SHARE
The nine nuclear-armed states are all modernising, and in some cases expanding, their arsenals. What they also have in common is that they are waging public relations campaigns to paint their rivals as the irresponsible nuclear powers. They are all doing this in the name of deterrence, claiming they have to further build up their nuclear arsenals because they have to match the threat posed by their rivals and potential opponents.
ICAN research shows that last year alone the nine nuclear-armed states spent over $91 billion on developing more sophisticated warheads, missiles, submarines and bombers, with the US spending more than all the other countries put together. The risk of a nuclear weapon being used has reached heights not seen since the Cold War, and the UN has repeatedly raised the alarm over the current nuclear arms race.
Wooing global public opinion
A striking commonality in the messaging from the nuclear-armed states is the implication that they are not to blame for the modernisation and expansion of their own arsenals (despite their decisions to make enormous, decades-long investments to do so).
The United States says it has to face the threat from a growing Chinese arsenal, as well as from Russia and North Korea, and this justifies the estimated $2 trillion nuclear modernisation programme it is undertaking. Politicians, think tankers and journalists in the US are even criticising their government for not spending enough.
There is debate as to why China is increasing the size of its arsenal, but many agree a key factor is concern that America’s modernised weapons make China much more vulnerable to a first strike. While increasing the number of warheads it has, China has called on the US to cut the size of its arsenal (the US currently has 5,244 weapons to China’s estimated 500) and for the US and other nuclear-armed states to sign a no first use treaty, trying to portray itself as a responsible power. Washington has failed to take up the Chinese proposal and for its part called on Beijing to discuss bilateral arms control, insisting this is the responsible way to conduct nuclear affairs. Meanwhile, Russia, which has made explicit and tacit threats to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war, accuses the US of reneging on arms control agreements and worsening nuclear tensions.
During the 2024 Indian general election, the governing party used nuclear weapons as an issue to attack their opponents, saying they were in favour of nuclear disarmament which would leave the country unable to defend itself.
Neighbouring Pakistan, which developed nuclear weapons out of fear of India’s larger conventional military, as well as its nuclear capability, maintains that it needs nuclear weapons for “credible minimum deterrence”.
North Korea justifies its nuclear build up as essential to deter American-led aggression against it. While the US and South Korea are deepening their coordination over what they call “extended deterrence” in the name of deterring aggression by Pyongyang.
Do any of them have right on their side?
Simply put, no they do not.
Commenting on this battle for public opinion, ICAN’s Executive Director, Melissa Parke, said: “The current charade we are witnessing of the nuclear armed states, which everyday are tacitly threatening us all through their deterrence doctrines, trying to persuade the rest of the world they are the responsible ones is deceitful nonsense. The only responsible approach to nuclear weapons is to eliminate them. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides the pathway under international law to achieve that. If the nuclear-armed states and their allies want to convince us they are responsible, they will drop their opposition to the TPNW and join the global push to abolish these illegal and inhumane weapons of mass destruction.”
Ubiquitous deterrence rhetoric - the nuclear armed states are all in it together
When talking about their nuclear weapons, all nine nuclear-armed states - and much of their media whether state controlled or not - say they possess these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction for deterrence.
Deterrence is based on the threat and willingness to use nuclear weapons – something that is inherently irresponsible and is also unacceptable to the majority of countries that reject nuclear weapons.
Many independent nuclear experts and policymakers in countries that don’t possess nuclear weapons or support their use agree there is no such thing as a responsible nuclear-armed state.
As former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “there are no right hands for wrong weapons”.
A thought experimentSee the following articles below and as a thought experiment interchange the name of the countries they refer to. |