The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Highlights Shadows and Scars of the Atomic Bomb
By Ray Acheson
30 September 2025
On Friday, 26 September 2025, the UN held a high-level event to mark the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Ninety-five states or groups spoke, along with the President of the General Assembly, a representative of the UN Secretary-General, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the hibakusha organisation Nihon Hidankyo, and a group delivering a joint civil society statement. Reflected across nearly all interventions were clear demands for an end to nuclear weapons, the redirection of money away from bombs toward well-being, and the implementation of international law.
Only three nuclear-armed states—China, India, and Pakistan—participated in the event. Only two states that host other countries’ nuclear weapons—Belarus and Türkiye—participated. Only one country with a US extended nuclear deterrence (END) agreement—Japan—spoke. The rest of the nuclear-armed states, all other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, and other END countries like Australia and the Republic of Korea, snubbed the event.
The divisions are clear and the stakes could not be higher. As the world confronts rising fascism and sea levels, as more and more money goes into the pockets of war profiteers and weapon-makers and away from providing for the vast majority of human beings, and as geopolitical competition becomes even more unhinged and reckless, nuclear weapons continue to cast a dark shadow over the entire planet. The scars of past nuclear use, testing, and development are still generating harm for communities today, even as the risks of new, catastrophic dangers loom larger each day.
As the UN Secretary-General’s Chef de Cabinet said, “We gather under a shadow that should have been lifted long ago. A threat born of human design—and prolonged by human folly. Nuclear weapons continue to menace our world.” The clear message from those attending this year’s event was that nuclear abolition is an urgent priority to save us all.
Humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons
Most participants expressed profound concern with the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons—past, present, and future. As Lesotho said, the impacts of nuclear weapons have never been confined to one region. “Their environmental consequences transcend borders and generations. Radioactive contamination seeps into soils, rivers, and marine ecosystems; food products from affected areas reach distant markets, endangering people far removed from the original testing sites,” explained Lesotho. “This shared vulnerability underscores the truly global nature of the threat.”
Highlighting the ongoing impacts of nuclear weapon testing in the Pacific, the Marshall Islands described nuclear weapons as an “abomination” and a violation of human rights. Samoa noted that the scars of nuclear testing are etched in ocean floors, land, and people, marking a living legacy of destruction in the Pacific. Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu also lamented these scars, while the Pacific Islands Forum also noted the lasting issues of the dumping of radioactive waste. The Forum called for reparations and remediation for affected communities.
Kiribati noted it will be presenting an updated resolution on nuclear testing and affected communities at this year’s First Committee and urged all states that have engaged in nuclear testing to join deliberations with affected states. Kiribati also announced it is thinking about building a nuclear justice centre on Christmas Island.
Austria highlighted the new UN panel of scientific experts on the impacts of nuclear war, which was established through a resolution at last year’s UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security. Austria urged states to ensure that its work is informed by the best scientific knowledge and the voices of survivors of nuclear weapon activities. Aotearoa New Zealand said this panel will help build momentum toward disarmament.
Nuclear weapon modernisation and spending
Most speakers expressed concern with nuclear weapon modernisation, which is extending nuclear arsenals into the future in violation of disarmament obligations, and is igniting arms racing. “The arms race is on the rise to the detriment of dialogue and diplomacy,” warned Angola. This has led to a situation where, as Nihon Hidankyo warned, “The Earth is now saturated with enough nuclear weapons to annihilate humanity many times over, and the victims of nuclear harm—Global Hibakusha—have spread across the globe.”
Several delegations, including Guyana, Holy See, Lesotho, Pakistan, Philippines, San Marino, Zimbabwe, and others, raised concerns about the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into nuclear command and control systems. Most of those speaking on this subject rejected the delegation of such authority to machines and urged the retention of meaningful human control over all nuclear systems.
Most participants also criticised the vast sums of money spent on maintaining and upgrading nuclear arsenals and related facilities. “As resources are diverted towards the expansion of nuclear arsenals, support for global sustainable development is weakened,” warned Lesotho. “This undermines our collective ability to address pressing challenges such as poverty, inequality, and climate change—issues that demand urgent and united investment if we are to secure a safer, more equitable world.” Malawi likewise expressed concern “that vast resources continue to be allocated to the modernization and stockpiling of nuclear arsenals, even as many states face poverty, hunger, and under-development due to inadequate investment in life-saving programmes.”
Burkina Faso said spending on nuclear weapons is a huge distraction from fighting poverty while Nigeria argued that the “exorbitant cost” of nuclear weapons “cannot be justified when compared to resources allocated by States to ventures that enhance socio-economic development.” Cosa Rica lamented the “profound distortion of our priorities” represented by the fact that the 100 billion dollars spent in 2024 on nuclear weapons is equivalent to 28 times the annual budget of the United Nations. “While millions of people suffer the consequences of the climate crisis, lack access to basic humanitarian assistance, and remain excluded from the digital revolution,” said Costa Rica, “these astronomical resources are directed toward perfecting our annihilation.”
Mexico asked what the world would look like if the 100 billion invested in nuclear weapons had been invested instead in humanitarian aid for Gaza, Syria, Sudan, or Haiti? “We need an urgent and pragmatic shift in direction for the good of all our peoples. Less investment in war; more investment in people.” Mexico highlighted that during the G20 Summit, President Sheinbaum proposed that one per cent of military spending be allocated instead to funding projects to address climate change and promote sustainable development. Zambia similarly suggested that the enormous financial and technical resources currently allocated to nuclear arsenals “could be redirected toward pressing global needs: combating climate change, strengthening health systems, and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals.”
International law and nuclear weapons
The Maldives argued that security doesn’t come from big military budgets but from cooperation and trust. Samoa noted that the only answer to nuclear weapons is the rule of law, while Ghana pointed out that the promise of international law is weakened when compliance lacks.
Most delegations highlighted the importance of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), including the African Group, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Angola, Austria, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ghana, Gambia, Holy See, Honduras, Ireland, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, South Africa, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), the ICRC, Nihon Hidankyo, and others. Many of these urged all states to join the TPNW, including the nuclear-armed states.
During the UN General Assembly’s high-level week, Ghana ratified the TPNW and Kyrgyzstan signed it, meaning that more than half the world’s countries have joined the Treaty. In its remarks, Myanmar noted that it has signed the TPNW but hasn’t been able to ratify it because of the military coup. Malta highlighted its work as the gender focal point for the TPNW to operationalise the gender-related aspects of the Treaty.
A number of delegations spoke to the value of the TPNW. Kiribati said the Treaty advances nuclear justice. Austria said the TPNW is more than symbol; it is a concrete step forward by the non-nuclear majority. Similarly, Timor-Leste said the TPNW is not just another document, but “a vital part of the global push for disarmament.” Urging all countries to honour their commitments under existing nuclear non-proliferation agreements, Timor-Leste reminded delegations, “Disarmament is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral duty. It calls for transparency, open dialogue, and genuine cooperation from nations around the world.”
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which includes some nuclear-armed states, took note of the TPNW. Most delegations also called for full implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). OPANAL urged Russia and the United States to renew the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) before its expiration in February 2026.
Türkiye, which hosts US nuclear weapons, said it supports dialogue among the nuclear-armed states and urged them to undertake risk reduction measures. The Arab Group supported confidence-building and risk reduction measures, but argued these must not replace nuclear disarmament.
Other pro-nuclear weapon states attending the meeting did not offer much guidance about what they are doing to reduce risks or comply with their disarmament obligations. Some sought to justify their possession of nuclear weapons, or barely acknowledged that they are nuclear-armed. India described itself as a “responsible” nuclear-armed state while China reiterated its claims that Russia and the United States carry the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament. Pakistan lamented the intensification of “great power rivalry”. Belarus, which hosts Russian nuclear weapons, argued that while the Eastern bloc was disarming after the Cold War, the West was re-arming. This “compelled” it to deploy Russia’s nuclear weapons on its territory to “guarantee” its security.
Even while drawing attention to the 80th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan—which has a nuclear alliance with the United States—called for a “realistic and pragmatic approach” to nuclear disarmament. This “step-by-step” approach, advocated by nuclear weapon supporters for decades, has led only to a retrenchment of existing nuclear policy.
In this vein, and perhaps letting her government’s position guide her statement, the President of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock of Germany, spoke in defence of nuclear deterrence. She argued that states must be pragmatic and accept that nuclear deterrence exists and policymakers cannot deny the world that exists—even though they should not stop trying to build the world as it should be.
The catch-22 of the nuclear-armed and nuclear “umbrella” position—that nuclear weapons must be maintained until they are eliminated—is what has put the world into the never-ending deadlock preventing disarmament. How can we build the world “as it should be” if we insist on keeping the world as it is, where “might makes right,” billions are spent on nuclear bombs, and the capacity to commit genocide is considered imperative to “national security”?
The lawlessness inherent in this catch-22 enables the nuclear-armed states to maintain their nuclear arsenals in violation of international law and the principles of the UN Charter. It also enables to them to wage war, invade other countries, and commit genocide. Nihon Hidankyo pointed out, “We have not been able to stop nuclear-armed states from waging wars, and it feels as though World War III has already begun.” And as the Maldives said, where power is exercised without accountability, the result is genocide.
In this context, the Arab Group, the NAM, Algeria, Cuba, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and others condemned Israel’s threats to use nuclear weapons against Palestinians in Gaza. “These are outrageous and shocking statements that require solemn condemnation of and full attention by this august assembly,” said the NAM. Tunisia noted that the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the right of Palestinians to self-determination can’t be separated from the pursuit of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. The League of Arab States, Kuwait, and others called on all states to pressure Israel to join the NPT and eliminate its nuclear arsenal.
The NAM, Iran, and Türkiye also condemned Israel’s attacks on Iran, with Iran noting that Israel has no respect for legal or moral boundaries. Venezuela condemned the US deployment of military force in the Caribbean, warning that this aggressive policy risks peace and potentially violates the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Ireland condemned as reckless Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons and its occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
Many delegations condemned all threats to use nuclear weapons. “The aggressive nuclear rhetoric and threats that have re-emerged bring us back to the darkest times of our history,” warned San Marino. Brazil expressed concern with “the claims of a right to use force in the name of non-proliferation,” which reinforce “the illusive idea that nuclear weapons guarantee security.”
Out of the shadow of nuclear deterrence
As Malawi argued, “The continued reliance on nuclear weapons as instruments of power and deterrence only perpetuates mistrust and geopolitical tensions.” Similarly, the Maldives said that nuclear deterrence is an illusion. It has led to increased tensions and nuclear arms races, wasting billions of dollars. None of this has made the world safer, said Maldives. It has only made disaster more likely. Real courage, it argued, is eliminating nuclear weapons.
Vanuatu highlighted the importance of the elimination of nuclear weapons for global stability, while Mongolia argued that the existence of nuclear weapons “is a reminder that the survival of humankind cannot rest on doctrines of deterrence.” Zambia argued that nuclear weapons are fundamentally incompatible with peace, rejecting “the notion that global peace can be achieved through nuclear deterrence” and arguing, “True peace is built on dialogue, disarmament, trust, and collective security.”
Towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, a joint civil society statement presented at the high-level event called all UN member states to:
- Affirm that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible;
- Stand down nuclear forces and adopt policies never to initiate a nuclear war;
- Commit to eliminating nuclear weapons no later than the United Nation’s 100th anniversary in 2045; and
- Redirect the billions spent on nuclear weapons to urgent global needs—peace, protection, and sustainable development—as envisioned in Article 26 of the UN Charter.
“Disarmament is not the reward for peace—it is the foundation of peace,” said the Chef de Cabinet on behalf of the UN Secretary-General. This reversal of nuclear-armed claim that we need peace before disarmament is imperative to finding a way out of the radioactive mess in which the world is currently stymied. As the ICRC said, “The future is not written. Together, we can ensure that the shadow of nuclear weapons never darkens our world again.”