The Swiss voice in the world since 1935

What do recent events tell us about the risks and rewards of sticking to nuclear treaties?

Hosted by:

Multimedia journalist reporting for the International Geneva beat and supporting editorial quality control in the English department. Swiss-Chilean multimedia journalist with two decades of reporting experience in the US, Europe and the Middle East, with occasional assignments in South America and Africa. I enjoy investigative and long-form stories, and have also worked in breaking news and every format in between.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances, yet was later invaded by Russia. Iran, long suspected of harbouring nuclear ambitions, has (so far) stayed within the rules of international agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but has faced years of sanctions, political isolation and military strikes by Israel. Meanwhile, North Korea broke every rule, built nuclear weapons – now few are willing to confront it directly. 

When countries that follow the rules seem to end up worse off than those that don’t, what reason is there for any state to sign or trust nuclear disarmament agreements? And how could the global system be rebuilt so that disarmament actually leads to greater security? What do recent events tell us about the pros and cons of following nuclear agreements? Can we eliminate nuclear weapons – or should they be be eliminated at all?

More

Join the conversation!

Contributions must adhere to our guidelines. If you have questions or wish to suggest other ideas for debates, please, get in touch!
Funzeli
Funzeli
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

If I store nuclear weapons on my premises, I have to be sure that the storage facility is secure. Otherwise I will give the weapons to allies, especially before or during a war. And hope that their stockpile is safer! I'll be the first to blow up with it. But please, I'm not a specialist! The only nuclear power plant I visited was on the surface, in Gösgen. Why was Natanz so low? Who says there wasn't an incident and the government itself asked the USA for support? International teams work in nuclear power plants. There aren't 1000 universities where you learn how to make A-bombs. North Korea is just safe. For emergencies. An emergency could also be something other than a "Baron Münchhausen" with a red button.

Sollte ich bei mir Atomwaffen lagern, muss ich sicher sein, dass das Lager sicher ist. Sonst gebe ich die Waffen, besonders vor oder während eines Krieges, an Verbündete ab. Und hoffe, dass deren Lager sicherer ist!? Ich fliege damit ja als erster in die Luft. Bitte ich bin aber kein Spezialist! Das einzige Atomkraftwerk, welches ich besuchte war an der Oberfläche, in Gösgen. Weshalb lag Natanz so tief? Wer sagt, dass es nicht einen Zwischenfall gab und die Regierung selbst die USA um Unterstützung bat!? __In Atomkraftwerken arbeiten doch internationale Teams. Es gibt ja nicht 1000 Universitäten wo man lernt A-Bomben zu basteln. Nordkorea ist halt sicher. Für den Notfall. Ein Notfall könnte ja auch etwas anderes sein als ein "Baron Münchhausen" mit rotem Knopferl.

Rafiq Tschannen
Rafiq Tschannen

It is tragic comic all the fuss about the nuclear ambitions of Iran when at the same time Israel is known to hae nuclear weapons and absolutely no inspections are taking place there. Consequently all nuclear treaties are just a joke when any nation can just ignore it all and get away with it. Is the genocidal state of Israel can have nuclear weapons then anyone else can too. Want to get rid of nuclear weapons? Fine, but the prohibition must be valid for all.

Isabelle Bannerman
Isabelle Bannerman SWI SWISSINFO.CH
@Rafiq Tschannen

Dear Rafiq Tschannen, ____thank you for your comment! We recently published an article about the criteria and definitions of genocide that you might find interesting: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/international-geneva/when-is-a-genocide-really-genocide/90020507____Kind regards!

Doris Ruchti
Doris Ruchti
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Only additional dangers! To be honest, I'd rather have no electricity at all from time to time than more nuclear power stations. Because you must never forget: All it takes is one unpredictable leader (and we currently have a few of them in the world!!!) and we are all in danger.

Nur zusätzliche Gefahren! Ganz ehrlich : Lieber habe ich ab und an gar keinen Strom als noch mehr Atomkraftwerke. Denn man darf nie vergessen: Es braucht nur einen unberechenbaren Herscher ( und derzeit haben wir ein paar davon in der Welt!!!) und wir alle sind in Gefahr.

Dominique Soguel
Dominique Soguel SWI SWISSINFO.CH
@Doris Ruchti

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Concerns about safety, leadership, and long-term risks are a significant part of the wider debate around nuclear energy, alongside the arguments made for energy security and emissions reduction

Alemanne
Alemanne
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

The question already indirectly devalues such treaties. If these nuclear treaties are not, or frequently not, observed, they usually share this fate with other regulations, which are also not always observed. ____ However, no one would think of abolishing a road traffic regulation, for example, just because a number of road users grossly disregard it.

Die Fragestellung enthält bereits indirekt eine Abwertung derartiger Verträge. Wenn diese Atomverträge nicht, oder häufig nicht eingehalten werden, teilen sie dieses Schicksal beklanntlich aber mit anderen Regelwerken, die auch nicht immer beachtet werden. ____Niemand würde jedoch auf die Idee kommen, etwa eine Straßenverkehrsordnung abzuschaffen, nur weil etliche Verkehrsteilnehmer diese grob missachten.

Dominique Soguel
Dominique Soguel SWI SWISSINFO.CH
@Alemanne

That’s an interesting comparison. Thank you for your comment!

cesardelucasivorra@hotmail.com
cesardelucasivorra@hotmail.com
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.

Nuclear treaties can be respected, but conceptually what international authorities are trying to do is to reach agreements to limit strategic arms. It is true that there were SALT-II agreements signed by Russia and the United States when the Cold War still existed in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were still agreements that granted minimal peace to the planet with very high global debt rates and with very great efforts by states in their financial guarantee funds. The greatest technology could be identified by space agencies such as NASA and ROCOSMOS, but it is also true that the space race implies sacrifice and justifies that its funds are destined to noble causes. Nuclear treaties could be interpreted as a lesser option in terms of technological know-how with respect to astronomy, but paradoxically may imply a higher binding risk of causing planetary destruction. Therefore, nuclear treaties should be respected, but in many cases they do not resolve planetary conflicts as such.

Los tratados nucleares pueden ser respetados, pero conceptualmente las autoridades internacionales lo que intentan es llegar a acuerdos de limitación de armas estratégicas. Es cierto que existieron en su día unos acuerdos SALT-II, firmados por Rusia y Estado Unidos cuando todavía la Guerra Fría existía en los años 60 y 70, pero no dejaron de ser unos acuerdos que otorgaban una paz mínima al planeta con unos índices de deuda global muy altos y con esfuerzos muy grandes por los estados en sus fondos de garantía financieros. La mayor tecnología podría ser identificada por las agencias espaciales como la NASA y ROCOSMOS, pero también es verdad que la carrera espacial implica sacrificio y justificar que sus fondos son destinados a causas nobles. Los tratados nucleares, podrían interpretarse como una opción menor en cuanto a conocimiento tecnológico, con respecto la Astronomía, pero paradójicamente pueden implicar un riesgo vinculante mayor de causar destrucción planetaria. Por tanto, los tratados nucleares deben ser respetados, pero en muchos de los casos no resuelven como tal conflictos planetarios bélicos.

Dominique Soguel
Dominique Soguel SWI SWISSINFO.CH
@cesardelucasivorra@hotmail.com

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. It's true that nuclear treaties don’t resolve broader conflicts on their own. Still, many see them as a way to lower the risk of escalation.

Rafiq Tschannen
Rafiq Tschannen

Sorry, but i think that nuclear treaties are meaningless, when countries like Israel can simply ignore them and get away with it.

jjs110@cox.net
jjs110@cox.net
@Rafiq Tschannen

Long before you started obsessing about Israel, far more rogue and dangerous countries got the bomb, such as Pakistant and North Korea. How come you don't have a problem with them getting away with ignoring nuclear treaties

Rafiq Tschannen
Rafiq Tschannen
@jjs110@cox.net

I do have a problem with them too. Nice of you to put North Korea and Israel in the same category. Agree with you.

Rafiq Tschannen
Rafiq Tschannen

Well, the best example is Israel and Iran. Israel just ignores all treaties and is still respected and Iran tries to accommodate the treaties and is haunted. If I was Iran I would just say 'I will talk to you about a treaty the day after you have achieved the same deal with Israel'.

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR