Yesterday @nuclearban @ @SIPRIorg released annual reports on nuclear arsenals & the cost of them. Unsurprisingly it’s bad news & that always gets a lot of media coverage. One thing that frustrates me is how many media outlets & commentators speak about this bad news. I saw so many headlines saying “the world increases nuclear spending”, “world governments increase reliance on nuclear deterrence” and that’s simply not true. The 9 nuclear armed states are increasing their spending on nuclear weapons—and they’re not the whole world!

A really dangerous thing at the moment is the inability of too many people (including decision-makers, media outlets and others) to differentiate between “the right to self-defence” and the laws of war and how these two things are being intentionally blurred. These are two different sets of laws under international law. Yes, as a state, you do have the right under the UN charter to self-defense if an armed attack occurs against you. That is the law regulating WHEN you are allowed to fight in a war.

Leaving #MSC2024 and this year I can only describe it as… eerie? Strange strange atmosphere this time. Despite a lot of attempts to focus only on Ukraine and pump up support and excitement, it felt low energy and for the first time in my 5 years there, a bit boring. After two years of western leaders building an image of themselves of standing up to Russia and being the defenders of international law and order, nobody can really muster up the same feelings of pride this year. The attempts made to do so just fell flat and felt forced.

I’m thinking a lot about how important this year is for international law (& not just because it's my job these days). It’s easy to be dismayed about treaties & rules these days, it feels like states are just ignoring it more & more. But that might not be the whole truth. 🧵 To be honest, states have violated international law since international law was created. There’s nothing new there. Sometimes I wonder if we might just be more aware and upset about it because we have higher expectations on states now than we had 50 years ago.

I feel so completely broken at the moment. I don’t know how anyone is supposed to continue working on international law, treaties, UN issues and things like that at a moment like this. I can’t stand hearing some governments at the UN right now. I’m at #ASP22 where the war crimes in Gaza is what this treaty is supposed to stop. And we break for lunch & we’re chatting about this side event, that working group report, what paragraph says what & we laugh & we drink some coffee and maybe we’ll grab a beer after work

In a final article of today, @HeySpoilers publishes a list of the titles of classified documents about the impact of British nuclear testing that the UK government does not want anyone to read. @UKUN_NewYork

Here are a few examples: ES 16/58 JOWOG 16: detection of atomic weapons; paper F8 Christmas Island air fluorescence measurements. ES 18/98 Operation GRAPPLE: interim report on radio flash measurements on Operation GRAPPLE.

Palestine was the issue that made me want to work on international law when I was young. Nuclear weapons became my issue by accident, but freedom for Palestine is always in my heart. I rarely talk about it here because it hasn’t been my job but those who know me well know this I’ve struggled to say anything this past week. Not because I think it’s too complex or too difficult to say something, but because I was reeling of powerlessness and sorrow, first from Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and then from Israels attacks on Gaza.

When I tweeted about nuclear deterrence theory the other month, some guy called me stupid for not acknowledging the difference between nuclear coercion and nuclear deterrence. So let’s dig into it today! (Yeah, it’s another long🧵) It’s not that I don’t understand the difference between these two theoretical concepts, I just reject treating them as two different actions. The way people differentiate between coercion & deterrence is through the underlying intention, but the actual action taken is the same

We need to have an honest conversation about nuclear deterrence now. Because the way nuclear deterrence has been talked about this past year has been so bizarre and we really need to talk about it and dig in a bit more about what it means. Sorry, this is going to be a long one 😬 Most proponents of nuclear weapons have spent this past year arguing that we now shouldn’t believe in nuclear deterrence. They say “don’t believe Russias threats, it doesn’t deter us” but also “don’t worry, Russia will definitely believe & be deterred by our nuclear threats”

Of course Russia is responsible for blocking consensus at #NPTRevCon, but make no mistake, the outcome document was stripped of any meaningful commitments through a joint effort of nuclear armed states and their allies. The document failed to condemn nuclear threats, and Russia watered down the commitment by NWS to not threaten non-nuclear weapon states to become empty and meaningless. This was of course done so Russia can keep threatening to use nuclear weapons as it wishes.

Day 25/26. Here's what's happening with 24 hours to go of the #NPTRevCon. After the main committees failed produce agreed text last week (which was expected) small groups started to work on language on some key topics, like risk reduction, accountability, middle east, etc. The first consolidated text came out this Monday. While negotiations on this text were going on in closed plenaries, a smaller group convened at the Finnish mission to take a stab at agreeing on disarmament and non-proliferation language.

Ok, so I’ve kind of recovered from the MSP party last night so here’s a few thoughts about the key #TPNW1MSP outcomes & what it really means 1). This is the strongest condemnation of nuclear threats that have ever been done by a UN conference and it is without a doubt a response to Russia's nuclear threat.

In the last week, I’ve suddenly seen a lot of “well, the use tactical nuclear weapons wouldn’t be THAT bad” takes. And this comes even from “defense experts” in countries without nuclear weapons. Let me tell you why it would be that bad. 🧵 Yes, a tactical nuclear weapon is one of those “smaller” nuclear weapons. Unfortunately today’s nuclear weapons are so incredibly large and dangerous that we have a really distorted idea of what a small nuclear weapons is.

I saw someone say something along the lines of “using nuclear weapons would be a strategic misstep by Putin” This kind of rhetoric is so absurd on hear when watching devastating invasion of Ukraine & massive global anxiety about nuclear war. It would be a war crime, unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, cause irreversible human & environmental harm for decades & no help would come. Here’s what it actually means: (If you feel that you are not in a mindset where you can digest this information now, skip this thread)

We have an exciting announcement today here at @nuclearban. We all know that academic & policy research on nuclear weapons is often dominated (and often funded) by supporters of nuclear weapons, and fails to reflect a diversity of perspectives from around the world. That's why we will provide research grants on issues like nuclear disarmament, public opinion & nuclear weapons, humanitarian & environmental impacts of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons intersectionality, climate change & nuclear weapons, & international law such as the #TPNW

Civil society is being shut out from the NPT Review Conference in January. While the risk of nuclear weapons use is rising, the UN & the President of the NPT decide to exclude experts, scientists & survivors from these important multilateral nuclear weapons talks. This is not surprising though. The pandemic has been used by many governments as an excuse to silence civil society and NGOs. It is unacceptable that the United Nations, the SG, governments and the President of the NPT Review Conference let it continue to happen.

It's heartbreaking to see what happens in Afghanistan now. It doesn't help the people there now to argue who was right, but I do wish we'd start listening more to those that warned about this & less on those that always support war even though it rarely achieves peace & democracy NGOs, humanitarian orgs & women activists often warn "don't start this war", "don't sell weapons to them", "the military wont solve this" but are ignored or dismissed as naive. But even after when they often are proved right, most continue to ignore or dismiss their voices.

It’s good that we’re discussing who can make the decision to use nuclear weapons. But it’s unfortunate that the conversation still mostly ends when you reach the part where the nuclear weapons are launched - because that’s when the reality of nuclear weapons actually kicks in. Once a nuclear bomb is launched, it will make its way towards its target. It will likely be delivered by a missile or dropped from a plane.