The path to nuclear disarmament

The need for a new treaty

When chemical weapons were used in Syria, the world was furious. Countries called out the Assad regime for shelling its own civilians with toxic chemicals. With the help of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the 192 states who are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) have united to work towards a world free of chemical weapons. These efforts towards chemical disarmament earned the OPCW the honorable Nobel Peace Prize in 2013.

As of 31^st October, 2015, the OPCW has stated that 90% of the world’s declared chemical weapon stockpiles have been destroyed. When the international community can come together to eliminate chemical weapons, one wonders why nuclear weapons, which have graver humanitarian consequences, are not given as much attention.

Pakistan, which takes pride in its nuclear weapons programme, makes the list of the few countries that do possess nuclear weapons. India, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom are some of the countries that also possess nuclear warheads. Ironically, these very same countries, including Pakistan, prohibit the possession and use of chemical weapons.

India and Pakistan are yet to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike the CWC, or the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the NPT does not call for a complete ban on nuclear weapons. Therefore, out of all of the CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) issues, nuclear weapons policy needs the most work.

Nuclear disarmament will only be possible once we (1) understand the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, (2) rid our minds of the old Cold War mentality and (3) create an effective international treaty calling for a ban on nuclear weapons.

History books will continue to publish images of the mushroom clouds that were seen over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945. Beneath the clouds were civilians that were brutally maimed and killed by the nuclear detonation. One nuclear bomb was capable of killing and wounding an estimated 150,000 lives in Hiroshima and another bomb killed and wounded approximately 75,000 people in Nagasaki. If we began to understand the humanitarian impact of using nuclear weapons, there would be an incentive to eliminate these devastating weapons.

In total the world nuclear weapon stockpile adds up to approximately 16,000 nuclear warheads. Imagine the amount of damage that can be inflicted upon human lives. However, humans are not the only ones baring the consequences. The environment, infrastructure, climate, and our planet will not be able to survive the risks associated with the use of nuclear weapons. If each of these nuclear weapons are used, the world will no longer exist as we know it.

In Syria, civilians were rushed to hospitals after being poisoned with chemical weapons. The chlorine gas did not destroy their ambulances, roads or hospitals. In the case of a nuclear weapon attack, all infrastructure will be destroyed, and the wounded will either die or suffer. In Pakistan where infrastructure is already lacking in quantity and quality, a nuclear war would come with serious humanitarian consequences. No proper response can be planned, anywhere in the world for that matter, to address a nuclear detonation. If the humanitarian consequences are seriously considered, nuclear weapons would not only never be used but also be eliminated.

Nuclear disarmament has also been a challenge due to the old Cold War thinking that still prevails. States that possess nuclear weapons see them as an emblem of security. Nuclear weapons are thought to give a country more credibility in the international community. They are also thought to give a country more flexibility in future engagement with other states. A nuclear war between Pakistan and India is always an option if the region becomes highly destabilised.

Countries that possess nuclear weapons need to reconsider this kind of mentality. They should not fall victim to a nuclear arms race in the twenty first century. Times have changed. If states want to secure themselves, they should redirect themselves to other defense strategies that are respective of the Geneva Protocol and by no means involve activating nuclear warheads.

The biggest step will be taken towards nuclear disarmament when an international treaty is created that calls for a complete ban and elimination of nuclear weapons. The current international framework is lacking in this regard which is why states are still allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

Currently, states that possess nuclear weapons, like the United States of America and the Russian Federation, are expected to lead the nuclear disarmament initiative. Leaving nuclear disarmament in the hands of the nuclear weapon states has so far resulted in no action. By means of a new treaty, states that do not possess nuclear weapons but do acknowledge its humanitarian impact, can lead the movement towards nuclear disarmament.

We fear nuclear disarmament because of the Cold War thinking; we fear it will take our security away from us and we will no longer be able to defend ourselves internationally. Considering the humanitarian impacts a nuclear detonation can have on our country, we should support the creation of a nuclear ban treaty and call for international nuclear disarmament.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, more countries, like North Korea, will want to possess them. Until nuclear weapons are destroyed, countries, like Pakistan, will never truly be safe.