Skip to Navigation
Skip to Content
Share this page

Support PSR!

Your membership supports PSR's work to reduce global warming, eliminate toxics in our environment and abolish nuclear weapons. YOU make our work possible. Thank you.

Donate Now »

Take Action

Tell the Trump Administration: Protect us from methane and toxic gas leaks from fracked-gas wells on federal lands!

Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Possible ?

Posted by Paul Deaton on January 6, 2011

A discussion of nuclear disarmament necessarily begins in the context of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These unilateral, wartime acts of the United States resulted in a movement against atomic weapons that took shape in dozens of countries around the world and involved hundreds of thousands of people. The movement resulted in a resurgence of War Resisters' International, Fellowship of Reconciliation and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the influence of these organizations was substantial. Formal organizations were just one aspect of the reaction against nuclear weapons. (To learn more, read Lawrence Wittner's Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement). The rise of popular advocacy against nuclear weapons served to check the ambitions of the United States and Russia, as well as other members of the early nuclear club (Great Britain, France and China).

As living memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki faded, so did the international movement against nuclear weapons. During the Vietnam War, it became clear to many that the United States would not use nuclear weapons in that conflict because the consequences of world opinion would be too negative. If nations would not use nuclear weapons in Vietnam to advance a military agenda, then would they ever use them, given the existence of advocacy groups ready to engage a grassroots effort against them and precipitate the negative feedback a nuclear detonation would arouse in the world.

If nuclear disarmament advocacy went into remission in the late 1960s, there was a resurgence with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980. During the Reagan administration, nuclear weapons were modernized and nuclear hawks proliferated a whole class of nuclear weapons. Towards the end of his administration, Reagan changed his position on nuclear weapons, but  his proliferation sparked the nuclear freeze movement in the United States and around the world. By the end of Reagan's term, nuclear disarmament advocates again experienced some success in checking the ambitions of nuclear states even if India, Pakistan and Israel had joined the club by then.

As Josef Joffe and James W. Davis point out in their article "Less Than Zero: Bursting the New Disarmament Bubble," in Volume 90, No.1 of Foreign Affairs, "Once again a global movement is afoot to free the world of nuclear weapons. Unlike the Easter marches of the 1950s and 1960s or the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, however, this time around, the policy elites themselves are leading the charge."

The recent campaigns by Global Zero, the Nuclear Threat Initiative and other non-governmental organizations reflect a shift in the nuclear disarmament movement from "grassroots" advocacy to the newer "grasstops" advocacy where people of standing in the community spoke for ratification of the New START Treaty and nuclear disarmament generally.

This type of advocacy is unsustainable. As living memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki leaves society, without a popular movement, and absent a precipitating event, popular interest in nuclear disarmament will continue to wane. Grassroots advocacy was the only thing that has kept nuclear proliferation by nation states in check during the 65 years since the nuclear weapons genie escaped from the bottle. It is the only thing that will prevent the nuclear club from growing.


Rick Maltese said ..

Your website focuses on Nuclear proliferation. I think the best solution is to decommission the existing weapons as a source of fuel for energy. Unfortunately the average public and it seems your orgainization equates nuclear energy as an obvious path to nuclear weapons and the facts show that this is false. If we can take tons of nuclear fuel from atomic bombs and spent nuclear fuel and use it for energy that makes economic sense as well as common sense.

January 8, 2011
Michael Christ said ..

ICAN -- the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons -- was initiated several years ago by IPPNW to do just this -- foster a renewed global grassroots movement for abolition. Check it out at

January 7, 2011

Comments closed.