Liza Shulyayeva

Nuclear disarmament: The institutional landscape (UU lecture notes)



I attended a lecture on the institutional landscape of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament this week. My rough notes are below.


How can we reduce the danger posed by nuclear weapons?

Discussion prompts:

Student views:

Perspectives/focus areas

Example: An Ohio-class U.S. submarine carries enough firepower to destroy a country. France could theoretically be obliterated in under 80 minutes.


What it takes to build a nuclear bomb

Three key elements

  1. Technology

    • Scientific knowledge is widespread, but weaponization requires decades of engineering.
    • E.g. mastering plutonium-239 alloys with gallium.
  2. Economy

    • Weapons programs require major financial investment.
  3. Politics

    • Political will determines whether or not to proceed.
    • Some view tech as driving policy, but nuclear development is heavily politicized.

Institutional leverage

Example:


Should we care about nuclear danger?

Why are you interested in this?

To the lecturer, Hiroshima is a reason. Remembering and understanding the impact of nuclear weapons.

[L: For me, it was to help figure out how I feel about nuclear armament and disarmament, because my feelings on weapons in general have shifted since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Before, I would have never considered working on weapons of any kind. Less weapons in the world seemed like a mostly worthy goal. Now, I think I'd have much fewer qualms working on weapon components. Before, I'd have said nuclear disarmament should always be the goal. Now, I question what good that did to Ukraine to give up their arsenal. But these are all just instinctive reactions at this point, not informed opinions. I am hoping learning more about the topic of nuclear weapons, disarmament, non-proliferation, etc., will help me form an opinion that isn't based on a kneejerk reaction. This does also mean that I'm coming into this course with an inherent bias, and I'll have to be mindful of that.]

Hiroshima

A 5kt bomb could devastate Uppsala’s city center.

Fallout depends on detonation altitude.


Why build tactical nuclear weapons?


Do political decisions matter?

Yes – politics can and has shaped the nuclear landscape.

Example

1958–1959 testing moratorium

Communication and global governance

Upcoming deadline


Mayors for peace


Nuclear institutions: joining vs withdrawing

Benefits of joining

Costs of joining

Benefits of withdrawal

Costs of withdrawal


The nuclear regime – dimensions

1. Material vs political

Material:

Political:

2. Horizontal vs vertical proliferation

U.S. 2018 Nuclear Posture Review = Vertical proliferation (tactical nukes reintroduced).


Treaty examples

NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)

Three pillars

  1. Non-proliferation
  2. Disarmament (Article VI – unfulfilled)
  3. Peaceful use of nuclear energy

IAEA safeguards**

Safeguards such as allowing IAEA to come to a member country’s nuclear facilities (e.g., power plants) once a month to check that nuclear activities are non-military. This is done once a month and built into the NPT.

Unequal system:


TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons)


CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty)

CTBTO runs the International Monitoring System (IMS):

Technology is in place, but treaty awaits political ratification.

[L: If this treaty is dead in the water and will never enter into force, who is funding IMS and is funding under threat?]

New START Treaty

Inspection mechanisms

Limitations


Ongoing challenges

1. Verifiable definitions

2. Loopholes

3. Verification


External challenges


Looking ahead

Following lectures will include ethics and responsibility of scientists in the nuclear realm and the design of nuclear weapons/nuclear physics.

© 2025 · Liza Shulyayeva · Top · RSS · privacy policy