The Campaign for Peace, Disarmament & Common Security
26 April 2026
Ray Acheson
We are not at risk of a new nuclear arms race. We are in the midst of one.
For more than a decade, the nuclear-armed states have been modernising their nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and facilities. China and France are also expanding the size of their arsenals.
These states are spending over 100 billion dollars every year on nuclear weapons, even as the global capitlist economy crumbles under the weight of unlawful, reckless wars and the climate crisis.
Over the past few years, tensions and outright armed conflict involving nuclear-armed states have increased. Israel, Russia, and the United States have all threatened to use nuclear weapons; most recently, the US President threatened to annihilate the entire civilisation of Iran.
Russia, Israel, and the US have attacked nuclear power and uranium enrichment sites in Ukraine and Iran.
Some of the nuclear-armed states have threatened to resume explosive nuclear testing.
Nuclear weapon proliferation threats are increasing, especially in Europe. European countries are embarking upon new nuclear alliances, changing their nuclear doctrines, or suggesting they might acquire their own arsenals. Advocates for nuclear armament in other countries, like Canada, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, are getting louder.
Deals between nuclear and non-nuclear armed or non-NPT states parties are increasing, including the US and UK sharing nuclear submarine technology and highly enriched uranium with Australia, Canada sending uranium to India, nuclear cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the US, and military cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
None of the nuclear-armed states or their nuclear-supportive allies appear to believe themselves to be bound by international law. States that support nuclear weapons seem to view international law as being out of line with their security interests. Law and multilateralism, which are meant to constrain violence, are being abandoned in the pursuit of imperial ambitions.
Throughout the previous two NPT review cycles and this current one, this context has meant that the nuclear-armed states and their nuclear-complicit allies refuse to implement Article VI and the NPT’s core agenda of nuclear disarmament. They have rejected any text that holds them to these obligations, and have not meanfully fulfilled any of the agreed disarmament commitments.
Some well-intentioned non-nuclear-armed states have tried to focus on transparency as an issue that might get some traction at this review cycle. Led by Ireland, New Zealand, and Switzerland, these countries, and some civil society groups, have pushed for peer-reviewed reporting mechanisms and interactive dialogues through which the nuclear-armed states would offer increased transparency about their arsenals.
While some of the nuclear-armed states expressed openness to such initiatives, it is hard not to see their willingness to increase transparency as a disingenuous way to distract from their failure to disarm. Moreover, not all nuclear-armed states are interested in these initiatives at all. Russia and China have opposed them. France, which was previously a proponent of increasing transparency, announced earlier this year that it would no longer be disclosing details about its arsenal or doctrine.
But even if states did mange to get agreement about some new transpaency mechanism, we as activists have to ask, does this make the world safer? Knowing about arsenals and doctrines is important, but it is not disarmament.
Overall, it’s not clear what’s possible at this Review Conference. Some diplomats and civil society groups have suggested maybe we could get a reaffirmation of past outcomes. Others have encouraged the adoption of a short declartion, even if not by consensus.
I agree that it is important for this Conference to reaffirm past outcomes and commitments. It would be ideal to agree to a short action plan with concrete measures to implement the NPT, especially Article VI.
It’s not clear either will be possible, but we should demand it anyway. Most importantly, regardless of what we get on paper at the end of the month, we need to be bold and courageous in our demands.
We might as well be ambitious, regardless of what the nuclear-armed states want, because they are dragging the world into ever more chaos and violence. The rest of the world must say enough, must draw a line in the sand. It isn’t for us to determine what’s “practical” or “achievable” under the terms set by the nuclear-armed states—we need instead to ask what the rest of the world is going to do about it, and make clear what is necessary.
This is how we got the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Cluster Munition Convention, the Mine Ban Treaty; it’s how we got the Hague Group and real actions to stop Israel’s genocide, it’s what we’re seeing with Spain’s refusal to help the US wage a war on Iran, an example which some other European states have also followed. We need more coalitions and campaigns willing to take action, not just make rhetorical interventions.
We can demand better. My advice to us all is don’t ask for what you think is achievable, ask for what the world needs, which is the abolition of nuclear weapons. And take action for it: through the ICAN Cities Appeal and Parliamentary Pledge, by getting your school to stop working on nuclear weapons, getting your bank or pension fund to divest from nuclear weapons, doing direct action at nuclear sites, connecting to other movements to make structural and budgetary change, demanding support for survivors and the environment, uplifiting affected communities, engaging your own communities.
The antinuclear movement has been working to build a world free of nuclear weapons for many decades, through our actions and through international law. The nuclear-armed states and their allies are pushing back, just as the far right in many countries is trying to push back against women’s liberation, or LGBTQ+ rights, or racial equality. Their work is reactionary, not visionary. They are not leading; they are trying to stop justice, accountability, peace, equality. While they might make some gains in their projects, and it might seem like they wield all the power, we need to remember that we created the conditions they are pushing back against. Amidst our despair, we must remember our role—as the ones who create change—and act accordingly.