Let's pledge to ban nuclear bombs

There are an estimated 1800 nuclear warheads on a hair-trigger alert. Photo / Supplied

Seventy years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, New Zealand must take the lead on banning lethal weapons.

It is 70 years ago today that the nuclear bomb Little Boy was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima; three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. One hundred and fifty thousand people died instantly in these attacks, and thousands followed with burns, radiation sickness, cancer and deformity over decades.

The very first resolution the new United Nations General Assembly dealt with on convening in January 1946 was an "establishment to deal with the problem raised by the discovery of atomic energy" - a mission catalysed by the destruction of the two Japanese cities and their citizens.

Most countries of the world went on to sign up to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But, unfortunately, that treaty does not explicitly prohibit the use or possession of nuclear weapons. Which might explain why here we are, 70 years later, with 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world - 1800 of those on a hair-trigger alert, according to Australian Tim Wright of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), who's visiting this week. On this side of the world, we tend to think the biggest threat comes from states such as North Korea and Pakistan. In fact, the US, Russia, France and China have the biggest stockpiles.

It's Tim's job to travel around the world, persuading countries to sign a Humanitarian Pledge that paves the way for negotiations on a new Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons. The new and improved treaty will close loopholes from the 1968 version. ICAN has started realistically, signing on 113 of the world's non-nuclear countries with the aim of eventually prohibiting - and then eliminating - the world's nuclear arsenal. This first group includes South Africa, Austria, Mexico, Ireland and Brazil.

Not the big players, admittedly, but then neither are we. However, despite actively participating in the three conferences leading up to the Pledge being created - as well as our oft-heralded history as a nuclear refusenik - New Zealand hasn't signed it.

Perhaps it's not so inexplicable. A Norwegian politician recently revealed - inadvertently - the country had been instructed by the US not to sign the pledge. Whether this is the price of admission to the "club", or an objection on other grounds, is unknown. President Barack Obama has made very strong speeches about global nuclear disarmament in the past, though it's been noted that under his regime, the rate of dismantling the arsenal has slowed substantially. It could be also, of course, that the goal of a nuclear-free world is one many countries like to claim, without necessarily "walking the walk".

The problem now, according to Tim Wright, is that many countries are modernising their arsenals - stockpiling fewer nuclear warheads but much more efficient ones; warheads that make Little Boy and Fat Man used in Japan in 1945 look puny by comparison. The weapons the world is entertaining now can kill millions in an instant, and pose a very serious, existential threat to humankind. They are much more lethal than landmines, cluster bombs and biological and chemical weapons, all of which have been banned by worldwide agreement.

Some countries, while actively opposed to nuclear proliferation, claim they need these weapons for security - particularly those who foresee themselves being hauled into a potential war with Russia over, say, Ukraine. Britain and Germany fall into this camp. The Australian Government also makes the claim that it needs to be under the American nuclear umbrella.

New Zealand isn't quite as gung-ho about it, but on the other hand doesn't go far enough in burnishing its nuclear-free credentials. Indeed, while Phil Goff recently received unanimous support in Parliament for a motion that called on nuclear weapon states to "replace ongoing expenditure of more than $100 billion a year on their nuclear weapons arsenals with a programme to eliminate" them, and while National's Dr Shane Reti is in Japan to commemorate the Hiroshima and Nagasaki catastrophes, it is not the same as signing the Humanitarian Pledge.

Further, New Zealand is living it large at the UN Security Council, a podium it has claimed gives it diplomatic power. It's unlikely the other members of the Security Council will give up their nuclear weapons - even if fixed with Murray McCully's steely glare. But it would be a great opportunity for him to make comment on a world without nuclear weapons.

There's never been a better time.