Skip to content

The glaring problem with a recent multinational pledge against nuclear war

Five of the world’s most powerful countries took a stand against nuclear weapons. So why are they modernising and increasing their stockpiles?

The glaring problem with a recent multinational pledge against nuclear war
A ballistic missile and launcher in a military parade, North Korea, 2013
Published:

Last Monday, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, Russia, China, France and the UK – signed a joint pledge to reduce the risk of nuclear war. The pledge states that:

“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.  We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.”

These five nuclear weapon states are the only ones recognised as such in the 1967 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with the other four nuclear powers – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – having no such status. Such a pledge between such five rival states is unusual at any time, the more so given current tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan. It may be a welcome move, at least symbolically, but questions must be asked about why it has been made, given that it hardly sounds genuine in light of the states’ actual arsenals and expansion plans.

Embarrassment

The NPT is reviewed every five years, with a review currently delayed by the pandemic. Under the NPT, the five permanent member states (known as the P5) are required to steadily disarm themselves of nuclear weapons. At each review, non-nuclear states are quick to remind them that they are simply not doing this, causing some embarrassment.