#OneFuture: Inclusive nuclear leadership

Nuclear weapons are a threat to all of us.

Yet too few voices are heard in the debate.

It's time to speak up, together.

Nuclear decision-making is among the least scrutinised policy areas

Nuclear weapons policy is controlled by a small group of powerful nations, policy elites and private contractors.

But the costs are paid by everyone else, through reduced public services, militarised societies, and the silencing of marginalised groups and civil movements.

Global voices missing

Many countries without nuclear weapons are advocating for disarmament, but nuclear states refuse to listen. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has been signed by 94 countries, yet nuclear states have failed to engage with the process.

Colonial legacies

The debate on nuclear weapons is closely tied to the pernicious legacy of colonialism and global economic and racial inequalities in shaping the nuclear order, from the historical testing of nuclear weapons on areas inhabited by Indigenous and colonised populations, to the two-tier system of nuclear haves and have-nots established under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Women and young people sidelined in nuclear policy

Women remain underrepresented in nuclear diplomacy and policymaking, despite the proven benefits of gender-inclusive negotiations. All heads of nuclear states are men and half of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences have no women delegates at all. Similarly, young people are inheriting the nuclear threat but there are few avenues available for them to contribute to decision-making.

Public opinion ignored

Despite popular support for nuclear disarmament in most nuclear states and aligned countries, nuclear policy is rarely a contested issue during elections. When they are discussed, debate is often framed around candidates' willingness to use these weapons of mass destruction, rather than reducing the risks the create.

Collective action worked before, it can again

The Nuclear Freeze movement

Movements like the Nuclear Freeze campaign of the 1980s prove that activism can influence government decisions.

The movement pressured politicians to address nuclear risks, influencing public opinion and eventually helping set the stage for arms control agreements like the INF Treaty (1987) between Reagan and Gorbachev.

New Zealand’s nuclear-free zone

In the 1980s, strong public opposition to nuclear weapons and testing, fuelled by fears over French tests in the Pacific and U.S. ship visits, led to massive protests and grassroots organising across New Zealand.

The government, responding to public demand, passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Act (1987), banning nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships from entering its territory.

The law remains in force today and is widely celebrated as a democratic victory of public will over superpower pressure.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Civil society, led by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), mobilised global pressure for a legally binding treaty to ban nuclear arms. Through survivor testimony, youth activism, and diplomatic engagement, ICAN galvanised support from non-nuclear states. In 2017, 122 UN member states voted to adopt the TPNW. Public campaigning was crucial to getting governments to the table and keeping the issue alive in international debate.

ICAN received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for this work, cementing the role of public activism in challenging the nuclear status quo.

We know conclusively that the use or testing of nuclear weapons disproportionately harms women and girls.

Women in Nagasaki and Hiroshima had nearly double the risk of developing and dying from solid cancer. Pregnant women exposed to nuclear radiation are more likely to deliver children with physical malformations, stillbirths and higher maternal mortality.

‍Mary Robinson - Elder

The Elders' calls to leaders:

4 D's to reduce the current nuclear threat

Doctrine

Every nuclear-armed state should make an unequivocal “No First Use” declaration.

Deployment

More than one-quarter of the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons is currently operationally deployed. This proportion must be dramatically and urgently reduced.

De-alerting

The highest priority must be given to taking as many weapons as possible off their current high-alert status.

Decreased numbers

The number of nuclear warheads should be reduced from 12,500 to the lowest possible level, with the US and Russia reducing to no more than 500 each, which should serve as an upper ceiling for any nuclear state