Editing Nuclear disarmament (section)

==Recent developments==
[[File:Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.svg|thumb|280px|UN vote on adoption of the [[Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons]] on July 7, 2017<br />{{Leftlegend|#008cff|Yes}} {{Leftlegend|#ff0000|No}}{{Leftlegend|#c0c0c0|Did not vote}}]]
Eliminating nuclear weapons has long been an aim of the pacifist left. But now many mainstream politicians, academic analysts, and retired military leaders also advocate nuclear disarmament. [[Sam Nunn]], [[William J. Perry|William Perry]], [[Henry Kissinger]], and [[George Shultz]] have called upon governments to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, and in three op-eds in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' proposed an ambitious program of urgent steps to that end. The four have created the Nuclear Security Project to advance this agenda.  Nunn reinforced that agenda during a speech at the Harvard Kennedy School on October 21, 2008, saying, "I'm much more concerned about a terrorist without a return address that cannot be deterred than I am about deliberate war between nuclear powers. You can't deter a group who is willing to commit suicide. We are in a different era. You have to understand the world has changed."<ref>Maclin, Beth (October 20, 2008) [https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20100117153644/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18606/nuclear_weaponfree_world_is_possible_nunn_says.html "A Nuclear weapon-free world is possible, Nunn says"], Belfer Center, Harvard University. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.</ref> In 2010, the four were featured in a documentary film entitled ''[[Nuclear Tipping Point]]''. The film is a visual and historical depiction of the ideas laid forth in ''The Wall Street Journal'' op-eds and reinforces their commitment to a world without nuclear weapons and the steps that can be taken to reach that goal.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/international/2011/06/16/the-growing-appeal-of-zero |title=The Growing Appeal of Zero |date=June 18, 2011 |newspaper=The Economist |page=66 |access-date=February 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190625000331/https://www.economist.com/international/2011/06/16/the-growing-appeal-of-zero |archive-date=June 25, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Global Zero (campaign)|Global Zero]] is an international non-partisan group of 300 world leaders dedicated to achieving nuclear disarmament.<ref>[http://www.globalzero.org?name=2.htm&id=2 Global Zero] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180208064244/https://www.globalzero.org/?name=2.htm&id=2 |date=February 8, 2018 }}</ref> The initiative, launched in December 2008, promotes a phased withdrawal and verification for the destruction of all devices held by official and unofficial members of the [[nuclear club]]. The Global Zero campaign works toward building an international consensus and a sustained global movement of leaders and citizens for the elimination of [[nuclear weapon]]s. Goals include the initiation of [[United States]]-[[Russia]] bilateral negotiations for reductions to 1,000 total warheads each and commitments from the other key nuclear weapons countries to participate in multilateral negotiations for phased reductions of nuclear arsenals. Global Zero works to expand the diplomatic dialogue with key governments and continue to develop policy proposals on the critical issues related to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The [[International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, Oslo, 2008|International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament]] took place in [[Oslo]] in February 2008, and was organized by The Government of [[Norway]], the [[Nuclear Threat Initiative]] and the [[Hoover Institute]]. The Conference was entitled ''Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons'' and had the purpose of building consensus between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in relation to the [[Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://disarmament.nrpa.no/ |title=International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament |date=February 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110104155217/http://disarmament.nrpa.no/ |archive-date=January 4, 2011 }}</ref>

[[File:Ban the Bomb Rally 2017 (35909348425).jpg|thumb|Anti-nuclear weapons protest march in St. Louis, United States, June 17, 2017]]
The [[Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, 2010|Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation]] took place in [[Tehran]] in April 2010. The conference was held shortly after the signing of the [[New START]], and resulted in a call of action toward eliminating all nuclear weapons. Representatives from 60 countries were invited to the conference. [[Non-governmental organization]]s were also present.

Among the prominent figures who have called for the abolition of nuclear weapons are "the philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]], the entertainer [[Steve Allen]], [[CNN]]'s [[Ted Turner]], former [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Claiborne Pell]], [[University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]] president [[Theodore Hesburgh]], South African Bishop [[Desmond Tutu]] and the [[Dalai Lama]]".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=40 |title=Nuclear Weapons: Instruments of Peace |author=Ernest Lefever |date=Autumn 1999 |volume=1 |issue=2 |work=Global Dialogue |access-date=January 13, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509163753/http://worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=40 |archive-date=May 9, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Others have argued that nuclear weapons have made the world relatively safer, with peace through [[deterrence theory|deterrence]] and through the [[stability–instability paradox]], including in south Asia.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/ESCCONTROLCHAPTER1.pdf|title=The Stability-Instability Paradox, Misperception, and Escalation Control in South Asia|last=Krepon|first=Michael|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130502230611/http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/ESCCONTROLCHAPTER1.pdf|archive-date=May 2, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2911/the-stability-instability-paradox|title=The Stability-Instability Paradox|last=Krepon|first=Michael|date=November 2, 2010|website=Arms Control Wonk|access-date=October 3, 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150112223352/http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2911/the-stability-instability-paradox|archive-date=January 12, 2015}}</ref> [[Kenneth Waltz]] has argued that nuclear weapons have created a [[nuclear peace]], and further nuclear weapon proliferation might even help avoid the large scale conventional wars that were so common prior to their invention at the end of [[World War II]].<ref>[https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm Introduction — Kenneth Waltz, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better", Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121014011244/https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm|date=October 14, 2012}} Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better,”</ref> In the July 2012 issue of [[Foreign Affairs]] Waltz took issue with the view of most U.S., European, and Israeli, commentators and policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. Instead Waltz argues that it would probably be the best possible outcome, as it would restore stability to the Middle East by balancing [[Nuclear weapons and Israel|Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Waltz|first=Kenneth|title=Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability|journal=Foreign Affairs|issue=July/August 2012|date=July–August 2012|volume=91 |url=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb|access-date=August 25, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131222035444/http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb|archive-date=December 22, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> Professor John Mueller of [[Ohio State University]], the author of ''Atomic Obsession'',<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/InternationalStudies/InternationalSecurityStrategicSt/?view=usa&ci=9780195381368|title=Atomic Obsession|access-date=September 4, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416204614/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/InternationalStudies/InternationalSecurityStrategicSt/?view=usa&ci=9780195381368|archive-date=April 16, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> has also dismissed the need to interfere with Iran's nuclear program and expressed that arms control measures are counterproductive.<ref>http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2333 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803171151/http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2333 |date=August 3, 2014 }} From 19:00 to 26:00 minutes</ref> During a 2010 lecture at the [[University of Missouri]], which was broadcast by [[C-SPAN]], Mueller has also argued that the threat from nuclear weapons, especially [[nuclear terrorism]], has been exaggerated, both in the popular media and by officials.<ref>http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AtomicO: John Mueller, "Atomic Obsession"</ref>
[[File:Corbyn trident.jpg|thumb|right|[[Jeremy Corbyn]] speaking at the#StopTrident rally at [[Trafalgar Square]] on February 27, 2016]]

Former Secretary Kissinger says there is a new danger, which cannot be addressed by deterrence: "The classical notion of deterrence was that there was some consequences before which aggressors and evildoers would recoil. In a world of suicide bombers, that calculation doesn't operate in any comparable way".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/59952-cold-warriors-say-no-nukes/ |title=Cold Warriors say no nukes |author=Ben Goddard |date=January 27, 2010 |work=The Hill |access-date=November 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140213100710/http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/78391-cold-warriors-say-no-nukes |archive-date=February 13, 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref> George Shultz has said, "If you think of the people who are doing suicide attacks, and people like that get a nuclear weapon, they are almost by definition not deterrable".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thebulletin.org/new-abolitionists |title=The new abolitionists |author=Hugh Gusterson |date=March 30, 2012 |work=[[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]] |author-link=Hugh Gusterson |access-date=November 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140217074609/http://thebulletin.org/new-abolitionists |archive-date=February 17, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

[[Andrew Bacevich]] wrote that there is no feasible scenario under which the US could sensibly use nuclear weapons:<blockquote>For the United States, they are becoming unnecessary, even as a deterrent.  Certainly, they are unlikely to dissuade the adversaries most likely to employ such weapons against us -- Islamic extremists intent on acquiring their own nuclear capability.  If anything, the opposite is true.  By retaining a strategic arsenal in readiness (and by insisting without qualification that the dropping of atomic bombs on two Japanese cities in 1945 was justified), the United States continues tacitly to sustain the view that nuclear weapons play a legitimate role in international politics ... .<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bacevich|first1=Andrew|title=The Limits of Power|url=https://archive.org/details/limitsofpowerend00bace|url-access=registration|date=2008|publisher=Metropolitan Books|isbn=9780805088151|pages=[https://archive.org/details/limitsofpowerend00bace/page/178 178]–179}}</ref></blockquote>In ''The Limits of Safety'', [[Scott Sagan]] documented numerous incidents in US military history that could have produced a nuclear war by accident. He concluded:<blockquote>while the military organizations controlling U.S. nuclear forces during the Cold War performed this task with less success than we know, they performed with more success than we ''should'' have reasonably predicted.  The problems identified in this book were not the product of incompetent organizations.  They reflect [[System accident|the inherent limits of organizational safety]].  Recognizing that simple truth is the first and most important step toward a safer future.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sagan|first1=Scott D.|title=The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons|date=1993|publisher=Princeton U. Pr.|isbn=978-0-691-02101-0|page=279}}</ref></blockquote>

On January 3, 2022, the permanent members of the [[United Nations Security Council]], [[China]], [[France]], [[Russia]], [[United Kingdom|Britain]], and the [[United States]] issued a statement on prevention of [[nuclear war]], affirming that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/no-one-can-win-nuclear-war-russia-china-britain-us-france-say-rcna10829?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma|title=Russia, China, Britain, U.S. and France say no one can win nuclear war|accessdate=January 4, 2022|website=NBC News|date=January 4, 2022 }}</ref>

On February 21, 2023, Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] suspended Russia's participation in the [[New START]] nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States.<ref>{{cite news |title=Putin pulls back from last remaining nuclear arms control pact with the US |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/europe/putin-russia-new-start-nuclear-pact-intl/index.html |work=CNN |date=February 21, 2023}}</ref>