Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Duncan Smith and Eoghan Murphy for putting this issue forward for debate today. It is very worthwhile. It is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in January 2021 the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will come into force. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was opened for signatures in 1968 and came into force in 1970. The UN’s website states that:

The Treaty is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. It was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to further the goals of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament, and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy

The treaty has been joined by 191 states, including the five nuclear-weapon states. The five so-called nuclear-weapon states are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These are the states that are officially recognised as having nuclear weapons. The important word here is “officially”. What about Israel, India, Iran, Pakistan and all of the others? Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons as we speak.How many actual nuclear-weapon states are there?

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was negotiated in 2017. It needed just 55 ratifications but 122 states voted for its inclusion in UN negotiations. It is said that:

The goal of the treaty was to create moral pressure on the states possessing nuclear weapons in order for them to make further steps towards nuclear disarmament. Since its inception, the treaty was opposed by the states possessing nuclear weapons, as well as their allies.

It is said to have been pursued because of the slow pace of nuclear disarmament and the difficulties relating to verification of disarmament.

Why are we even talking about this? Some 50 years ago, there was overwhelming agreement around the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Through Frank Aiken and the response of our Government, we have played a very honourable role in non-proliferation and the banning of nuclear weapons. Not enough progress has been made on disarmament, however, so now we need another treaty. What difference will this make? If the five nuclear power states, and any others that are involved in nuclear weaponry, have not disarmed and abandoned this type of weaponry within 50 years, why do we think anything will be different now? Pakistan is reported to have had nuclear weapons since 1998 but is not a signatory to any of the treaties.

How many times over the past number of years have we heard about the possibility of an American President launching nuclear weapons? Has anyone ever pictured Homer Simpson in the nuclear plant in Springfield and thought that perhaps they would prefer even this fictional character to have access to launch codes? One also thinks of Father Dougal looking at the big red button labelled "DO NOT PRESS". In a world of skewed priorities, it is terrible to think of any individual or any country holding that much destructive power.

According to the website, armscontrol.org, in 2020, the estimated global nuclear warhead inventory showed that there were approximately 13,500 nuclear warheads in existence, 90% of which are owned by Russia and America. The website reports that approximately 9,500 of these are in military service, while the remainder are to be disarmed. China has a total of approximately 320 warheads while France has approximately 290. The armscontrol.orgwebsite reports that, according to a declaration under the Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms treaty, known as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or New START, there were “1,326 strategic warheads deployed on 485 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers” in Russia, in March 2020. In the UK, there are around 215 strategic warheads, of which 95 are in storage and approximately 120 are deployed. This website also states that "The United Kingdom possesses a total of four Vanguard class Trident nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, which together form its exclusively sea-based nuclear deterrent.”

The website also points out that, according to its New START declaration of March 2020, the United States had “1,373 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 655 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers" in addition to "an estimated 150 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs that are forward-deployed at six NATO bases in five European countries". These countries are Italy, Germany, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands.

In May 2020, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons published a report entitled Enough is Enough: 2019 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending. The new report showed that the nuclear-armed nations around the world spent $73 billion on their weapons in 2019. This was a record high, with the spending by the US being almost equivalent to that of the eight other states combined.

The report showed that 2019 had the highest expenditure on nuclear arms since the height of the Cold War. The conclusion of the ICAN report states:

The nuclear-armed states spent nearly three-quarters of one hundred billion dollars in 2019 on building and maintaining nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The incalculable human and environmental costs of nuclear weapons only add to this shocking figure.

I will conclude with these words. The UN Chronicle essay, “Losing 25,000 to Hunger Every Day”, states that food prices have been rising steadily since 2004. The article states:

Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger.

Global spending is about priorities. Why do we pander to states that prioritise boys playing with their war toys over addressing poverty, exclusion, health, climate change and the well-being of citizens?

See this speech in context