Nuclear Ban Daily, Vol. 5, No. 3
Editorial: Disarming Deterrence to Save the World
10 March 2025
By Ray Acheson
Beyond the decisions and declaration adopted at the Third Meeting of States Parties (3MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the clearest outcome was the unified rejection by states parties and signatories of nuclear weapons and of nuclear deterrence theory. The declaration contends that nuclear deterrence “is posited on the very existence of nuclear risk, which threatens the survival of all,” and condemns “any rhetoric or actions that undermine the global taboo” against nuclear weapons. Many states, survivors, activists, academics, and others echoed this sentiment during the week-long meeting; and this approach has guided the ongoing work to implement the Treaty during the intersessional period. It is this firm, collective conviction against the bomb that will continue to drive the TPNW forward in these dangerous times.
Accountability for harm
It is the 80th year since the United States first tested a nuclear weapon in so-called New Mexico and used two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, devastating those populations and lands. Recognising these historic harms and the ones that have followed through 2000 nuclear test detonations around the world, the declaration asserts that the “awareness and prevention of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and a conviction to prevent them, must continue to guide our work to implement the Treaty and advance nuclear disarmament.” States parties reaffirmed their commitment to addressing the harms of nuclear weapon use and testing and argued that “in a world where challenges persist in meeting basic human needs, the continued expenditure of vast financial resources for the modernization and expansion of nuclear weapons is indefensible.”
Throughout 3MSP, countless states and affected community representatives highlighted the suffering caused by nuclear weapon development, testing, and use. As Ireland pointed out:
Many people—often marginalised or vulnerable populations as well as indigenous peoples—suffer the enduring consequences of nuclear weapons testing. Testing and its legacy of irradiation has impacted their health, their environments, and in many cases, their way of life—suffering is often intergenerational and results can be irreversible. This can never happen again.
It is on this basis that, as Kazakhstan urged, “The international community must resiliently counter any attempts or rhetoric aimed at legitimizing the resumption of nuclear testing, even on a limited scale. The previous human tragedies have demonstrated the monstrous price of such endeavors.”
Preserving the future
But nuclear harms are not just about legacy. Many delegations argued, as Jamaica did, that the “existence of nuclear weapons continues to cast a dark shadow over our collective future on this planet.” Many states noted that this meeting took place at a time when current wars and conflicts have made the threat posed by nuclear weapons more pronounced and dangerous than it has been for many decades. “At this critical juncture,” said Timor-Leste, “we must ask ourselves: Are we willing to accept the perilous trajectory toward nuclear warfare, or will we take decisive steps to prevent it?”
All TPNW states parties and signatories participating in 3MSP clearly decided on the latter. All the informal working groups and focal points have demonstrated leadership in advancing the Treaty’s implementation despite the troubling state of the world, as can be seen in their reports to this meeting. The intersessional work to articulate the security concerns of states under the TPNW, led by Austria since 2MSP, has offered robust arguments against nuclear deterrence that all states can use to push back on the rhetoric that nuclear-armed states use to justify their arsenals of mass destruction. For decades, as Thailand said, deterrence has been prioritised over disarmament. But in a world in which wars are raging and nuclear-armed states are fighting, most of the world’s states do not “believe that the threat of inflicting mass destruction can be part of a security strategy,” as San Marino said.
“Our commitment to disarmament is not just about policy,” explained Sri Lanka. “It is about preventing human anguish.” This is what unites states, survivors, and civil society in the TPNW, noted Austria. The conviction that nuclear weapons “are not and can never be the answer” to security concerns underpins the TPNW. Nuclear weapons “offer an illusion of security that is based on the creation of unacceptable and existential risks for all of humanity.”
Conviction and cooperation
Noting that nuclear weapons threaten all states, regardless of whether or not they possess the weapons or buy into nuclear deterrence, the 3MSP declaration makes it clear that all states have an urgent security interest in eliminating them. Through the declaration, TPNW states parties rejected “any attempts to normalize nuclear rhetoric and any notion of so-called ‘responsible’ behaviour as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.”
As Dr. Nick Ritchie said during the panel discussion on the true cost of nuclear war, one of the challenges of nuclear deterrence is that the nuclear-armed states behave as if there are no shared rules. So even as they promise to engage with other about nuclear issues, they continue to act as lone wolves in the international system, putting their perceived national security interests above all else. As Austria described, “While a commitment to multilateralism may until recently have seemed like an obvious point, today this can no longer be taken for granted. Today, the very principle of multilateral cooperation is at stake.”
This can be seen in how nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states act toward international law in general. They willfully break laws to which they claim to be committed in order to profit from weapon production and the arms trade, and to maintain their sense of power and dominance in the world. As the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) remarked, “From their early existence, trade unions recognised that wars were often fought for the benefit of the elite, at the expense of the working class, who were sent to the front lines and face the humanitarian consequences of war and destruction.” Seeing nuclear weapons as a key component of this system of state violence, the ITUC has long called on governments to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well as to slash military spending, commit to the prohibition of the arms trade, and reallocate resources toward critical sectors that benefit humanity.
Importantly, the ITUC also argued that “disarmament is not only about reducing the tools of war but also about fostering trust among nations. In a world free from the looming threat of armed conflict, societies can flourish, and nations can invest in the well-being of their people.” Many delegations made similar remarks throughout 3MSP, with South Africa noting that “the importance of international cooperation, diplomacy and dialogue remains more imperative than ever in advancing disarmament initiatives and fostering trust among States.” Costa Rica argued that “nuclear weapons poison the relations between countries” while Trinidad and Tobago said, “Nuclear deterrence fosters insecurity rather than stability, perpetuating a dangerous cycle that places all of humanity at risk.
Changing the narrative and compelling change
The realities of the harm generated by nuclear weapons as well as the risk of their use, and the larger destabilising force they have on international relations, all make a compelling case for nuclear disarmament. Many delegations argued that true security can only be achieved through disarmament. As Jamaica said, security “cannot be built on the foundations of fear and the capacity for annihilation. Instead, genuine security must be grounded in trust, diplomacy and collective efforts to advance disarmament and non-proliferation.” In this context, said Jamaica, the TPNW is an invaluable instrument, as it reflects the moral, legal, and humanitarian imperatives of nuclear abolition.” Achieving this fundamental change in security conceptions requires collective action, said Jamaica:
This is where partnerships become very important. The state cannot do it alone and the conversation needs to extend beyond the humanitarian, environmental and security dimensions of the impact of nuclear weapons, to include additional focus on issues of social justice and the economic imperatives of nuclear disarmament.
While some states, including some observers to the TPNW such as Switzerland, argue that the current “international security environment” means it is not the right time to join this Treaty, the majority of countries in the world already correctly understand that their security can only be strengthened through cooperation and collective action rather than weapons of mass destruction. In contrast to the idea that the TPNW is not relevant to today’s security concerns, Sri Lanka argued that it is precisely the rising tensions between nuclear-armed states that gives the TPNW its relevance, arguing, “it acts as a lodestar, guiding our collective efforts towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons that cause such horrors.”
Costa Rica argued that the TPNW “is more than a legal instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons—it is a testament to the power of international solidarity and an affirmation that states, working together, can construct a safer and more just world.” Similarly, Austria pointed out that even though the TPNW “is not a silver bullet for today’s or future security challenges,” the fact is that neither are nuclear weapons or nuclear deterrence. “And they are most definitely not a sustainable solution. In these extremely dangerous times we need leadership and cooperation,” said Austria. “The TPNW is a constructive and serious investment into international law and the common security of all.”
This understanding gives weight to the 3MSP declaration’s reaffirmation of states parties’ dedication to “bringing every State to join the Treaty, dismantling every warhead, providing justice to all affected communities, and ending the era of nuclear weapons forever.”
As states move from 3MSP to the intersessional period and then to the First Review Conference of the TPNW—to be held in the week of 3 November–4 December 2026 in New York under the presidency of South Africa—there are plenty of opportunities to advance the implementation and universalisation of the Treaty in the interests of all of humanity. These include ongoing work on nuclear disarmament verification and the establishment of a competent international authority on that issue, as well as work on establishing an international trust fund and other measures to provide for victim assistance and environmental remediation with the active participation of affected communities. Further work on advancing the security concerns of states under the TPNW is also needed, as is work to diverse meaningful participation by marginalised groups, especially Indigenous Peoples and affected communities. More work to advance gender perspectives is also key, including to address the impact of gendered language in nuclear disarmament discussions to push back against nuclear-armed states’ patriarchal power plays.
There are countless ways for all states as well as organisers, activists, survivors, affected communities, academics, international organisations, and others to help achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. As Costa Rica urged, “Together, we should use this Treaty, along with every instrument at our disposal, to bind up the wounds of the world scarred by nuclear weapons.”
[PDF] ()