The Issue of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons pose a unique existential threat to the planet, with catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences. Let’s talk about it. The impact of a nuclear explosion spans across space and generations. Unlike a chemical explosive, damage from a nuclear weapon in the form of radioactive fallout can spread around the world through wind and weather patterns, and contaminate the ecosystems we rely on.  Some of the radioactive isotopes have a half life measuring in thousands of years. Appreciable amounts will remain in the environment for up to ten times their half life.

Nuclear weapons breed fear and mistrust amongst nations, as some States can threaten to wipe out entire cities in a heartbeat. The high cost of their production, maintenance and modernization diverts public funds from vital domestic services such as health care, education, disaster relief, and energy solutions in the face of the climate crisis.

9

Nuclear armed nations

+12,000

Nuclear warheads, 90% of which are in the possession of Russia and the US

$100 Billion

Dollars spent on nuclear weapons in 2024, $190,151 every minute for an entire year

74

States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 25 more are signatories

3%

Percent of the current nuclear arsenal could kill more than one third of all humans

8.2 Billion

People threatened by the nuclear weapons

The only answer to the existence of nuclear weapons is their complete abolition.  Let’s break down some common issues.

Who has Nuclear Weapons?

Nine States have nuclear weapons.

The United States | Russia | China | The United Kingdom | India | Pakistan | France | Israel | North Korea

90% of the global nuclear arsenal is in the possession of Russia and the US. At nearly 5,500, Russia has the most warheads. The US, with around 5,100 warheads, spends more on its nuclear arsenal than all other eight States combined.

All permanent members of the UN Security Council are among the nine nuclear armed States.

Numerous non-nuclear weapon States engage in alliances with nuclear weapon States that place them under the so-called “Nuclear Umbrella.” Under such arrangements, US nuclear deterrence extends to the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), plus South Korea, Australia, and Japan. Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey host US nuclear weapons on their soil. Russia is also a part of a military alliance called the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Belarus hosts Russian nuclear weapons on its territory.

Even still, many States decry the calls for extended deterrence and the reliance on nuclear weapons for national security. The five regional Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs) represent 60% of the states on Earth, and 56% by land mass. 74 States are party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and a further 25 are signatories.

Do nuclear weapons keep us safe?

No, nuclear deterrence doctrine is fragile and risky.

Nuclear deterrence is the concept that possessing nuclear weapons prevents potential adversaries from engaging in threatening activities. As posed, the threat of retaliation, if perceived as real and likely to cause sufficient devastation, keeps a country safe.

States that currently possess nuclear weapons justify doing so by using the logic of nuclear deterrence. Do the nine nuclear armed States keep the world safe by maintaining their right to cause catastrophic harm at a moment’s notice? The security of not only the nuclear arm possessors but of civilization has rested upon the reliability of the logic of nuclear deterrence.

The fact that nuclear deterrence could fail is undeniable, either by irrational actors, acts of terrorism, or by any number of mistakes or errors in command and control structures. Over the history of the nuclear age, there have been numerous close calls that could have resulted in nuclear Armageddon.  These were only narrowly avoided by proper human judgement, sheer luck, or both. History also suggests that nuclear weapons do not deter conventional attacks. A prime example is the regional conflict between India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed States, which has been ongoing in the decades since these two States acquired their nuclear arsenals.

Since it relies on maintaining a credible and believable threat, reliance on deterrence erodes the nuclear taboo and norm of non-use. It is impossible to maintain a norm against using nuclear weapons, while relying on a realistic threat. We have been seeing this norm erode with the increase in nuclear threats in conventional conflict around the world.

Spotlight: Focal Points

Missile defense will not protect us in the event of nuclear catastrophe.

Missile Defense is a controversial idea that has been around since the Cold War. Some argue that missile defenses can be deployed to protect a territory from incoming ballistic missiles. Most experts agree that to develop a system with a 100% success rate would beimpossible. The current US missile defense system has only a 40% success rate in tests since it was deployed in 2002.  

In the case of nuclear weapons, any kind of failure has immediate catastrophic effects and cannot be acceptable. These kinds of systems are also wildly expensive to develop and maintain. Development of new missile defense systems has historically spurred the arms race, prompting further missile developments to evade these defense systems.

Recently, the US President Donald Trump authorized a missile defense project, entitledGolden Dome, and estimated at $175 billion. This project is meant to protect the US from incoming missiles in the style of Israel’s defense system, the Iron Dome. 

Here are some key differences between the Golden Dome and Israel’s Iron Dome:

  • The Iron Dome defends against short range rockets, not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMS), which are much faster and travel outside of the atmosphere, making them far harder to intercept.
  • The Golden Dome would need to be effective over an area 400 times bigger in land mass than Israel.
  • At the most basic level, defense systems of the magnitude required to keep the US safe from incoming missiles would encourage the use of decoys by potential attackers as a way to evade and or disable the defense mechanism.

The last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between Russia and the US, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, is set to expire on February 4th, 2026. This agreement limits the number of nuclear warheads deployed in the two States. If this agreement expires with no replacement, there will be nothing holding back the threat of an arms race. 

Russia has offered an extension to continue abiding by the limitations on the numbers of warheads set by the treaty although without the enforcement and transparency measures that make the treaty verifiable. As of mid-November, 2025, there has been no official response from the US.

Learn more about the Nuclear Treaties

The existence of nuclear arsenals enables a handful of States to threaten the survival of all of humanity. In the process of developing such horrific weapons, these governments have subjected communities around the globe to inordinate devastation, displacement, and suffering. The victims of nuclear weapons are not just those that perished in or survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Testing, production, and nuclear disasters since the dawn of the nuclear age have exposed millions to dangerous radiation, creating global hibakusha and a practice of nuclear colonialism. Many of these communities still face ongoing health legacies and risks.  

The global hibakusha deserve justice. Efforts to pursue nuclear justice, victim assistance, and environmental remediation through local measures, lawsuits, and international fora call for acknowledgement of the legacies and impact of nuclear colonialism and compensation and restoration of affected communities and lands.  And yet, nuclear justice will only be achieved when a few nations no longer have the power to threaten all of humanity. 

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation pursues nuclear justice through Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and efforts to establish an international trust fund. We also advocate for the UN Nuclear Justice Resolutions, as well as expanded compensation for downwinders and all survivors of nuclear violence.

Learn more about Nuclear Justice

Learn more: