Path to a World Without Nuclear Weapons

Presentation byH.E. Mr. Libran N. Cabactulan

Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations in New York

To quote the report of the ICNND: “Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane

weapons ever conceived, inherently indiscriminate in those they kill and maim, and with an impact deadly for decades.”

“So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, miscalculation, or design. And any such use would be catastrophic. It is sheer luck that the world has escaped such catastrophe until now.”

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Effects of the “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” atomic bombs Killed an estimated

246,000 people in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Those that survived the initial bombing would later on die of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries.

Atomic bombs over Hiroshima (left) and Nagasaki (right)

Destructive Power of Nuclear Weapons: Atomic Bomb of the Little Man/Fat Boy type had a yield of

15 to 20 KT A modern thermonuclear weapon has a yield not

measured in KT, but in MT and has a destructive force thousands of times more powerful than the atomic bombs used during World War II

Estimated number of Nuclear Weapons in existence: At the height of the Cold War it was believed that there

were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in existence. Today it is estimated that there are at least 23,000

nuclear warheads. The equivalent of 150,000 Hiroshima type bombs.

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Country

Strategic OtherTo BeDis-

mantled

Total by Country

Yield Range

(kt)

Total Yield (Mt)Deployed Reserve Deployed Reserve

U.S. 2200 2000 – 3000

500 500 4200 9400 – 10,400

Sub-kt – 455

647

Russia 2800 47504 2000 – 3000

3400 12,950 – 13,950

Sub-kt – 1000

1,273

China 130 – 186 54 ~ ~   184 – 240 200 – 3300 294

France <300 0 0 0   <300 100 – 300 55

UK 160 0 0 0   160 100 16Israel11 60 – 200 ~ 0 0   60 – 200 ~ 1.6 – 12

India13 60 – 70 ~ 0 0   60 – 70 15 – 20013 1

Pakistan13 >60 ~ 0 0   >60 Sub-kt – 50 1.3

North Korea

0 0 0 5 – 614   5 – 6 Sub-kt – 8 0.05

TOTALS(Rounded)

5770 – 5975

6800 – 7800

2500 – 3500

3900 >4200 23,200 – 25,400

  2300

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear Arsenals 2009 Source: ICCND Report

Incidents which may have started an accidental nuclear exchange: 23 August 1962 B-52 Navigation Error flying close to Soviet

airspace October 1962 explosion of a Soviet Satellite, US ICBM Test

Launch, unannounced Titan Missile Launch, 21 January 1968 B-52 crash near Thule 9 November 1979 Computer Exercise Tape falsely showing

missile launch from USSR June 1980 faulty computer chip falsely showing a Soviet attack January 1995 Russian False Alarm on a Norwegian scientific

test missile

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Aside from the threat of accidental launch causing a catastrophic nuclear exchange, there is the grave possibility of non-State Actors coming into the possession of these weapons.

It is not beyond the realm of the possible for non-State Actors to acquire a nuclear device or build a “dirty bomb,” to be used on a city center as an act of terror.

Rationale for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons of 1970 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I, II of the 1970s Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of

1987 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I, II of the 1990s Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty of 2002

Steps taken to the Path

New START in 2011 1,550 deployed warheads, which is about 30% lower than the

upper warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty. (This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty). 

A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons; and

A separate limit of 700 for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons. (This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the 1991 START Treaty).

Steps taken to the Path

Prague Speech of US President Barack Obama in April 2009 “The existence of nuclear weapons is the most

dangerous legacy of the Cold War.” “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security

of a world without nuclear weapons.” “Together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-

proliferation Treaty.” The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons

will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.”

Steps taken to the Path

NPT Review Conferences 1995 Review and Extension Conference

Strengthening of the Review Process of the Treaty Principles and objectives for Nuclear Non-

Proliferation and Disarmament Indefinite extension of the NPT 1995 Resolution on the Middle East

2000 Review Conference 13 Practical Steps

Steps taken to the Path

2010 NPT Review Conference Final Document

Review of the operation of the Treaty, as provided for in its Article VIII (3), taking into account the decisions and the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference

Conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions

Steps taken to the Path

Conclusions and recommendations for follow-on actions 64 Action points Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the

Middle East Other Regional Issue

64 Action Points 22 actions on Nuclear Disarmament 24 actions on Nuclear Non-Proliferation 18 actions on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

Other Regional Issue On the DPRK

Steps taken to the Path

Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East The UN Secretary-General and the co-sponsors of the 1995

Middle East Resolution, in consultation with the States of the region, will convene a Conference in 2012, to be attended by all States of the Middle East, on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other WMDs…

Appointment by the UN Secretary-General and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Middle East Resolution, in consultation with the States of the region, of a Facilitator…

Designation by the UN Secretary-General and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Middle East Resolution, in consultation with the States of the region, of a host Government for the 2012 Conference.

Steps taken to the Path

Implementation of the 64 Action Points in the “Conclusions and recommendations” section of the 2010 NPT Final Document

Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East, in particular holding a Conference in 2012 on the creation of a zone free of WMD with all States in the Middle East participating

Follow-up to New START Revitalization of the CD Negotiation of a Treaty on Fissile Materials Entry into Force of the CTBT Negotiation of a Convention on Nuclear Weapons Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

The way forward

Implementation of the 64 Action Points in the “Conclusions and recommendations” section of the 2010 NPT Final Document All action points should be implemented, some

of the more vital actions are as follows: Actions 3, 5, 7and 21 under Nuclear

Disarmament section Actions 25, 27, and 28 under Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Actions 48, 55, and 58

The way forward

Implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East The facilitator and host government of the 2012 Conference

must be selected soon so that adequate preparations can be made for the Conference.

It is crucial that all states in the region attend and that states take the opportunity to conduct actual negotiations and not use the event as an opportunity to single out or target a particular state.

A failed 2012 Conference could negatively affect the 2015 Review Conference process beginning with the 2012 Preparatory Committee Meeting.

The way forward

Follow-up to the New START The US and Russian Federation are to be

commended for ratifying New START. Their example should be followed by all other

states that possess nuclear weapons. A follow-up agreement to New START to set

even lower levels should be negotiated at the soonest possible time.

The way forward

Revitalization of the CD and a Treaty on Fissile Materials CD’s last accomplishment was negotiating the Comprehensive Test

Ban Treaty in 1996. CD has practically been inactive for the past 15 years. In 2009 a Program of Work was adopted, but never implemented. CD must begin negotiations on a treaty on Fissile Materials. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon convened a High Level Meeting on

CD Revitalization on 24 September 2010 which came up with the following: The CD should adopt the Program of Work of 2009 or any similar

subsequent proposal submitted during the 2010 Session”; Secretary-General will consult with the Advisory Board on Disarmament

Matters to review the issues taken up during the HLM and based on the recommendations of the Advisory Board the Secretary-General will undertake further actions; and

The Secretary-General will submit a report on the HLM to the First Preparatory Committee Meeting for the 2015 NPT Review Conference.

The way forward

CTBT The remaining nine Annex 2 States need to sign and ratify

at the soonest possible time. Other States not included in Annex 2, but are not party to

the CTBT must do the same to promote the universality of the treaty and ensure the prevention of nuclear testing, which is a prerequisite in the development of nuclear weapons.

The International Monitoring System of the CTBT of which the Philippines is host to three stations proved its capability when it detected the tests of the DPRK.

The IMS can also serve as a tsunami warning system.

The way forward

Nuclear Weapons Convention Such a convention is supported by the Secretary-General

and is included in his 5-point action plan. It is mentioned in the “Conclusions and Recommendations”

section of the 2010 NPT Final Document. It is widely supported by a number of NPT States Parties and

civil society. A NWC could be the way to include all States that possess

nuclear weapons into one legally binding treaty. A NWC should it make it illegal not just to use or threaten to

use nuclear weapons, but possession of such weapons as well.

The way forward

Nuclear Weapon Free Zones NWFZs promote the cause of non-proliferation. NWS need to withdraw all reservations to the

various NWFZs if any or sign on to the protocols of such zones.

All pending issues on the SEANWFZ should be resolved at the soonest possible time to encourage NWS accession to the protocol.

The way forward

THANK YOU