Nuclear Disarmament

Nuclear weapon test Romeo on Bikini Atoll, 1954. Photo courtesy of the US Dept. of Energy

The existence of nuclear weapons poses the single greatest threat to humanity today. The stockpiles held by the United States, Russia, France, the U.K., China, India, Pakistan and Israel have the capacity to destroy the Earth hundreds of times over. As well, approximately 40 member-state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have legally acquired nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and also therefore have the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the threat of terrorists seeking to acquire them heightens the existing dangers.

The U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China possessed nuclear weapons when the Treaty went into force, and committed to eliminate their arsenals.

Though the numbers have been reduced, much more must be done to achieve total prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons. The pace is slow and some of these states are upgrading their stockpiles and asserting that nuclear weapons are essential to their security strategies.

There is no ban on nuclear weapons, though they are indiscriminate weapons and their use would constitute a violation of International Humanitarian Law. It is not currently illegal to manufacture them, stockpile them or target a city deemed of military interest. According to the Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, if it is believed that the survival of the state is at risk, it is not illegal to threaten to use and to use nuclear weapons. However, any use would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences and would contravene International Humanitarian Law.

Despite the end of the Cold War and better relations between Russia and the United States, the two countries still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on continuous high-alert status, targeted on each other. Thus, the risk of accidents, accidental launch, terrorist acquisition and attacks remains.

Cities are at risk. The design and purpose for nuclear weapons is to target the most densely populated areas, to kill the maximum number of civilians and to destroy their habitats. Military installations do not require the massive destructive power of a nuclear weapon. 

 

Nuclear Disarmament Content

Canadian Defence Policy Briefing Paper
by Ernie Regehr, O.C.
Senior Fellow in Arctic Security and Defence
The Simons Foundation
November 1, 2018

All are invited to attend a panel discussion on "Nuclear weapons: local and planetary risks and the effort to ban them" from 3:30-5:00pm on Wednesday, November 7, 2018 in Room 4400 of SFU's Segal Graduate School of Business at 500 Granville Street, Vancouver. The Simons Foundation will host a reception with light refreshments prior to the panel discussion from 2:45-3:30pm.

Commentary by the Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.
Published by The Hill Times (subscription required)
October 10, 2018

Award Presentation
The Simons Foundation Award for Distinguished Global Leadership in the Service of Peace and Disarmament
Dinner in honour of Dr. Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D.
Rosewood Hotel Georgia
Vancouver, Canada
September 27, 2018

Welcome Remarks
The Simons Foundation Award for Distinguished Global Leadership in the Service of Peace and Disarmament
Dinner in honour of Dr. Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D.
Rosewood Hotel Georgia
Vancouver, Canada
September 27, 2018

Canada has long been associated with the pursuit of a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Visit the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at the link below for comments on the latest consensus report of the “high-level fissile material cut-off treaty preparatory group” chaired by Canada from Paul Meyer, Senior Fellow at The Simons Foundation.

Commentary by Paul Meyer
Senior Fellow, The Simons Foundation
Published by Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
September 25, 2018

The Simons Foundation is pleased to share this important Alternative U.S. Nuclear Posture Review prepared by Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D., one of The Simons Foundation's Peace Leaders, for the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University and Global Zero, Washington, DC.

Media Fact Sheet
The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture
-An Alternative U.S. Nuclear Posture Review
By Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D.
with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley
Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University
Global Zero, Washington, DC
September 2018

Executive Summary
"The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture"
-An Alternative U.S. Nuclear Posture Review
By Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D.
with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley
Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University
Global Zero, Washington, DC
September 2018