Nuclear weapons were used at the end of World War II, yet their non-use defined the Cold War. What role will they play in the great challenges facing us in the 21st Century?
A growing number of world leaders fear that if the past decade’s trends continue, nuclear arms may catastrophically disrupt human progress. Flaws in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s architecture limit our ability to suppress the pressures that have built up.
Those banned by the treaty from developing nuclear weapons grow increasingly dissatisfied with the arrangement. They refuse to accept further restrictions on their use of nuclear energy technology while nuclear-weapons states show no good-faith movement toward their obligation to disarm.
Adding to this pressure is a booming interest in nuclear energy that, under the current regime, would spread materials capable of kick-starting weapons development to more countries and could lead to a proliferation chain reaction. With more owners of weapons and fissile materials, some of these may wittingly or unwittingly pass into the hands of terrorists.
Even as the threat escalates, we are in a moment of opportunity to remove nuclear devastation from the list of threats: For the first time since the invention of the bomb, all major nuclear-armed powers face identical problems and enemies, instead of seeing each other as potential adversaries in war. This creates the opportunity to shape a world in which we no longer need to fear a nuclear attack.
We cannot be hypnotized by the enormity of the problem and miss this chance. The indefinite extension of the status quo or an uncertain foray into unilateral disarmament are not serious options. Rather, we must use this historical opportunity to initiate a coordinated effort at joint reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, calibrated to ensure that our national security needs continue to be met.
The list of problems facing America and its allies is exceptionally long. Whatever the solutions may be to climate change, cross-border epidemics and failed states (to name a few), they certainly do not include nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, nuclear weapons have caused or worsened some of the most severe problems. The threat of nuclear terrorism is only possible in a world with over 20,000 nuclear weapons and incomplete controls on the materials necessary to build them. Iran and North Korea’s nuclear roguery are not isolated problems caused by particularly difficult regimes, but early indicators of a proliferation cascade.
The nuclear deterrence doctrine is worse than useless in this environment. In a world in which our enemies are unaccountable dictators with a doubtful devotion to their citizens’ welfare and terrorists without a return address, the threat of inflicting mass civilian casualties in response to an attack is neither practical nor moral, nor is it likely to prove effective in preventing nuclear war. The only problem solved by nuclear weapons is the one they cause, which is why every nuclear-capable state must be involved in an agreement to zero. Nearly all the major components of nuclear disarmament, which we describe in our recent book, Elements of a Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, can be based on diplomatic and technological precedent, and safely and fully implemented by 2035 to 2045 – 100 years after a nuclear weapon first detonated in warfare. The only true obstacle is political will.
The terrain between today and zero will be difficult to navigate. But what would it say about our morality, our politics, and our sanity if we reach the Hiroshima bombing centennial with one or two dozen new nuclear-armed states?

The author is a researcher at the Washington-based Stimson Center and the co-editor, with Barry Blechman, of Elements of a Nuclear Disarmament Treaty.