The shadow of nuclear weapons has loomed over international security since the dawn of the atomic age, and despite decades of high-minded promises, the world finds itself in an era where the nuclear threat is not only persistent but growing in complexity and danger. Recent events, including a high-level United Nations meeting in New York on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, have brought renewed urgency to the debate over nuclear disarmament, even as facts on the ground suggest that the world is drifting further from that elusive goal.
According to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nearly every nuclear-armed state—including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—is actively modernizing and upgrading its nuclear arsenal. The SIPRI findings, echoed in reporting by the Balochistan Think Tank Network, point to a perilous new arms race, one that is not just about numbers but about technological sophistication and strategic ambiguity.
At the heart of the international framework for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons sits the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in July 1968. The NPT was designed as a grand bargain: nuclear-armed states would work toward disarmament, while non-nuclear states would refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. Article VI of the treaty specifically calls for “negotiations in good faith” to bring the nuclear arms race to an end and achieve disarmament. Yet, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently warned (in remarks delivered by his Chef de Cabinet Courtenay Rattray), “Nuclear weapons continue to menace our world. And despite decades of promises, the threat is accelerating and evolving.”
The September 26, 2025, UN meeting in New York, held on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, served as a stark reminder of both the devastation wrought by these weapons—recalling the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and the ongoing failure to fulfill the NPT’s vision. Survivors of those bombings, the hibakusha, have spent their lives calling for peace, hoping their suffering would galvanize the world to action. Instead, the international community appears to be, as Rattray put it, “sleepwalking into a more complex, unpredictable and even more dangerous nuclear arms race.”
The reasons for this deadlock are manifold. The Balochistan Think Tank Network highlights two key concepts: the security betrayal trap (SBT)—where countries feel betrayed by failed security guarantees—and the disarmament deception syndrome (DDS), a cycle of negative consequences from false disarmament promises. The case of Ukraine is particularly illustrative: after giving up its inherited nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances, Ukraine found itself invaded by Russia, prompting regret and reinforcing the perception that nuclear weapons are essential for national survival. North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and Iran’s ongoing nuclear ambitions further underscore the limits of current nonproliferation efforts.
The fear of cheating—"If we disarm, others might not"—remains a powerful barrier. This mutual suspicion has only grown worse as bilateral arms control treaties between the United States and Russia have been abandoned, and efforts to create new multilateral agreements have faltered. The result, as SIPRI and multiple analysts note, is a world where nuclear weapons are seen as more, not less, central to national security. This is especially true in regions like South Asia, where India’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal beyond a “credible minimum deterrent” has complicated security dynamics, a situation exacerbated by the influence of extra-regional powers and what some see as biased global nonproliferation regimes.
Technological change is another complicating factor. As Rattray told the UN gathering, “New technologies and new domains of conflict have erased the margin for error.” The emergence of cyberspace, outer space, hypersonic missiles, and deep-sea drones has multiplied the risks of escalation and miscalculation. There is growing concern that artificial intelligence could one day play a role in nuclear command and control, raising the stakes even further. “This is not just a crisis of weapons. It is a crisis of memory, responsibility, and courage,” Rattray declared, emphasizing the need for a collective response grounded in rigorous scientific evidence.
To address these challenges, the UN announced the formation of an independent scientific panel to assess the effects of nuclear war and ensure that international responses are based on sound science. Rattray also called for nuclear states to return to dialogue, implement confidence-building measures, and ensure that nuclear warfare remains under human—not AI—control. Importantly, he stressed that “disarmament is not the reward for peace—it is the foundation of peace.” Waiting for the “right” conditions, he argued, is a recipe for inaction: “Disarmament will never happen if we keep waiting.”
The UN also urged all states to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which prohibits nuclear testing, and called on the United States and Russia to negotiate reductions to their nuclear arsenals. Yet, as General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock pointed out, treaties alone are not enough unless states actually live up to them. Baerbock also highlighted the complex dangers posed by nuclear weapons, including the risk of them falling into the hands of terrorists or being deployed by autonomous systems. She advocated for a “no first use” policy and suggested that resources currently being poured into the arms race could be better spent on climate action.
Despite these warnings and recommendations, skepticism remains high. Nuclear weapon states, under the NPT, are widely seen as failing to fulfill their disarmament commitments. They continue to modernize their arsenals and, in some cases, support their allies’ nuclear ambitions—examples include the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) pact and the Nuclear Supplier Group’s waiver to India. Such actions, critics argue, undermine the credibility of the nonproliferation regime and fuel further proliferation risks.
What, then, can be done to revive the cause of nuclear disarmament? Analysts at the Balochistan Think Tank Network propose five key actions: First, legally binding agreements are needed to address the threats posed by emerging technologies. Second, nuclear powers should refrain from supporting their allies’ nuclear pursuits. Third, effective multilateral arms control agreements must be pursued. Fourth, the international community should work to eliminate biases within global frameworks. Finally, confidence-building measures between rivals are essential to prevent arms races, reduce nuclear risks, and foster hope for eventual disarmament.
As the world marks 80 years since the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the calls for action are growing louder. Whether the international community will find the courage and resolve to heed them remains an open—and urgent—question.