Why eliminate nuclear weapons?
There are now nine countries with nuclear weapons and forty more countries with sufficient nuclear infrastructure to build their own arsenals. The gravest danger facing the world is that nuclear weapons continue to spread until one day they are used by a country or a terrorist group, with catastrophic consequences. The only lasting solution to this threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. This will not happen overnight; it will be done step-by-step through phased and verified reductions over a period of years. It is urgent that we begin now.
Zero is a laudable goal, but is it realistic?
It probably wasn’t – until recently. In recent months, the threat of proliferation and nuclear terrorism has led to a growing chorus of world leaders calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons – including conservative realists and military leaders. And the public supports them: recent polling shows that the worldwide public, including in the nuclear weapons countries, overwhelmingly favors Zero. This new and unprecedented support for Zero from key governments around the world has made reaching this goal – while still difficult – possible. The alternative -- continuing with the status quo and the ongoing spread of nuclear weapons -- is not a realistic solution to the problem.
Does Global Zero support going to Zero immediately without any steps in the process?
No. Global Zero’s step-by-step plan calls for phased and verified reductions, beginning with de-alerting (taking weapons off high alert) and making deep cuts to U.S. and Russian arsenals. It will take years to move from 20,000-plus weapons worldwide to Zero.
What about the possibility of “cheating”?
Building on decades of experience with verification in Soviet/Russia-U.S. arms reductions agreements, Global Zero's plan will outline the terms of a universal verification and enforcement system. Countries would not be required to take the final step to Zero unless or until they had confidence in the verification system. Countries would have the opportunity to assess the verification system during the many years of phased reductions to low numbers of nuclear weapons prior to reaching the final transition to Zero. This lengthy period of cooperation on reductions would further strengthen confidence in compliance and verification. The agreement would call for multinational action against any attempts to cheat.
Won’t some countries refuse to sign on to a Zero agreement?
That would be true today -- but politics and diplomacy are not static. Global Zero's plan calls for the process to begin with Russia and the United States de-alerting and making deep cuts to their arsenals. The political and diplomatic environment regarding Zero will be very different after Russia and the U.S. have cut their arsenals by 20,000 plus nuclear weapons. 183 countries have already foregone nuclear weapons, and if governmental and public support for Zero continues to build as it has over recent months, it would become increasingly difficult for a small number of hold-out nations to stand in opposition to an agreement for Zero.
But what about the threat of nuclear terrorism? Terrorist groups will never participate in an agreement for Zero.
Today, terrorists are trying to buy or steal nuclear weapons, and there are over 20,000 total weapons and enough nuclear materials worldwide to build another 100,000. We cannot persuade terrorists to stop seeking nuclear weapons. The only solution is to eliminate the weapons themselves: to drain the swamp. Global Zero's plan calls for the verified and enforced destruction of all nuclear weapons and international oversight of all nuclear energy production to prevent the clandestine development of weapons.
