A new nuclear arms race is fuelling a vicious cycle of risk.

Driven by fear, suspicion and mistrust.

Expanding arsenals, weapons more powerful than at any point in history, more states seeking nuclear deterrents.

While global crises go underfunded, record sums are being spent on weapons that must never be used. 

Yet, public pressure has succeeded in reducing nuclear stockpiles before.

It can again, if we act together. 

The nuclear arms race explained

A new nuclear arms race is underway and this time, it's riskier, harder to control and more expensive than ever.

At the heart of the renewed threat from nuclear weapons has been irresponsible leadership by the major nuclear powers. Almost all nuclear states are modernising, and in some cases expanding, their arsenals.

More nuclear weapons = more risk:

More weapons mean more chances for accidents, miscalculations, or unauthorized launches. 

Record spending:

In 2023, the nine nuclear-armed  states spent $10.8 billion (13.4%) more on their nuclear arsenals than the year before, a total of $91.4 billion, or $2,898 per second on nuclear weapons.

New AI and cyber vulnerabilities:

Mean a single misjudgement could cost millions of lives. The more these arsenals grow, the thinner the margin for human error becomes.

Nuclear powers competing for supremacy in a multipolar world: 

• The U.S. is undertaking an extensive nuclear modernization program, projected to cost up to $1.5 trillion over 30 years, developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarines, bombers, and modernizing warheads and infrastructure.
• Russia is actively enhancing its nuclear capabilities, deploying new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems, part of a broader strategy to strengthen its nuclear deterrent.
• China appears to be undertaking a significant nuclear expansion, raising the prospect of a dangerous three-way arms race between US, Russia and China.  
   

New states seeking their own nuclear deterrents leading to new regional escalations:

• The acceleration of Iran's nuclear program has heightened regional and global tensions and was used as justification for Israeli and U.S. strikes, claimed to be targeting Iran's nuclear sites.
• Their uranium enrichment capacity  raises concerns about a potential nuclear arms race in the Middle East, prompting neighbouring countries to consider developing or acquiring their own nuclear deterrents.

The true cost of nuclear weapons

Nuclear spending is equivalent to $2,898 every second

Staggering levels of misguided investment, that, if deployed elsewhere, could deliver transformative progress on global issues:

Less than half of one year’s nuclear spending could  end global hunger by 2030 ($40B).

One year of nuclear spending would fund Pandemic Preparedness almost three times over, which could protect us from repeat of COVID economic devastation, projected to cost up to $15.8 trillion.

One year of nuclear spending would fund around 20 years of global cancer research ($24.5B in 2016-2020).

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