Rosas: The Dawn of the Nuclear Age: 80 Years Later

It has been 80 years since the Trinity test inauguration of the nuclear age. During this time the world has witnessed efforts to build a nuclear non-proliferation regime aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their use in armed conflicts around the world. 

The road toward a nuclear non-proliferation regime has been winding with both successes and setbacks. Among the successes one may include the development of nuclear weapons-free zones; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the Treaty for the Prohibition of nuclear weapons. International organizations including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO), among others, have provided very valuable frameworks to promote a culture of peace, to discuss further actions on nuclear disarmament and to guard the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 

At subnational levels, the existence of 8,497 cities in 166 countries under the initiative Mayors for Peace deserves credit, since municipalities, counties and regions, including those in states that own nuclear weapons, constitute a major force to remind state authorities about the relevance of nuclear disarmament. 

There is also a great number of non-governmental organizations pushing for nuclear disarmament, as well as academic programs and scholars all over the world researching these issues. Of especial value is the testimony of victims of the use of nuclear weapons, the hibakusha, and also the peoples of countries where nuclear testing has taken place, since their voices provide a distinctive perspective on the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear technologies for military purposes.

Despite these positive developments, there are worrisome trends that contribute to understanding why it is that the Doomsday Clock is set at 89 seconds to midnight at this very moment.

The number of nuclear states in the past 80 years went from one to nine. The containment of proliferation is credited to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in force since March 5, 1970. Without it, it is believed the number of states in possession of nuclear weapons would be larger. Yet, besides the nine states in possession of nuclear weapons, some others have looked for the development of nuclear weapons. Until today, only one state in possession of nuclear weapons, South Africa, agreed on dismantling and destroying them.

The amount of nuclear weapons in the world reached its peak during the Cold War when an estimate of 61 000 in the middle 80’s. Today, despite the existence of a fraction of the Cold War arsenal – it is currently estimated in around 12,400 warheads – all nuclear states are engaged in the expansion and/or modernization of their arsenals and the numbers are increasing, for example in the People’s Republic of China with 600 nuclear weapons that intends to expand from 600 to 1,000 warheads by the end of this decade. 

The NPT Treaty, which is at the very core of the nuclear non proliferation regime, has three pillars of which two seem to have accomplished the containment of nuclear weapons in the world: one is of course, the non-proliferation pillar, aiming at avoiding the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear states. The second is the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Yet, the third pillar is in question because nuclear weapon states consider these weapons essential for their security. This vision contradicts the perception of most countries in the world, that, contrary to the notion of having nuclear weapons to achieve security, they believe their security is best served without nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime faces several challenges. The first, clearly, is the desire of some countries to develop nuclear weapons. It is true it is not easy to develop nuclear weapons these days, since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime and the international community work to sanction in different ways, potential proliferators. Yet, the possibility of transforming the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for military purposes is always open, following the example set by India back in 1974, and most probably followed by Iraq, Syria and most recently, Iran. These countries had/have nuclear programs for peaceful purposes but it is widely believed they masked nuclear weapons programs. The three mentioned countries have experienced attacks from Israel aimed at preventing them from going nuclear. Yet, there is the shadow of the doubt about accuracy of the estimates of the intelligence services of Israel and the US pertaining the nuclear weapons programs of the mentioned countries. Is there conclusive evidence about it? To many experts, it is not possible to answer this question. 

Second, although the Nuclear Non-proliferation regime established a more or less clear distinction between nuclear energy programs for peaceful purposes and nuclear weapons programs, the line has turned blurred. The attacks of Russia against electric and energy system in Ukraine since the war that started in February 2022, particularly but not only in Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, risks a nuclear disaster. The same could be said of the most recent attacks against nuclear facilities by Israel and the United States in Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. Thus, nuclear energy facilities seem to have become spoils of war, sending a dangerous message to countries that possess nuclear plants. In the past it was the risk of an accident by human error, like in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others, or an earthquake or a natural disaster, like in Fukushima that were perceived as potential risks to nuclear energy facilities. Today one may add that these critical infrastructures may be attacked by other states and possibly by terrorist and organized crime organizations. 

Third, the world does not seem to be in the mood for disarmament these days. There was a time when disarmament was intended to eliminate and destroy various types of weapons, making rearmament irreversible. To achieve the disarmament of biological, chemical, conventional, land mines, cluster munitions and of course, nuclear weapons, was perceived as the goal of international negotiations. The idea was to protect the international community by building a safer and less militarized environment. Yet, most of the mentioned disarmament agreements are moving back. The use of biological and chemical weapons face challenges due to their dual-purpose condition, plus, in the case of the chemical weapons convention, the need for avoiding a resurgence of chemical weaponry. Conventional weapons are increasing dramatically in Europe reversing the agreements achieved 30 years ago at the end of the Cold War. Same with the Nuclear Intermediate Forces. Russia has withdrawn from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The land-mine convention will rest six of their parties -all European- in the months to come. Besides the use of land mines in the world and the challenge of improvised explosive ordinances, cluster munitions are also being deployed in armed conflicts. Thus, it is not only the nuclear threat that is of concern but the growing militarization in various fronts and types of weapons, not to mention weapons of new generations such as drones, cyberweapons, artificial intelligence-based weapons, etcetera.

Four, the verification mechanism against nuclear weapons proliferation has been under attack for long. One may remember, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq between 2002 and 2003, the narrative of the George W. Bush administration against the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei and Hans Blix. As history proved, the IAEA, El-Baradei and Hans Blix were right, and the US was wrong. But the damage to the IAEA was done. Today Iran blames the IAEA for what it considers, an inappropriate stance on the Israel and US attacks on its nuclear facilities. In fact, it is widely believed that Iran may withdraw from the NPT Treaty. This shows that building trust in a politically charged environment is not easy, and disarmament is not only a technical issue but a political process that demands a lot of work by States, international organizations, civil society, NGOs and communities.

Five, last February 13, the US President Donald Trump expressed his desire to ”denuclearize” the United States and pursue arms control negotiations with China and Russia. Two weeks later, President Trump stated that “it would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons.” His remarks were met with both surprise and skepticism in the nuclear policy community mostly because in the projected budget for 2026, the Trump Administration announced a proposed increased that would make the military budget as high as 1 trillion dollars.

The president’s proposal includes spending $4.1 billion in research and development funding for the behind-schedule Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, $10.3 billion across R&D and procurement accounts for the B-21 stealth bomber, and $11.2 billion in R&D and procurement for Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. It is estimated that with proposed spending on Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs reaching $25 billion in this year’s budget request, nuclear forces would cost a total of $87 billion in fiscal 2026 under the White House plan. That would represent a 26-percent increase over the Biden administration’s last budget request, and the second year in a row in which total nuclear costs have increased by more than 20 percent. Thus, Trump’s desire to “denuclearized” the United States does not seem a serious proposal.

Six, the new normal is that it is OK for certain countries like Israel and India to have nuclear weapons. The fact that to the West is acceptable a nuclear Israel but not other countries in the Middle East is corroborated by the way the US and some of its allies reacted to the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Previous attacks on nuclear energy infrastructure in Iraq and Syria by Israel, are in line with this. Although Israel does not acknowledge the possession of nuclear weapons, it does not deny it and there is conclusive evidence of its nuclear weapons program plus a nuclear doctrine for national security reasons. In the case of India, through the controversial nuclear cooperation agreements with France and the US, New Delhi is de facto recognized as a nuclear weapon state, despite being outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Seven, another new normal is the banalization of the possible use of nuclear weapons in combat. In August 2017, President Trump engaged in a round of negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, threatening North Korea with nuclear “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Following his decision to invade Ukraine in 2022, President Putin issued a series of threats of nuclear use, which were designed to shield its assault against a non-nuclear-weapon state. In addition to that, the rhetoric in Russia and the US in favor of tactical nuclear weapons with devices similar to those employed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and pretending “they would harm but not too much” is a worrisome narrative. One should not forget that a 15 kiloton device launched on August 6 in Hiroshima caused 160 000 deaths. Thus, small nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons. No matter the size, they could lead to what the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists call “Midnight.”

Eight, North Korea has been quoted by suggesting that the war of Russia in Ukraine demonstrates the value of possessing nuclear weapons, claiming that had Kyiv nuclear devices, Moscow would not have never dared to attack it. Again, this pro-nuclear weapons possession narrative places security under the umbrella of nuclear devices.

Nine, on February 5, 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will expire. Thus, the United States and Russia should urgently reach a simple, informal deal to maintain the existing caps on their strategic arsenals as long as the other side agrees to do so. This looks complex under the current circumstances. Without some new form of mutual restraint, Russia and the United States could double the number of deployed warheads—from about 1 550 each to more than 3,000—by uploading additional warheads on their land- and sea-based missiles. Such a buildup would reverse 35 years of Russian-US reductions. More nuclear weapons would not “enhance deterrence” and are not necessary to deter nuclear attacks. It would divert resources from other defense and human needs. It would prompt China and Russia to match any US increase. It would make the world a more dangerous place.

Ten, next year the NPT Review Conference is set -hopefully- for April 27 to May 22 in New York The review process is designed to bring together the 191 NPT states-parties to formally review compliance with and implementation of the treaty’s three pillars of disarmament mentioned above, as well as nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The last time an NPT review conference adopted a substantive outcome document by consensus was in 2010. It was almost a “tradition” that after one successful NPT review conference it would follow a non successful outcome. But after 2010, it’s been now 15 years without a final document by consensus, mostly due to disagreement on a proposed Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East, and more recently, the impact of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on the global nuclear order; China’s nuclear weapons build-up; the forward deployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe; Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus; threats to the global nuclear test moratorium; and the failure of the five NPT nuclear-armed states to engage in negotiations on disarmament, which is a central obligation under Article VI of the treaty. 

The international community is working in engaging major nuclear powers to finally agree on substantial recommendations for next year’s review conference. It is not an easy task but, the current environment, remembering the birth of the nuclear age plus the birth of the hope of a more peaceful world that was central in the creation of the United Nations 80 years ago, may contribute to a new mood towards disarmament and a culture of peace. The world cannot be a hostage of a bunch of nuclear powers. It is a vast majority of UN members that believe that security is closely related to disarmament and development. So be it!

---

Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx

The post Rosas: The Dawn of the Nuclear Age: 80 Years Later appeared first on Rio Grande Guardian.