Do you have questions? We have answers! Here are some common questions we often get about a nuclear weapons ban.

The global stockpile has been reduced significantly since the height of the Cold War, is that a sign that the nuclear weapon states are on the right track?

The arms race is not over. Despite reductions of the huge arsenals throughout the cold war, there are still more than 16,000 nuclear warheads remaining. And while the stockpiles have gone down since the 1980s, three more states (India, Pakistan and North Korea) have tested and developed nuclear weapons. At the moment, all nuclear-armed states are undergoing significant maintenance and modernization programmes. Instead of a race for more nuclear weapons, the race has become about more advanced nuclear weapons.

So despite a lower number, “better” and more advanced nuclear weapons with more firepower still remain a central part of the nuclear-armed states military policies, with many warheads constantly on high alerts. 

Will a ban on nuclear weapons be useful if states like North Korea won’t sign it?

A ban on nuclear weapons will establish an international norm against the possession of nuclear weapons, which will help to reduce the perceived value of such weapons. It will draw the line between those states that believe nuclear weapons are unacceptable and illegitimate, and those states that believe nuclear weapons are legitimate and able to provide security.

If nuclear weapons continue to be portrayed as a legitimate and a useful mean to provide security, non-nuclear weapon states might aim to develop such weapons themselves.

A ban on nuclear weapons would create a global norm against nuclear weapons, which would not only put pressure on both nuclear-armed and non-nuclear weapon states to reject nuclear weapons permanently, but it would also set the stage for future progress in states like North Korea should its domestic political situation change.

Will nuclear-armed states give up their arsenals if a ban on nuclear weapons is negotiated?

Banning nuclear weapons is not the same as eliminating them. A ban will be a necessary starting point for disarmament to happen. While the dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals might be a long process, a clear international rejection of these weapons is going to be an essential component of future disarmament efforts.

The world did not wait for Syria to eliminate their chemical weapons before the prohibition of chemical weapons was negotiated and brought into force. It did not make the chemical weapons convention any less important, rather it helped the international community to swiftly respond and put an end to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

A ban on nuclear weapons will make the maintenance and development of nuclear weapons less attractive and more difficult, both for existing nuclear weapons possessors and potential new ones. It will create better conditions for effective disarmament measures.

As long as one country has nuclear weapons, will it be dangerous for others to give theirs up?

A ban on nuclear weapons will send a clear signal that all nuclear weapons are unacceptable. The work to stigmatize, ban and eliminate nuclear weapons is the best defence against the use of nuclear weapons.

As long as nuclear weapons are seen as important and legitimate, it will encourage proliferation and maintenance of current arsenals.

A ban on nuclear weapons is not about unilateral disarmament of nuclear arsenals, it is about creating an international norm against the use and possession of nuclear weapons. A clear and unequivocal rejection of the possession and use of nuclear weapons will make it harder for all states to continue investing in the maintenance and development of nuclear weapons.

A ban on nuclear weapons lead by non-nuclear weapon states can and should work as mutually reinforcing to other disarmament efforts by nuclear-armed states, such as the ratification of the test-ban treaty, further reductions of arsenals, and de-alerting. A ban does not preclude or prevent bilateral or multilateral agreements to reduce numbers of warheads between nuclear armed states.

But a ban can put external pressure on such nuclear-armed states to make further efforts on disarmament. This is particularly important at a time when relations between the major nuclear weapon states are worsening, and their domestic political situation makes any international progress difficult.

Can a NATO state work for a ban even if NATO has nuclear weapons?

There are no legal grounds for why a NATO country would not be able to work for a ban on nuclear weapons. It is fully possible to develop a national standard regarding nuclear weapons that is different from other NATO states.

While NATO’s strategic concept from 2010 says that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance, the concept also declares that the alliance should work to create conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. A ban on nuclear weapons will stigmatize and prohibit nuclear weapons, creating better conditions for nuclear disarmament. Working for nuclear disarmament is not just a reference in a strategic concept, this is also an obligation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty signed by all member states of NATO.

The 2010 NPT outcome document called for the reduction of reliance on nuclear weapons in security doctrines. By leading the work to stigmatize and prohibit nuclear weapons, NATO states can implement their national obligations by increasing the influence over NATOs next strategic concept and implement the commitments from 2010 to ”reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in security doctrines”.

The facts that have emerged during the three humanitarian consequences, as well as the new discussion about the risks such weapons pose should be the start of a dialogue in all NATO states about what more NATO states can do to reach a world free of nuclear weapons.

Does history show that nuclear weapons create stability and prevent war?

The last three years, facts and information about historical processes, as well as the consequences and risks around nuclear weapons, have put the deterrence theory under scrutiny. It is increasingly being questioned. In addition to this, the critical question is not if deterrence has worked for 70 years, but if we should take the chance that it will work for another 70 years. The world no longer consists of two ideological blocks, but is a much more unpredictable situation – including both state and non-state actors.

If our security should be based on nuclear deterrence, that strategy must work perfectly for ever. It won’t. If nuclear weapons are kept, sooner or later the world will see a nuclear detonation, either by intent or accident. The utility of nuclear weapons is at best doubtful, but what we know for sure is that nuclear weapons put us at risk of facing a humanitarian catastrophe.

Is it better to focus on non-proliferation efforts to prevent new states or terrorist groups to acquire nuclear weapons?

A ban will be an effective tool to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Many non-nuclear weapon states have signed the Non Proliferation Treaty because of the ”bargain” contained in the treaty: you promise to not develop nuclear weapons maintaining your right to develop nuclear energy, in exchange for the promise of nuclear-armed states to disarm their weapons. A ban would instead prohibit nuclear weapons universally and as result of an unequivocal rejection, strengthening the NPT and making it a powerful tool to prevent proliferation.

Continuing to argue that nuclear weapons are essential for providing security will only encourage other states to follow suit.