Last week, Jacinda Ardern wrote of growing scepticism about the intention of the nuclear weapon states to ever implement their nuclear disarmament commitments under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), despite the threat of nuclear catastrophe being greater than ever (The world stands on a nuclear precipice – we must avoid catastrophe, 24 August).
That scepticism has been more than justified by the utter failure of the NPT review conference to agree even a weak final document, with fine words about their “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals” but no commitment to physical steps towards that end.
The primary blame has been laid on Russia, but it is shared by all of the nuclear-armed states. Russia was not alone in derailing this conference. It was fully aligned with the other NPT countries in actively preventing any meaningful commitment to advance nuclear disarmament, stop nuclear threats, or reduce nuclear risks from being included in the outcome document. For decades, those of us in the peace movement have pinned our hopes of averting Armageddon on article VI being implemented in “good faith”, but the latest setback is forcing a rethink. Should we abandon the NPT and go for direct action?
Perhaps the only way to break the deadlock is for one of the major nuclear-armed powers to break ranks by declaring that nuclear weapons do not give security, but, on the contrary, their continued existence threatens all of us.
Does anyone really believe that the immediate response from another nuclear weapon state would be: “Oh, good, now we can chuck a nuke at X with impunity; let’s do it”?
The first global leader who makes that declaration, really means it, and implements the necessary practical steps, will go down in history as the greatest statesperson of all time. Who will rise to that challenge?
Frank Jackson
Former co-chair, World Disarmament Campaign
• New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, was correct to call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, but made no mention of closing off the route to more nations obtaining such weapons, which will require the elimination of nuclear power too. The Ukraine war has shown how close we might be to the use of battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe, but has also made clear the danger inherent in ownership of nuclear power plants. The possibility of widespread radioactive pollution induced by the destruction of nuclear power stations during a war or act of terrorism was once seen as fanciful. However, events in Ukraine have shown that it is not (Revealed: Russian plan to disconnect Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant from grid, 24 August).
To tackle both these nuclear dangers requires two steps. Step one involves the reduction, then eventual elimination, of nuclear weapons, in a way that gives nuclear nations the confidence to do so. Jonathan Schell, in his book The Abolition, explained how to achieve this by what he termed “weaponless deterrence”. He proposed allowing nuclear states to keep the infrastructure to remake nuclear weapons should there be any verified threat of a new nation obtaining them. This approach will underpin global pressure to halt any aspiring nuclear nation, since such weapons are in the process of being negotiated away.
The second step will be a parallel programme to eliminate nuclear power, since this is the likely source of such a spread.
Colin Hines
Twickenham, London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
