motion in December 2017, together with MPs from all political parties represented in the National Council, and thanked the MPs who voted in favour in this important matter.

At a time of serious international tensions, with politicians openly threatening to use nuclear weapons, this decision sends a clear message: nuclear weapons are unacceptable; they must be prohibited like the other weapons of mass destruction.

Against this backdrop, the TPNW represents a beacon of hope and an essential stepping stone on the path toward a nuclear weapons free world. With the support of a majority of states, including Switzerland, this Treaty can mark a historical turning point towards the end of the nuclear era.

Switzerland participated in the Treaty’s negotiation and voted in favour of it at the UN last July. The Swiss Government acknowledges that the prohibition of nuclear weapons is in accordance “with core interests and traditional values of Switzerland, including its security interests”. The Treaty strengthens existing disarmament and non-proliferation instruments and reinforces a rules-based international order that contributes to the security of all.

Nevertheless, the Swiss Government did not back the motion. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ignazio Cassis, said in February that he wanted to hold off deciding whether or not to join the Treaty until after an internal analysis of the instrument had been completed. The results of that analysis are expected to be available before the fall, when the second chamber of Parliament votes on the motion.

“Today’s vote was important for Switzerland’s reputation and to reaffirm its neutrality,” said Annette Willi.  “The majority of states support this Treaty. How could Switzerland continue to be a credible bridge-builder in multilateral disarmament whilst remaining outside of this historic UN agreement? Switzerland must show leadership and sign the Treaty without further delay.”