This year’s Nobel Peace Prize rings the alarm about the nuclear threat

In announcing that Nihon Hidankyo, Japan’s grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors, had won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee said it was “alarming” that the nuclear taboo — the firewall against the use of nuclear weapons — was under pressure. The committee reminded us that a nuclear war could “destroy our civilization.”

Why did the Nobel Committee choose to spotlight such stark warnings about nuclear weapons in 2024, as wars wage in Europe and the Middle East, and as technologies like AI are advancing faster than the accompanying efforts to mitigate risks?

While public discussion of the dangers of nuclear weapons has declined, the threat of their use and the build-up of nuclear arsenals have been increasing. There are five main drivers of the alarming rise in the threat of nuclear weapons use, each of which demand global attention and American leadership.

The most direct and intense pressure on the nuclear taboo comes from Russia. Since Vladimir Putin came to power, nuclear saber-rattling has been a core component of asserting Russian influence as the nation struggled economically and its global stature diminished. But Putin’s strategic miscalculation that invading Ukraine would be swift and definitive has led to Russia’s public slashing of the nuclear taboo, as it relies on the threat of nuclear weapons to limit NATO’s support for Ukraine.

Since the dawn of nuclear weapons, “limited” war — and careful calculation to avoid escalation into nuclear war — has been part of every conflict in which nuclear superpowers have had a direct stake. But what is different in Ukraine is Russia’s very public disregard for the dangers of nuclear use, which has the serious consequence of changing public perceptions of these powerful weapons and lowering the bar for their deployment. While Putin’s saber-rattling has been dismissed as mere bluffs by some supporters of Ukraine, we must take such threats seriously. It is unknown when Putin may decide he needs to act to maintain the credibility of Russian threats.

The second driver of the pressures on the nuclear taboo is China, which is rapidly transforming its nuclear arsenal into a more complex air-, sea- and land-based force at higher levels of readiness, mirroring that of the U.S. and Russia. China is now projected to increase its arsenal faster than originally anticipated, to 1,500 nuclear weapons by 2035. This adds to concerns about how this expansion will affect future crises, most notably a conflict with Taiwan. As the U.S. heads into a new era of having two peer nuclear powers with no arms control constraints, major debates are underway as to the size, structure and role of nuclear weapons in American defense and deterrence policy, reigniting the Cold War debate on how much is enough.

Third, increased Russian and Chinese collaboration with a nuclear-capable North Korea and a nuclear-potential Iran places major pressure on longstanding efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons under the 1971 Non-Proliferation Treaty. With the collapse of the Iran nuclear agreement and the effort to forestall further growth of North Korea’s nuclear capability, pressures are building among American allies for deeper assurances regarding the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs, combined with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are also igniting debates in other nations about the viability of being a non-nuclear state. Thus also under scrutiny is the utility of the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, which has 191 signatories and has helped limit the spread of nuclear weapons to just nine countries.

Fourth, technological advances are lowering the threshold to the use of nuclear weapons. Hypersonic weapons and AI challenge the viability of the command and control of nuclear weapons given the reduced timelines of delivery and potential automation of nuclear war. This outcome must be avoided.

Finally, the collapse of the arms-control regime — at a time when the need for global cooperation has only increased — makes responding to these pressures that much more difficult.

These growing threats demand an all-of-government effort to devise an innovative, cost-effective nuclear strategy to strengthen deterrence — and American leadership to spearhead efforts to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and the risk of their use. The U.N. and international organizations must place a high priority on reinforcing the non-proliferation regime and pressuring China, Russia and the U.S. to reengage in arms-control efforts.

The Nobel Peace Prize won’t solve these challenges. But the hope is that the prize’s recognition of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings — and their efforts to educate the world about the dangers of nuclear weapons — will wake the global community up from its sleepwalk into Armageddon.

Dr. Lori Esposito Murray is senior fellow for national security and managing director of CEO programs at the Council on Foreign Relations.