Atomic Anxiety in the New Nuclear Age

Nuclear order is replete with hypocrisy and double standards, and nuclear disarmament is a realistic objective if we wish to preserve civilisation, writes Jorge Alberto López Lechuga in the latest Atomic Anxiety fellows blog. Read on to find out how and why…

The word “order” comes from the Latin ordo and refers to the arrangement of things in a place or sequence, a rank, or a hierarchy. This means that not every order necessarily implies a fair or equitable arrangement.

In the case of the so-called “nuclear order”, the term is a narrative construction embedded in hegemonic policies aimed at maintaining the oligopoly over nuclear weapons.

In the discourse of nuclear-weapon States and their allies, the “nuclear order” is commonly understood as the set of institutions, norms, and policies governing the development and use of nuclear technology, including the “control” and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This narrative is based on a questionable assumption: that the existence of nuclear weapons is inevitable and that only their control is desirable, not their elimination.

Each State that possesses nuclear weapons acquired them for different reasons, but they all share something in common: the goal of strengthening their sovereignty and addressing their perceptions of insecurity.

However, by choosing to make their national security depend on nuclear weapons, these States call into question the security perceptions of other countries that oppose the existence of such arsenals. While the first group of countries defends nuclear weapons as a source of security, the rest see them as a source of insecurity.

Time and again, the existence and possession of nuclear weapons is relativized, as if they were justifiable in some hands but not in those of adversaries.

Nuclear weapons also function as symbols of power and status, not only as security tools. It is therefore predictable that others will seek to acquire them in order to adopt the narrative of “nuclear power.”

In this way, the cycle of nuclear violence repeats itself, sustained by those who frame weapons as instruments of security within the narrative of the “nuclear order.”

The existence of nuclear weapons creates a hierarchy of power in which States that possess them seek to impose their security interests on the rest, marginalizing those that do not and perpetuating an unequal international system.

Nuclear deterrence leads to coercion, whereby non-nuclear-weapon States are forced to act according to the demands of nuclear-armed countries rather than engage in an equal dialogue.

The development of nuclear weapons contradicts the principle of international law concerning the legal equality of States. Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares explains that nuclear weapons are an obstacle to the democratization of international relations.

Distrust and inequality among States that are legally equal prevail in practice because of the existence of nuclear weapons. In other words, the “nuclear order” is an expression of hegemonic hierarchy.

Given this notion, is it only possible to “control” nuclear weapons? Although most members of the United Nations have assumed the legally binding obligation to negotiate and conclude measures for general and complete nuclear disarmament (Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty), differences over how to do so reveal a significant contradiction in positions.

In reality, while some States push for disarmament, others justify delaying its compliance by resorting to euphemisms such as “arms control,” with partial and hegemonic objectives like “strategic stability” and “nuclear risk reduction.”

This is one of the dominant narratives within the context of the five-year NPT review cycles, considered the “cornerstone” of the “nuclear order” that meets at the UN in New York for a review conference in Spring 2026.

There is no just order when human survival depends on a group of States using their nuclear weapons, whether intentionally or accidentally. “Strategic stability” does not function when humanity lives under the threat of instant extinction.

Are Nuclear Weapons Inevitable?

If the world only aspires to control nuclear weapons, is the existence of such arsenals inevitable? Are these weapons a manifestation of nature, like gravity or the seasons? Are they immutable forces that we must normalize?

No. If nuclear weapons were created by human beings, eliminating them is also a human decision. It is true that this is a technology that cannot be “uninvented,” but nuclear technology can be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes.

Knowledge is not the same as will. We have the knowledge to build gas chambers, but their existence is condemnable. Humanity does not need to forget the formula; it needs to declare it unacceptable.

Just as other values and power structures once considered inevitable were condemned and prohibited, the same can happen with nuclear weapons. There was a time when slavery was legal, when people were traded as commodities, when apartheid was defended in parliaments.

All of that was prohibited because people questioned those unjust structures. They imagined a more just world. And if we also imagine a world free of nuclear weapons, how could it be achieved under current political conditions?

It is true that eliminating nuclear weapons seems like a colossal task and appears unrealistic in the world as it is today. But history shows that it was possible to ban and eliminate other weapons of mass destruction. There are precedents for chemical and biological disarmament.

Measures to prohibit nuclear arsenals, leading towards their elimination, are regulated activities under international law. The key lies in political will, international commitment, and a multilateral approach. However, international instruments are of little use if some States do not fully comply with them.

Some critics of “prohibitionist” positions on nuclear weapons reduce the goal of disarmament to an ideal. They argue that nuclear weapons are a security tool for the States that possess them and their allies.

But are nuclear weapons really necessary to guarantee their security? Is it worth defending the existence of the State through the threat of global nuclear annihilation?

Is ensuring the survival of humanity not a necessity?

It is and it always should be.

Therefore, eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons is not an ideal, but a realistic objective if we wish to preserve civilisation.

---

Jorge Lopez is a Mexican diplomat. During 2011-2019, he served as Research and Communication Officer at the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL). During this period, he participated in the negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and supported the implementation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

From 2019 to 2022, Jorge was Legal and Project Officer at the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs – Lima Regional Centre (UNODA – UNLIREC), assisting Caribbean and Latin American States in implementing treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 

This blog is part of a series of articles by the Atomic Anxiety in the New Nuclear Age Fellows Cohort. These articles represent the view of the author and not necessarily those of the project as a whole or other individuals associated with the project.