Stimson Statements: UN Nuclear Ban

You will say it is a failure waiting to happen; a pyrrhic victory; a waste of time and effort. The non-nuclear countries want nine countries who didn’t show up for the talks to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Never going to happen, especially as North Korea vehemently argues it will never give up its nukes. And you are probably right, for now. But symbols have power. Over time; they turn the acceptable (chemical weapons, nuclear tests, mines) into the unacceptable. That’s how international norms emerge. Patience. The day will come.

— Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow, Stimson Center

“Nine nations hold all the world hostage by retaining nuclear weapons and by continuing to build new ones. Even a ‘small’ nuclear war would be catastrophic for large parts of the earth and a large nuclear exchange could end civilization. By declaring nuclear weapons to be illegal and prohibiting their retention, modernization, and use the vast majority of nations have reinforced the Non-proliferation Treaty and opened a pathway to the eventual elimination of these dangerous weapons. Most of the key steps that have been taken to reduce nuclear dangers, including the NPT, began without the participation of key nuclear weapon states. All the nuclear weapon states — and those who erroneously believe that their security is guaranteed by sheltering under a “nuclear umbrella” — should rethink their refusal to participate in the nuclear ban and begin a process that could lead to fulfillment of the ban’s objective — a world in which all humanity can live without fear of nuclear holocaust.”

— Barry Blechman, Co-founder, Stimson Center

“Reaffirming the goal of prohibiting nuclear weapons is useful and unobjectionable. This goal has been embraced by U.S. Presidents since Harry S. Truman, most notably including Ronald Reagan as well as Barack Obama, and is enshrined in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. In the near-term, the treaty finalized today will be most effective in reaffirming nonproliferation rather than disarmament, as its signatories do not possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed states have been bystanders. They are spending large sums to modernize their forces. Not one nuclear-armed state is now in negotiations to reduce nuclear dangers and nuclear weapons. This is irresponsible behavior. In contrast, the states that have negotiated this treaty have acted responsibly.”

— Michael Krepon, Co-founder, Stimson Center

“The strength of the ten-page text is its grounding in humanitarian law, including preambular language related to the environment, food security and global economy, even reference to ‘age- and gender-sensitive assistance’ in the provision on victim assistance and environmental remediation. One would expect though that a treaty banning nuclear weapons would have measures to rival that of the 181-page Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), still the world’s first and only verifiable disarmament treaty. The success of the CWC is the involvement of all stakeholders, including possessors of chemical weapons, industry and NGOs, during its two decades of negotiations and the twenty-years since its entry into force. The absence of nuclear industry and possessors of nuclear weapons, with only a handful of nuclear energy states at the nuclear ban table, left a major technical skill-set needed for WMD disarmament missing. Without their inclusion, verification has been kicked down the road – a shortcoming that will haunt, possibly even shackle, the treaty from fully realizing its objective of a world without nuclear weapons.”

— Cindy Vestergaard, Senior Associate, Nuclear Safeguards program, Stimson Center