NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the world needs to urgently pursue nuclear arms control and disarmament but cautioned that this had to happen in a balanced, reciprocal and verifiable way.

“Our ultimate goal is a world free of nuclear weapons”, Mr Stoltenberg told NATO’s annual Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) conference.

“Together, we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Europe by more than 90 percent over the past 30 years. But in an uncertain world, these weapons continue to play a vital role in preserving peace.”

Setting out steps towards nuclear disarmament, the Secretary General said that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) offers the best chance to curb atomic arsenals, pointing to the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons already eliminated. He called on the international community to further strengthen the treaty and to join forces to ensure the success of the NPT Review Conference next year.

At the same time, Mr Stoltenberg rejected a UN treaty banning nuclear weapons as it would undermine the NPT and disregard current-day security realities. “Giving up our deterrent without any guarantees that others will do the same is a dangerous option”, he said.

“A world where Russia, China, North Korea and others have nuclear weapons, but NATO does not, is not a safer world.” 

The Secretary General called on the United States and Russia to continue to lead on arms control, welcoming the dialogue between the worlds’ two largest nuclear weapons states on extending New START. As a global power, Mr Stoltenberg made clear that China now also has the responsibility to engage in arms control negotiations.

Organised by Romania this year, NATO’s WMD conference brings together more than 200 participants from over 50 countries. Because of the COVID pandemic, the event is held online for the first time.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

29 COMMENTS

  1. The UN seems out of touch with reality. Peace does not come from burying our heads in the sand and trying to wave a magic wand. One day every country will have friendly Governments and disarmament will simply just happen but I am not holding my breath for that – in fact I may not live to see it.

          • I think you would do that at our peril. The UK is on the UNSC with 2 other Allies. Makes legally binding resolutions and welds great influence.

          • Your right. The member States with influence only interview when it suits their Foreign Policy interests. Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention concepts are only there to further Western interest in the Global South. I believe you are referring to Rwanda in the 90s or the ongoing Rohingya Refugee Crisis. Both need (ed) strong selfless leadership to protect human life. Common good of humanity. Doesn’t mean the UN is useless.

  4. I cannot see the day when the likes of Pakistan, India, Russia, China and N Korea will ever give up their Nukes so we are stuck with them in the West as vital insurance. It is that simple. The sad reality is that a Nuclear conflict is likely either by an accident, miscalculation or the actions of a mad men of which there are many in power. Ironically, South Africa is the only nation in the world that had and relinquished their nukes.

  5. Just following up on Rebecca Campbell’s article on the British Nuclear deterrent which does have some relevance here. I had said that I thought the South African bomb would have been delivered by modified Mirages but this was probably incorrect. I did not realise how early on SA started its quest for nukes(and with the help of the USA!). It was in the 1960’s and the proposed delivery vehicle were either Canberra’s of which the SAAF still operated a few or the newly acquired Buccaneers of which 15 arrived in SA, one being lost in transit. It had occurred to me that the Bucaneer might have been suitable although it was optimised for low level strike. As I understand it nuclear bombs dropped in free fall need the aircraft delivering same to be at high altitude enabling it to escape from the blast. The Canberra would have fit the bill but maybe not the dwindling number of Bucanners available to the SAAF. It would appear that the SA nukes were tactical and not strategic weapons and could have been delivered from last based missiles or even artillery pieces of which South Africa had access to locally and world beating examples. SA had worked closely with Israel and I should have imagined Israel’s nukes would most certainly have been launched from Mirages so as the SAAF had over 100 in its inventory it would have been the aircraft of choice to utilise these weapons. All of this is speculation and I am no expert but it is interesting to note that SA is the only country ever to voluntarily disarm even though its capability was limited. Alsoshows that difficult as it seems to be to develop a Hydrogen Bomb, the means to deliver it to target is as difficult to design and acquire!

    • Morning geoff.

      Yes, tactical. SA has never had strategic nuclear weapons.

      On countries disarming, you could include Kazakhstan and Ukraine, though granted they were parts of the USSR. Kazakhstan especially, as much of the Soviet SS18 ICBM force was there, at the time of the Cold War that was the biggy in the Soviet arsenal.

      On the subject of unilateral nuclear disarmament, I always recall a line in the film “Who Dares Wins” a 1982 film with Lewis Collins about a hard line sect of CND wanting to drop the bomb on Holy Loch to blackmail the west to disarm, while they also occupy the US embassy and take important hostages.

      In conversation with the terrorists over their demands, one of the hostages tells them, when the say they are committed to disarming the world…
      “But the Western Democracies first – correct?”

      They could not answer. Here in lies the problem which makes CND and others, while of a worthy cause, totally obsolete.

      • Hey Daniele, nice to hear from you.I didn’t see the movie but will look it up. I saw a discussion on the BBC some time back between a Conservative commentator(forgotten his name) and a lady from the CND. I was tearing my hair out as he was making a hash of his argument. I would have asked her one question “Do you think the likes of Russia,China etc will EVER give up their Nukes and if the answer is No, then what should the UK do? In similar vein to your post above-there is no answer that makes any sense in support of their cause. We are sadly, stuck with these terrible weapons-the Genie is out of the Bottle never to be put back in again! hope all is well in the balmy fields of East Anglia 🙂 Cheers

      • Top film, bit cheesy but over time has become a bit cult status. It was rushed into film after the Iranian Embassy siege. Was shown prior to public viewing to the lads at Stirling Lines, who ripped it apart…..good effort though, some classic lines and action…not least trying to get two lads hung on ropes under a little Scout through two top floor windows….lol…But classic mate.

  6. Politicians start wars.
    Nuclear weapons put politicians in the front line.
    People in the front line are very likely not to start wars.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here