Atomic Anxiety in the New Nuclear Age

As we head into the festive season, Dr Carolina Pantoliano reflects on 2025 and offers a new years resolution for the nuclear politics community…

It’s that time of year again. The moment when we all take stock of what has been done, which plans succeeded, which ideas proved fruitful, and begin to plan for the year ahead. As I sat down to write this piece today, these were the first words that came to mind while finishing packing my bags to head to Brazil for the Christmas break with loved ones.

Reflecting on my personal and professional journey so far, I couldn’t help but think about how things have unfolded in the field of nuclear politics this year. To say things have “developed” might sound like an oxymoron to some, as the dynamics and thinking have hardly evolved over the past few decades.

Deterrence remains at the center of conversations on nuclear weapons and security more broadly, with states fiercely defending the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global stability. Discussions at major UN forums continue to be stagnant and divided, perhaps more polarised than ever. And nuclear weapons are still out there.

Not only do these weapons persist, but the geopolitical situation has worsened. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, coupled with major nuclear powers using dangerous rhetoric, have increased the potential for nuclear use.

The collapse of arms control agreements, such as Russia’s withdrawal from the CTBT and suspension of participation in the New START treaty (due for renewal in 2026), alongside Trump’s announcement that he wants to resume nuclear testing (breaking a thirty-year moratorium) heightens global concern.

Moreover, instead of moving toward nuclear disarmament as mandated by international law, the UK, Russia, India, Pakistan, and DPRK are all expanding stockpiles, while modernization of delivery systems continues.

Added to this is the rise of artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies, which could significantly alter the nuclear security landscape if integrated into command-and-control systems, changing decision-making logics underpinning deterrence and, more worryingly, reducing human oversight.

As bleak as this may sound, there has also been progress in the nuclear space this year. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) continues to achieve significant outcomes, with another successful meeting of states parties held in New York in March and preparations underway for its first review conference next year.

Disarmament advocacy remains strong, with dedicated individuals working tirelessly to advance elimination efforts. Here, it is worth noting that this time last year Nihon Hidankyo won the Nobel Peace Prize, a well-deserved and remarkable achievement for disarmament activists.

In popular culture, nuclear weapons have gained visibility. The new Netflix film House of Dynamite deserves attention for bringing nuclear issues into public debate, particularly in countries where these conversations are less prominent. Despite its flaws, this representation of nuclear issues is crucial for delegitimising and challenging narratives that normalise nuclear possession and expansion. I was pleasantly surprised when my parents in São Paulo, Brazil told me they watched the film and learned about nuclear weapons beyond the stories I’ve shared with them.

Looking Ahead to 2026

I remain optimistic and believe humanity can and will find solutions to the nuclear predicament. But as I think about what can be done better next year, and the challenges that must be addressed at major conferences like the NPT Review Conference and the TPNW Review Conference, my sense is this: think critically.

While this may sound naïve or overly simplistic, it is not. After attending diplomatic forums, workshops, and conferences where colleagues debate solutions, I often feel like I’m hearing the same conversations on repeat.

If there is a New Year’s resolution for nuclear politics, I would say to all of us, scholars, practitioners, and citizens of the world; pause and reflect on what makes this issue possible.

Most importantly, start questioning our own truths and beliefs. Doing so enables us to see the world as less fixed and more open to re-imagining and change.

Much has been said this year in my own circles about theories of change. As one colleague put it at a workshop: we need as many theories of change as we can get. What is yours?

Mine is grounded in plurality; exposing what we know (or think we know) as contingent upon structures imposed on us, structures that fix certain imaginaries and realities as unquestionable.

Seeing the world this way helps deconstruct regimes of truth that trap us in a world filled with violence, militarism, injustice, inequality, and nuclear weapons.

Putting Theory into Practice

A good way to explain this is through a recent article I published in Global Studies Quarterly. In it, I examine nuclear deterrence from a different perspective, inviting readers to deconstruct the well-established knowledge that sustains nuclear weapons as valuable strategic assets.

For those unfamiliar, deterrence emerged in the 1950s and 1960s through U.S. strategists like Thomas Schelling and Bernard Brodie (among others). It posits that nuclear weapons prevent attack by threatening devastating retaliation, based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This idea grants nuclear weapons immense value and justifies ongoing possession and modernisation.

But what if this isn’t the only mechanism at play? My work shows that beyond this dynamic, when states talk about deterrence and justify nuclear weapons’ relevance, they also mobilise gendered war myths and imaginaries, specifically, the logic of protection. Drawing on feminist literature on war, I show how narratives of vulnerability and protection operate in nuclear politics.

The logic of protection highlights gendered values underpinning justifications for war: the vulnerability of others is invoked to legitimise the actions and capabilities of protectors. This framework reveals domination and subordination dynamics that favor the power of protectors while positioning the protected as victims.

In nuclear discourse, deterrence talk situates those without nuclear capabilities as dependent and subordinate; a key mechanism for justifying ongoing possession and modernisation.

When nuclear-armed states speak of deterrence, they are not simply glorifying the bomb; they are ensuring the protected remain visible in discourse, sustaining the status quo.

If deterrence was designed to prevent war, how does it reproduce war myths? The answer is simple: deterrence operates in a context where war is always imaginable and possible. This is central to its logic and legitimacy. Because deterrence is often understood as anti-war, we often take its mechanisms for granted and fail to interrogate the silences it perpetuates.

So next time you hear a nuclear state claim that nuclear weapons protect global stability or allies, pay attention to the language. Notice how it subtly positions those without such capabilities as subordinate to the power, and timelines, of nuclear states.

Thinking this way can help us deconstruct the mechanisms that normalise nuclear weapons and sustain the status quo. The nuclear world is not simply about deterrence; it is filled with knowledge structures that continue to support the existence of these weapons and legitimize particular policy choices.

Our task is to ask questions; questions that challenge and disrupt these structures. Most importantly, we must expose, as I have done with the deterrence discourse, the instability of what we think we know to uncover the potential for re-imagining, re-creating, and re-aligning towards a more just, peaceful, and loving world.

Closing 2025 and Welcoming 2026

In this spirit, the Atomic Anxiety project closes 2025 and looks ahead to 2026. This year has been remarkable: visiting the UN in New York for the first time (and then again a few months later), strengthening relationships with policymakers worldwide, organising a successful side event at the TPNW meeting of state parties, attending disarmament education sessions in Vancouver, and participating in academic conferences in Belfast, Uppsala, and Geneva. Rhys also represented us at key meetings in China, Scotland, Europe, and beyond.

Our first cohort of fellows produced thought-provoking pieces published on our website and wrapped up their activities with an inspiring conversation over a day long workshop recently. Our team also grew, with Sterre van Buuren joining the team as a PhD student, and Laura Rose Brown is set to join us as a post-doc in January.

On the publication front, Rhys contributed exciting work to Intergenerational Justice Review, and together we submitted a working paper to the TPNW meeting of states parties.

I published two articles, one in Review of International Studies and another in Global Studies Quarterly. And finalised the first draft of my book manuscript, which will be published by Manchester University Press next year.

As we close this year, let’s take a moment to reflect on family, friends, heritage, and the fleeting nature of time. Cherish the simple moments – give your loved ones a hug and tell them how much they mean to you. Remember childhood laughter and carefree days; these memories remind us to question what we often consider “important.”

Love and care are the true forces for change. By reflecting on heritage, legacies, and the love we hold for others, we can begin to see the world in a different light.

Looking ahead, we expect 2026 to be a productive year – full of collaboration and meaningful conversations with friends and colleagues.

From all of us, we wish you a joyful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.