Nukes exposed

Cutting through the nonsense

Learn more

Speak up

Awareness without action is meaningless

Sign our petition

Follow us

Follow our campaign activities on social media


Sign the petition

A paper copy of the petition can be downloaded here.

7964 said yes to a ban on nuclear weapons.

  • Au 3 minutes ago Norma The world must be free of nuclear weapons.
  • Nl about 15 hours ago Lotte I am against nuclear weapons as it is an inhumane and disproportionately destructive means that can possibly harm many innocent people for many years
  • Fr about 19 hours ago DEROUINEAU
  • Fr about 19 hours ago THORAVAL to much risk to detroy ourselves...
  • Bd about 19 hours ago Ava 2rand[0,1,1]
  • Ae about 20 hours ago vqggyjcuvl sfkymhppeczfovl, <a href="">atdjydnqtb</a> , [url=]zjtldsnpix[/url], atdjydnqtb
  • Fr 3 days ago LE BOLLOCH
  • Fr 3 days ago LE BOLLOCH
  • Fm 3 days ago Benjamin 2rand[0,1,1]
  • Ae 4 days ago iitgbqrqjk ebekfhppeczfovl, tzvoudcmwn

Thank you!

Your signature was successfully inserted.

We've sent you a confirmation email with further details and a confirmation link. Check your inbox!

Follow us

As dramatic as the Nayarit conference turned out to be, we cannot let our guard down one bit. 2014 is going to be a huge year for the campaign. As you will have heard by now, the Austrian Foreign Minister announced that Austria will organize a follow-up conference in Vienna. This event promises to be a giant leap for a process to ban nuclear weapons. To achieve this we need you! To stay up-to-date on what’s going on with the campaign and where you can jump in to help, follow us on social media. Interact, engage and inform us about what is happening in your country. Subscribe to our newsletter and get into a banning mood.

Since Oslo civil society has created a chain reaction of success – it can only head one direction – a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Let's do it!

Flickr stream

Vimeo stream

Twitter stream

Nuclear Weapons exposed


Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Both in the scale of the devastation they cause, and in their uniquely persistent, spreading, genetically damaging radioactive fallout, they are unlike any other weapons. A single nuclear bomb detonated over a large city could kill millions of people. The use of tens or hundreds of nuclear bombs would disrupt the global climate, causing widespread famine.

As long as we allow nuclear weapons to exist, we can never truly be safe. Some say that elimination will not happen in our lifetime. That depends on whether we are willing to accept the risk we live with today. Unless we act, a nuclear detonation will occur, either by accident, design or miscalculation – the only question is when and where. As experts from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and several UN relief agencies have made clear, no state or international organisation will be capable of responding adequately to that havoc and destruction.

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are all weapons of mass destruction, which cause immeasurable suffering and unacceptable harm. However, unlike chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons are not yet subject to an explicit legal prohibition. Nuclear weapons are, therefore, an anomaly among weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that cannot discriminate between military targets and civilians, between armed combatants and infants, are anathema to any sense of human dignity. Now is time to address the exception for nuclear weapons and ban the last weapon of mass destruction.

It is time to ban the bomb.

Why we need a ban

Beatrice Fihn

By focusing on the humanitarian impact and the consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, it becomes clear that these weapons are not instruments of power or mythical weapons of stability. Nuclear weapons are quite simply inhumane, unacceptable, and appalling weapons of terror, and just like chemical or biological weapons, no state should be proud to possess them or aspire to acquire them. Maintaining nuclear weapons is not a symbol of strength, but rather a constant reminder of the immense suffering that they have caused and continuously threaten to cause again.


Patricia Lewis
Ward Wilson
Eric Schlosser

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever created – the sole intention of their creation and use is to flatten cities and to indiscriminately destroy as much as possible in their path. Since they are such unwieldy and indiscriminate weapons, it is impossible to imagine any use of these weapons that would not be morally and ethically repugnant. It has long been suggested that their value lies in terms of their power as a ‘deterrent’ – a “don’t mess with us” strategy that keeps the major powers of the world from engaging in direct, armed conflict, lest it escalate into mutual annihilation. However, a necessary element of deterrence is ensuring that the enemy believes you are able and willing to respond with a nuclear strike if you yourself are threatened. This “credibility” factor requires a possessor state to ensure that its weapons stand at the ready at all times. Unfortunately, human beings are fallible, and even more so when tensions are high and national interests are at stake. There is no system that can guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used again.

The process of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is an incredibly complex and perilous endeavour. In his latest book, Command and Control, Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) documents the incredible challenges inherent in possessing, “the most dangerous technology ever invented”, where there was immense pressure to simultaneously make sure these weapons were always ready to be detonated at a moment’s notice, but where there simply could be no margin of error. As Schlosser explains, our ability to maintain these weapons safely is not nearly as assured as we would like to believe, and there have been numerous instances where the incidence of an accidental nuclear detonation has hung on a razor’s edge.


Nuclear weapons ended World War II. We can safely control nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence has kept the world safe. Nuclear weapons are here to stay; you can’t dis-invent them. Over the course of the last several decades, from Hiroshima through the Cold War to present day, many supposed ‘truths’ about nuclear weapons have been bandied about to explain and justify their continued existence. In the last few years these theories are being seen for what they are – myths.


Robert Thicker
Hellen Duhram
Ira Helfand

The sheer magnitude of the destruction and the number of victims represent the biggest challenges confronting those expected to provide humanitarian assistance in the event of a nuclear weapon detonation. Providing adequate, timely and appropriate assistance to hundreds of thousands or even millions of people would require enormous amounts of manpower, material resources and logistic capability. The International Committee of the Red Cross considers that no organisation or state effort could adequately respond to such a humanitarian crisis. Increasingly, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at large is becoming more vocal in advocating for outright elimination, underlining its commitment with resolutions in 2011 and 2013 urging the movement to call on states to conclude negotiations on a prohibition on nuclear weapons. Time and again, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has proved to be an extremely powerful force in humanitarian advocacy.




KARIPBEK KUYUKOV Nuclear Testing Victim

YAMI LESTER Nuclear Testing Victim

Sumitero Taniguchi Nagasaki Survivor

Setsuko Thurlow was 13 years old when the nuclear bomb dubbed “Little Boy” was detonated over her home of Hiroshima. Thurlow says that it is the image of her dying nephew, Ejii, “representing the innocent children of the world, [which] compels and drives [her] to continue to speak of Hiroshima, no matter how painful it may be,” on behalf of all who have suffered from the development, testing and use of nuclear weapons. Read Setsuko’s story here.
Yasuaki Yamashita was 6 years old on August 9, 1945. When the bomb detonated over his home of Nagasaki, he remembers an intense, blinding bright light, “like 1,000 simultaneous flashes of lightning”. Yamashita has since dedicated his life to speaking out about the horror caused by nuclear weapons, helping to keep alive the memory of the suffering, devastation and death that he bore witness to. Read Yasuaki’s story here.
Karipbek Kuyukov was born without arms, due the radiation exposure suffered by his mother who lived near a nuclear test site. He became a successful accountant after studying abroad and has been heavily involved in the international anti-nuclear-weapons movement. In 1989, he was involved in the “Nevada-Semipalatinsk” anti-nuclear movement and traveled to Nevada, Germany, Japan and Turkey. Karipbek is a renowned artist who paints using his legs and his mouth. Karipbek is the honorary Ambassador of The Atom Project ( Read Karipbek’s story here.
Yami Lester was just 10 years old when the United Kingdom began testing nuclear weapons near his home in Australia. A major nuclear weapons test sent a thick, oily, radioactive cloud through his town of Wallatinna. The residents of the town would be plagued by sickness – diarrhea, skin rashes and sore eyes. Yami eventually would lose his eyesight completely four years later. Since 1984 Yami has been instrumental in raising awareness of the effects of the nuclear tests in Australia on Indigenous peoples. Read Yami’s story here.
Sumitero Taniguchi was working as a mail delivery boy starting in Nagasaki when the bomb hit. Due to the horrific burns on his back, Taniguchi was forced to lie on his stomach, unable to move, for a year and nine months. Taniguchi has spent the last 6 decades speaking about his experiences and advocating for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Read Sumitero’s story here.

The destructive impact of nuclear weapons have the potential to reach far beyond national boundaries. A recent study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility documents a scenario of a limited regional nuclear war in which the resulting disruption of the climate and agricultural production would lead to a nuclear famine, with a death toll as high as 2 billion.

Who will survive?

Use our app to discover it.

A ban on nuclear weapons

Helen Durham
Thomas Nash

A ban on nuclear weapons would represent a tangible next step towards elimination. As we have seen with the biological and chemical weapons conventions, the explicit prohibition of those weapons has facilitated the processes towards their elimination, which are currently ongoing. A treaty banning nuclear weapons will not in and of itself entail absolute elimination of the nuclear weapons, but it can and should be seen as the next step forward. Although the very nature of nuclear weapons raises serious questions about whether they could ever be used in a manner compatible with the law of armed conflict, some nuclear weapon states point to the lack of an explicit prohibition, and even the language of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as justification for their continued possession and deployment of nuclear weapons. A ban treaty would clearly fill the legal gap that exists among weapons of mass destruction and place nuclear weapons on the same footing as chemical and biological weapons.

Nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet explicitly prohibited by a ban treaty, even though they have the greatest destructive capacity of all weapons. A global ban on nuclear weapons is long overdue and can be achieved in the near future with enough public pressure and political leadership. A ban would not only make it illegal for nations to use or possess nuclear weapons; it would also help pave the way to their complete elimination. Nations committed to reaching the goal of abolition should begin negotiating a ban now.