Open Letter: In Response to an Article in
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Ivana Nikolić Hughes, Ph.D. / The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

(January 15, 2024) — As promised, attached is a response to the [Zachary] Kallenborn article [Why a nuclear weapons ban would threaten, not save, humanity] published in the Bulletin last week. It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with the wonderful drafting committee (Xanthe Hall, Ira Helfand, Kati Juva, Mays Smithwick, and Frank Boulton). I’m deeply grateful to them for making this happen on such a tight schedule

If you would like to have your name included when we submit the article to the Bulletin, please complete the form (at this link). The form will allow us to keep track of the signatures and to include them on a first-come, first-served basis. We will submit to the Bulletin Tuesday 11 AM Eastern time.

Unfortunately, with a short turnaround time, we will not be able to accommodate any editorial suggestions. That said, if you notice something amiss (factual, grammatical, or spelling mistake or broken link), please do let me know.

Ivana Nikolić Hughes, Ph.D. is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

 

Nuclear Deterrence Is an
Existential Threat, Not the Nuclear Ban
Ivana Nikoliç Hughes et al

Arguably, the biggest falsehoods that Kallenborn promulgates revolve around the TPNW itself. For one, the TPNW is not a quick fix that will lead to a sudden abolition of nuclear weapons in a vacuum. Rather, the treaty is an instrument that establishes a legal norm, which will lead to a process resulting in the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The path that needs to be taken to reach this goal will, in itself, address the problem of great powers’ conflict and regional conflicts, as well as safe disarmament.

It is commonly claimed that nuclear deterrence has prevented a nuclear war from occurring. But apart from the fact that we came to the brink of nuclear war several times during the Cold War, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis, this claim completely ignores the role of international agreements in de-escalating tensions and preventing a nuclear conflict.

The process of creating instruments of arms control and disarmament creates structures for regaining trust and verification. In this regard, we are all but naked once again and the arms race is in full flow. If New START disappears in 2026, the only disarmament treaty left will be the TPNW.

As Kallenborn himself states, “the best way to reduce the risks of nuclear war is to ensure it never happens in the first place.” That precisely is the intention and the motivation of all of the 122 states that negotiated the TPNW in 2017 and an even larger number of states that have been voting in support of the treaty at the UN General Assembly every year since.

The nine nuclear weapon possessors and their allies are the ones that need to prove that there is a convincing reason, or indeed any right, to hold the rest of the world hostage to their nuclear weapons.

Kallenborn asserts that if nuclear weapons are eliminated, the great powers will launch World War III. In fact, the process of eliminating these weapons will create the conditions needed for a more cooperative relationship amongst the great powers, by removing the most dangerous issue that divides them.

We invite Kallenborn to join us and other members of civil society, as well as diplomats, youth, and representatives of communities affected by nuclear weapons for the Third Meeting of States Parties, which will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, March 3-7, 2025. There he will see what genuine cooperation amongst nations looks like, how the concern for future generations can bring people together, and the way that our common humanity can help us transcend our differences.

This kind of cooperation is not just inspiring, but a blueprint for addressing all of the other existential threats we face. And while he’s considering whether to join us, Kallenborn should read the superb Declaration that came out of the Second Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW, held in New York City late last year. He could learn a lot.

Abolition Is the Only Reasonable Path
Nuclear weapons and current nuclear weapon policies are, in the words of the late peace and nuclear disarmament activist Daniel Ellsberg, “dizzyingly insane and immoral.” Aiming solely for reducing the harm or the possibility of harm that nuclear weapons could cause, rather than being a part of a process to abolish them, is simply not enough. Imagine if the opponents of slavery had aimed not to abolish slavery, but to make life a bit better for the slaves?

Ultimately, the question of nuclear abolition is not just a moral one, but an existential one. If we don’t abolish nuclear weapons, they will abolish us. John F. Kennedy stated this at the United Nations more than 60 years ago. Let’s heed his words sooner rather than later and, critically, before it is too late

Signed:
•  Ivana Nikolić Hughes, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and Columbia University

•  Xanthe Hall, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

•  Ira Helfand, IPPNW, Back from the Brink

•  Kati Juva, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) Finland, IPPNW

•  Maysie Smithwick, New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (NYCAN)

•  Frank Boulton, Medact (IPPNW UK)

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes