NPT News in Review, Vol. 20, No. 3

Editorial: Manufacturing Consent for Manufactured Risk
4 May 2025

By Ray Acheson

“People tend to believe the powerful, the compelling, not the sincere,” writes Palestinian poet and journalist Mohammed El-Kurd in his book Perfect Victims and the Politics of Appeal. “The truth, that which is factual and historically accurate, is irrelevant in the face of the dominant, institutionally mainstreamed narratives that forge their truth.” He quotes Emile Habiby: Conquerors “consider as true history only what they have themselves fabricated.”

The nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states have convinced themselves of their righteousness—that they are safeguarding themselves from nuclear horror by investing in and spreading nuclear horror; that they are responsible while their adversaries are outlaws; that the world is safer because of their violence; that they have the right to rule.

Throughout the “debates” on cluster one (nuclear disarmament) and the cluster one specific issue (nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances), the nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states continued to lie.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members repeated their historically inaccurate and hypocritical points about how no one used to care that NATO shared nuclear weapons and that this behaviour really isn’t meant to be aggressive and how this is all just a terrible distraction from What’s Really Wrong with the World.

Russia repeated its denials of any wrongdoing ever, rejecting all responsibility for unlawfully invading Ukraine, occupying its nuclear power plants, or collaborating militarily with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Russia ended Friday night’s meeting by calling Zelensky a Nazi and a bunch of delegations walked out.

The nuclear-armed states each asserted they are fully complying with their NPT obligations, better than the other nuclear-armed states, who they say are not complying at all. Of course, this means they are either all complying or no one is complying—and since there are more than 12,330 nuclear weapons in the world and that number is increasing and every nuclear-armed state is modernising or expanding its arsenal, it seems like “not complying” is the truth.

The facts speak for themselves:

The United States is in the midst of a wide-ranging modernisation programme that the Federation of American Scientists says will “see every nuclear delivery system replaced with newer versions over the coming decade.” Among other things, it is expanding its production of plutonium “pits” for nuclear warheads in the largest nuclear infrastructure project since the Manhattan Project. It is also replacing its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), working to increase its capacity to build nuclear-armed submarines, and more. Just this past week, the US government announced it is seeking a 25 per cent increase in its nuclear weapon budget, its largest nuclear spending surge since 1962.
Russia is in the late stages of a multi-decade long modernisation programme to replace all of its Soviet-era nuclear-capable systems with newer versions. It has also suspended its participation in the New Stategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), withdrawn its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and has increased activity at its former nuclear weapon testing site.
China’s nuclear weapon modernisation programme has accelerated and expanded. In addition to increasing its nuclear warheads to 600, with more in production, China has also continued to develop new missile silo fields and new ICBMs, has refitted its nuclear submarines with new missiles, and has developed an air-launched ballistic missile for its bombers that might have a nuclear capability.
France is in the midst of significant modernisation programmes for its ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, submarine, aircraft, and nuclear-industrial complex. In March 2025, France announced it will reopen an airbase to nuclear-armed fighter jets.
The United Kingdom is in the midst of replacing its nuclear submarines and developing a new nuclear warhead, and is increasing the number of warheads in its stockpile. UK nuclear weapon modernisation is closely tied to that of the United States, though it remains unclear what the implications will be of shifting international relations.

Austria noted, “Annual global spending on nuclear weapons has surpassed 90 billion USD. This is not maintenance. These are long-term investments designed to perpetuate the nuclear deterrence security paradigm well into the next century.” And as Mexico warned, it’s now not just nuclear disarmament obligations that the nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states are violating. They are also undermining their non-proliferation obligations by openly suggesting more countries develop or host nuclear weapons, creating new risks and incentives for proliferation.

The truth is that the nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states are leading the world closer and closer to nuclear war.

In contrast, most of the rest of the NPT membership is sincerely trying to get us out of this mess. The New Agenda Coalition put forward recommendations both to advance nuclear disarmament at next year’s Review Conference and to prevent nuclear escalation right now. Aotearoa New Zealand, Ireland, and Switzerland made suggestions for improving transparency and accountability, while a cross-regional group highlighted ongoing work to study the irreversibility of nuclear disarmament. A group of states affected by nuclear weapon testing and others in solidarity with them articulated the concept of nuclear justice and recommended specific actions for the Review Conference to address the legacy of nuclear weapon impacts. States parties, signatories, and supporters of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) contiued to highlight the TPNW’s contribution to implementing the NPT and urged other states to join and renounce nuclear weapons for the sake of humanity.

What are we to do, then, when the countries that possess nuclear weapons are proliferating them to their friends or threatning to use them, all while denying this reality? Most of the rest of the world is trying in good faith to articulate an alternative vision for the future and a pathway to achieve it, but can they triumph over the chaos and calamity of the nuclearised few?

It is up to us to organise around the delusions of nuclearism and find ways to make the world safer despite those who insist on making it more dangerous.

“Nuclear deterrence is ultimately a theory and a psychological and communicative construct based on many assumptions with risks of biases and fallibilities,” said Austria. “Its effectiveness frankly cannot be proven or disproven, but we know for sure that it can fail and we have clear scientific evidence what the consequences are, if it fails.” Thus, “The current global security paradigm built around nuclear deterrence is not a safeguard. It is a system of manufactured and escalating risk.”

This is an essential point. None of what is happening right now is inevitable. This is a choice, made every day but the nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states to choose power through violence over peace and justice. They claim they have no choice, that nuclear weapons are necessary for stability and security, but it’s clear that in fact the opposite is true. These weapons make the word unstable and insecure and put all our lives at risk. Through their lies and gaslighting, nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states try to manufacture consent for their manufactured risk, but they are failing.

As during the general debate, during the cluster one discussions many non-nuclear-armed states argued that disarmament, not deterrence, offers true security. “The continued existence of nuclear weapons is not a sign of strength,” said Sri Lanka. “It is a threat to our shared future—a gamble with the lives of both present and future generations.” Costa Rica urged all states to “decisively reject nuclear deterrence as the false gospel of security it represents,” arguing:

While five nuclear weapon states recognized under the NPT cling to their nuclear arsenals under the pretext of “strategic stability,” the central goal of Article VI continues to be deprioritized. Instead, they continue modernizing arsenals while simultaneously acknowledging these weapons can never be used. This dangerous contradiction demands rejection in favor of cooperative security frameworks.

Ireland similarly highlighted the “dissonance between the modernising and expansion of nuclear arsenals and capabilities and concrete actions on risk reduction.” It argued that disarmament is a vital security measure, while Aotearoa New Zealand argued “that the current challenging strategic environment does not entitle nuclear weapon States to delay indefinitely the implementation of their disarmament obligations,” but instead “increases the urgency.”

This is clear from all the evidence we have about the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons. Malaysia pointed out that the consequences of nuclear weapon use “would pay no heed to political boundaries, and therefore implicate the security interests of all States. This should be borne in mind in interrogating such notions as ‘undiminished security for all’.” Engaging seriously with the truth about nuclear weapon impacts and “the tenuous assumptions upon which nuclear deterrence relies” is imperative, said Malaysia. “Only then can we properly conceptualise the relationship between nuclear disarmament and international peace and security; the former must be seen as an indispensable prerequisite for the latter, not the other way around.”

To get to these truths, as Costa Rica argued, it is essential to ensure “inclusive participation reflecting the diversity of humanity and amplifying the voices of those most affected by nuclear policies.” It urged states to transform disarmament fora to “elevate affected communities, integrate comprehensive gender analyses, and prioritize empirical evidence over outdated military doctrine.” In seeking a just, peaceful, and secure future, Costa Rica said:

We must be guided by those who have long shown us what true courage looks like: the survivors of nuclear weapons use and testing, the affected communities, civil society, academia, faith leaders, and all those who have been traditionally excluded from nuclear policymaking. Their voices, their experiences, and their unwavering calls for justice are a testament to the strength and determination we must now match with action.

The non-nuclear-armed states are offering not just a critique of nuclearism but a pathway to overcome it. Their work through the TPNW provides a roadmap for cooperation and compromise, for inclusion and diversity, and for putting the truth about nuclear harm and the demands for nuclear justice at the core of security strategies. NPT states parties must do the same, before it’s too late for us all.

[PDF] ()