View previous stories
	The risk of intentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons is terrifyingly real by Red Cross, ICAN, Nobel Committee, agencies   Aug. 2025   80 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A call to eliminate nuclear weapons, from the President of the Japanese Red Cross Society, Atsushi Seike, and President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric.   “Let all the souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.”   These are the words carved into the stone monument at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. Eighty years after the world witnessed the horrifying tragedy caused by nuclear weapons, we must ask ourselves: Are we taking this pledge seriously? Are we doing enough to ensure the memory of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not forgotten? And, critically, are enough efforts being made to rid the world of these devastating weapons?   Eighty years ago, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to ash and tens of thousands perished in mere seconds. The registers of both atomic bombings’ victims exceed 540,000, including those who died after suffering from the long-term effects of radiation. This number continues to grow even now.   To this day, survivors – Hibakusha – continue to endure the physical and emotional toll of these weapons. They are still being treated by Japanese Red Cross hospitals for radiation-induced illnesses. This fact underscores the lasting consequences of nuclear warfare.   The risk of intentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons is terrifyingly real. There are far more nuclear weapons today than there were 80 years ago. They are also far more powerful. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima - with a yield equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT - would today be classified as a small nuclear weapon.   Any use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic failure of humanity. In particular, no humanitarian response could ever address the suffering resulting from a nuclear detonation in or near a populated area. It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.   Two years ago, ahead of the G7 Summit held in Hiroshima in May 2023, we issued a joint statement in which we called on the international community to eliminate nuclear weapons.   And yet instead of advancing towards nuclear disarmament, we see a growing emphasis on nuclear weapons in military postures and doctrine along with the renewal and expansion of nuclear arsenals.   However, there is reason to not lose hope. The desire for a world without nuclear weapons is widely shared among many nations. The number of state parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is growing. Seventy-three states are now parties to the treaty and another 25 have signed it.   The experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago should be proof enough that nuclear weapons are too dangerous for the world to keep.   We again call on all states to never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, to adopt risk-reduction measures to prevent their deliberate or accidental use, to end reliance on them as a means of national security, and to work towards their complete elimination by joining the TPNW or other similar means.   We also urge governments to provide education to ensure that awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons is passed on to future generations so that the unimaginable harm they inflict on civilians is never forgotten.   http://www.icrc.org/en/article/hiroshima-80-years-humanitarian-imperative-eliminate-nuclear-weapons http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/08/1165583 http://www.dw.com/en/japan-marks-80-years-since-the-hiroshima-atomic-bombing/a-73542738 http://www.dw.com/en/risk-of-nuclear-war-grows-amid-new-arms-race/a-72894853 http://www.icanw.org/80years http://childrenspeacememorial.org/ http://www.icanw.org/hibakusha http://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2024/nihon-hidankyo/lecture/ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/weapons/weapons1.html http://theelders.org/news/no-more-hiroshimas-elders-call-urgent-nuclear-dialogue-conflict-risks-rise http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/nuclear-risks-grow-new-arms-race-looms-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now   http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/role-nuclear-weapons-grows-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/nuclear-risk/ http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2024-08-06/secretary-generals-message-the-hiroshima-peace-memorial-the-79th-anniversary-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima http://www.un.org/en/observances/nuclear-weapons-elimination-day http://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/   http://thebulletin.org/2025/07/the-nobel-laureate-assembly-declaration-for-the-prevention-of-nuclear-war/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02271-w http://futureoflife.org/project/artificial-escalation/ http://futureoflife.org/project/mitigating-the-risks-of-ai-integration-in-nuclear-launch/   Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a “limited” nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13 000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting 2 billion people at risk.   A large-scale nuclear war between the USA and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term, and potentially cause a global “nuclear winter” that could kill 5–6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.   Once a nuclear weapon is detonated, escalation to all-out nuclear war could occur rapidly. The prevention of any use of nuclear weapons is therefore an urgent public health priority and fundamental steps must also be taken to address the root cause of the problem—by abolishing nuclear weapons.   http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01526-X/fulltext http://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm http://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 http://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ENGLISH-Nuclear-Famine-Report-Final-bleed-marks.pdf http://www.icrc.org/en/document/avoiding-catastrophe-we-must-act-now-ensure-nuclear-weapons-are-never-again-used http://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/reviews-pdf/2022-06/the-icrcs-legal-and-policy-position-on-nuclear-weapons-919.pdf http://commonsecurity.org   23 June 2025   New NATO defence commitments must not come at cost of human rights, by Agnes Callamard - Secretary General of Amnesty International   As NATO states meet in the Hague this week, they face tough decisions that will impact the lives of millions, or even billions, around the world. If, as widely expected, they commit to increased defence spending in response to Russia’s ongoing war of aggression in Ukraine, they must ensure this is allied with strong commitments and actual measures to enhance protection of human rights and international humanitarian law.   Given the gravity of the crises engulfing the world and the need to seize every opportunity to demand that human rights protection be central to all responses, I will be representing Amnesty International at the NATO Public Forum that runs parallel to the summit, in which leaders and officials will engage with security experts, academics, journalists and NGOs.   Upon launching Amnesty’s annual report a few weeks ago, I declared it the strongest warning the organization has ever issued. There are more conflicts raging today than at any time since World War Two, inequality is rampant – both within and between states – and states are hurtling into an unchecked arms race, in the first place artificial intelligence-powered. Without concerted and comprehensive action from governments, this historic juncture will mutate into historic devastation.   When NATO leaders sit down to discuss such challenges, they must carefully consider their responsibility to humanity.   Progressive taxation, no austerity measures, to fund increased defence budget   The Trump administration is pressuring its NATO allies to increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP – more than double the existing target of 2%. This would likely consist of 3.5% directly on military expenditure and another 1.5% on civil defence, cyber, intelligence and military-related infrastructure. Any such increases must not be paid for by cutting vital funds needed to guarantee and protect essential public services or humanitarian aid and development assistance.   Instead of pulling the rug from under the feet of those most in need of support, states should raise the requisite funds by introducing more progressive domestic taxation measures for the wealthiest and supporting global tax reform to ensure those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.   NATO leaders should also state loudly and powerfully that people do not have to choose between security and the protection of social, economic and political rights. This is a false dichotomy. Security and rights go hand in hand.   Galvanise commitment to international law   Respect for international humanitarian law is in deep crisis with many governments either claiming that the principles and rules of international humanitarian law do not apply to them or rewriting the rules to allow conducts that should not be permissible. Israel’s ongoing horrendous conflict in Gaza is compounded by the failures of its main allies to stop transferring weapons or condemn war crimes and the indescribable civilian bloodshed. Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine resulted in more Ukrainian civilians killed in 2024 than it did the previous year.   NATO leaders must not only reiterate their commitment to uphold international law and demand that their allies respect the laws of war. The summit should result in a set of concrete measures to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected.   NATO leaders should halt weapons transfers where they are likely to result in violations of international law, such as Israel and Sudan, for example. Increased military production is no excuse for states to transfer arms to countries where they pose a substantial risk of being used to commit or facilitate war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.   Protect international treaties   The trend towards remilitarization has seen states withdraw from vital treaties protecting civilians. Lithuania’s unprecedented withdrawal from the Convention on Cluster Munitions took effect in March 2025 and its parliament voted in May to also withdraw from the Ottawa Convention, a landmark treaty prohibiting the use of anti-personnel mines. Finland announced its withdrawal from the latter treaty in April, while Estonia and Latvia’s parliaments also voted to pull out in recent weeks. Poland’s Minister of Defence has recommended doing the same. The USA, which is not a signatory to either convention, has further undermined prohibition efforts, with the Biden administration transferring cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines to Ukraine last year.   NATO leaders must reiterate their commitment to these treaties, which are vital to protecting civilians in armed conflicts, and call on their allies to reconsider their withdrawals.   Regulate development of autonomous weapon systems   Remilitarization is also driving ever-greater use of artificial intelligence in the military domain and will likely accelerate the development of autonomous weapons systems, potentially nullifying years of efforts towards their regulation.   This arms race highlights the imperative to move on from endless debates around autonomous weapons systems and take immediate action to actually prevent us from sleepwalking into oblivion. NATO governments must adopt a clear collective position in favour of a global, legally binding treaty to regulate the development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems, including banning those that directly target and attack humans – a line we cannot cross, for myriad legal and ethical reasons.   Reaffirm respect for rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly   Over the last year, Amnesty has documented a globalized intensification of authoritarian practices and a vicious clampdown on dissent, particularly in relation to conflicts and violations of international law. Governments across the world banned media outlets, disbanded or suspended NGOs and political parties, and imprisoned critics.   The world over, Amnesty has documented the criminalization and punishment of freedom of expression and peaceful protests, including through use of “terrorism” or “extremism” legislation.   The protection of universal values and human rights must be at the heart of the NATO vision and actions. This is how its founders envisioned the alliance when they reaffirmed in its treaty “their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. This protection is what all citizens may expect it to deliver.   NATO leaders must recognize the critical role played by civil society, human rights defenders and independent media in protecting human rights and ensuring accountability and respect for rule of law – all necessary elements for preserving peace and security.   They must commit to allowing peaceful protests and guaranteeing the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as well as stopping the oppression of NGOs and recognizing their essential role in society. Governments must also protect human rights defenders and journalists from attacks, end any state-sponsored violence against them, and refrain from harassing or censoring independent media.   These are the basic steps states must take to ensure the preservation of peace and security at home and globally. Anything less and NATO leaders will be paving the way for future crises. They cannot achieve genuine and lasting security without robust human rights guarantees.   * NATO’s leaders agreed to invest 5 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035”. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure.   The money will be diverted – most of all from social spending - public services, like health, and education, social welfare supports – even as 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet, with global humaitarian needs ever increasing while humanitarian aid funding is slashed and climate scientists warn that we have only two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit).   Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon.   http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/06/new-nato-defence-commitments-must-not-come-at-cost-of-human-rights/   * Peace Research Institute Oslo: Can humankind use and explore space together peacefully, or will space become a battlefield in future wars? What will China and the US be doing, as they both increasingly see mastery of space as decisive for national security and future conflicts? And what role do satellites and space stations play in current geopolitics: http://www.prio.org/events/9241 http://www.prio.org/comments/1802   Feb. 2025   Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists   In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course. Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe.   Our fervent hope is that leaders will recognize the world’s existential predicament and take bold action to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and the potential misuse of biological science and a variety of emerging technologies.   In setting the Clock one second closer to midnight, we send a stark signal: Because the world is already perilously close to the precipice, a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.   In regard to nuclear risk, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation.   Conflict in the Middle East threatens to spiral out of control into a wider war without warning. The countries that possess nuclear weapons are increasing the size and role of their arsenals, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons that can destroy civilization.   The nuclear arms control process is collapsing, and high-level contacts among nuclear powers are totally inadequate given the danger at hand. Alarmingly, it is no longer unusual for countries without nuclear weapons to consider developing arsenals of their own—actions that would undermine longstanding nonproliferation efforts and increase the ways in which nuclear war could start.   The impacts of climate change increased in the last year as myriad indicators, including sea-level rise and global surface temperature, surpassed previous records. The global greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change continued to rise. Extreme weather and other climate change-influenced events—floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, drought, and wildfires—affected every continent.   The long-term prognosis for the world’s attempts to deal with climate change remains poor, as most governments fail to enact the financing and policy initiatives necessary to halt global warming. Growth in solar and wind energy has been impressive but remains insufficient to stabilize the climate.   Judging from recent electoral campaigns, climate change is viewed as a low priority in the United States and many other countries.   In the biological arena, emerging and re-emerging diseases continue to threaten the economy, society, and security of the world. The off-season appearance and in-season continuance of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), its spread to farm animals and dairy products, and the occurrence of human cases have combined to create the possibility of a devastating human pandemic.   Supposedly high-containment biological laboratories continue to be built throughout the world, but oversight regimes for them are not keeping pace, increasing the possibility that pathogens with pandemic potential may escape.   Rapid advances in artificial intelligence have increased the risk that terrorists or countries may attain the capability of designing biological weapons for which countermeasures do not exist.   An array of other disruptive technologies advanced last year in ways that make the world more dangerous. Systems that incorporate artificial intelligence in military targeting have been used in Ukraine and the Middle East, and several countries are moving to integrate artificial intelligence into their militaries.   Such efforts raise questions about the extent to which machines will be allowed to make military decisions—even decisions that could kill on a vast scale, including those related to the use of nuclear weapons.   Tensions among the major powers are increasingly reflected in competition in space, where China and Russia are actively developing anti-satellite capabilities; the United States has alleged that Russia has tested a satellite with a dummy warhead on it, suggesting plans to place nuclear weapons in orbit.   The dangers we have just listed are greatly exacerbated by a potent threat multiplier: the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that degrade the communication ecosystem and increasingly blur the line between truth and falsehood.   Advances in AI are making it easier to spread false or inauthentic information across the internet—and harder to detect it.   At the same time, nations are engaging in cross-border efforts to use disinformation and other forms of propaganda to subvert elections, while some technology, media, and political leaders aid the spread of lies and conspiracy theories.   This corruption of the information ecosystem undermines the public discourse and honest debate upon which democracy depends. The battered information landscape is also producing leaders who discount science and endeavor to suppress free speech and human rights, compromising the fact-based public discussions that are required to combat the enormous threats facing the world.   Blindly continuing on the current path is a form of madness. The United States, China, and Russia have the collective power to destroy civilization. These three countries have the prime responsibility to pull the world back from the brink, and they can do so if their leaders seriously commence good-faith discussions about the global threats outlined here.   Despite their profound disagreements, they should take that first step without delay. The world depends on immediate action. It is 89 seconds to midnight.   http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/2025-statement/
	Iran and Israel agree to a ceasefire by International Committee of the Red Cross, agencies   25 June 2025   Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire following 12 days of exchanging intense air strikes. According to Iranian authorities, at least 606 people were killed and more than 5,300 injured since hostilities erupted on 13 June. Israeli officials reported 28 deaths and nearly 1,500 injuries.   12 June 2025   Israel launched attacks on Iran Thursday that targeted nuclear sites and military leaders, reportedly killing the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and some number of nuclear scientists.   According to the New York Times, Israeli warplanes attacked at least six sites in Iran, including the capital city of Tehran and the key nuclear facility at Natanz.   The Natanz facility “was engulfed in flames on Friday,” according to CNN and Iranian state television.   Senior Iranian military leaders, commanders of the Revolutionary Guards and leading scientists involved in the country’s nuclear program were targeted.   Israeli officials attempted to frame the attack as pre-emptive, suggesting that Iran was on the verge of creating nuclear weapons that would pose an existential threat to Israel.   Iran is planning a “decisive response,” the Reuters news service reported Iranian security sources as saying. “The armed forces will certainly respond to this attack,” Iranian spokesperson Abolfazl Shekarchi said.   Thursday’s attacks follow lengthy negotiations between Iran and the United States that were mediated by Oman and aimed to reach agreement on the future of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Those negotiations appear to have stalled over the issue of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.   Iran considers enrichment a right conferred by its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and necessary to the country’s peaceful uses of nuclear energy.   Israel has insisted that Iran have no ability to enrich uranium, because any enrichment capacity could allow Iran to covertly create nuclear weapons. The United States has wavered between support of plans that would allow Iran a very limited enrichment capacity and an insistence that the country have no enrichment capability whatsoever.   Thursday’s attacks raise the specter of full-scale war between Israel and Iran.   * The conflict between Israel and Iran has entered its sixth day as both states trade waves of missile strikes. Israel's military has said its air force is continuing attacks on targets in Iranian territory. Iran has responded by launching missile barrages at Israel. The US has entered the war attacking three underground nuclear sites inside Iran - nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, were struck.   Statement from Nicolas Von Arx, Near & Middle East regional director for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in response to the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran.   “Our hearts go out to the civilians caught in the conflict between Iran and Israel. Every life lost, every family affected, is a deep tragedy.   Many civilians on both sides have been killed or injured, including members of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement. Homes have been damaged and livelihoods have been shattered. In Iran, many families are fleeing for safety. In Israel, families are repeatedly forced into shelters in the middle of the night.   We fear that if this conflict intensifies then even more civilians will suffer and the ripple effects will spread far beyond the immediate hostilities in a region that is already seeing so much suffering.   We call for respect of international humanitarian law and urge immediate de-escalation. Decisive political action is urgently needed to stop the killing and put an end to destruction.   Our partners in the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are responding at the forefront. The Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) have their emergency preparedness and response teams on the ground responding to humanitarian needs. Magen David Adom (MDA) – have been providing critical assistance to those affected by the ongoing hostilities.”   13 June 2025   Middle East: ICRC calls for de-escalation and protection of civilians amid rising tensions   The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is deeply alarmed by the latest hostilities in the Middle East and urgently calls for respect of international humanitarian law (IHL). Further escalation in a region already wracked by multiple conflicts risks sparking a broader regional crisis with devastating consequences for all communities, exacerbating existing humanitarian emergencies and displacing more people both within their countries and beyond.   Civilians in the Middle East have borne the brunt of repeated crises for decades. What they need most is a respite from armed violence. It is imperative for all actors to prioritize de-escalation and the preservation of human life and dignity. The ICRC urges all parties involved to adhere to IHL, taking constant care to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.   Beyond legal obligations, decisive political action is needed to scale back hostilities that will lead to further suffering and destruction. Urgent diplomatic steps must be taken to bring back stability and safeguard lives.   In all conflict-affected areas, we continue engaging with parties to remind them of their obligations under IHL to ensure civilians, medical personnel, and civilian objects, including essential services are protected.   The time to act is now—to prevent further suffering and uphold the fundamental principles of humanity.   http://reliefweb.int/report/iran-islamic-republic/mena-regional-escalation-flash-update-1-ocha-regional-office-middle-east-and-north-africa-17-june-2025 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/israel-iran-turk-calls-restraint-and-respect-international-humanitarian-law http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-06-21/statement-the-secretary-general-iran http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164731 http://www.icrc.org/en/news-release/icrc-statement-escalations-hostilities-middle-east http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicef-executive-director-catherine-russell-children-killed-alarming http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicef-ad-interim-representative-iran-monika-oledzka-nielsen-impact http://www.icrc.org/en/news-release/middle-east-icrc-calls-de-escalation-protection-civilians-rising-tensions
	View more stories