Nuclear Threats and Our Common Humanity: From Deterrence to Common Security
Updated: 4 days ago
A call to action for religious, spiritual, ethical, and value-based leaders and communities on Nuclear Abolition Day
By Iyad Abumoghli, Kehkashan Basu, Giulia Bordin, Jonthan Granoff and Alyn Ware *
On September 29, political leaders from around the world will meet at the United Nations in New York for a High-Level Meeting to Commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear Abolition Day).
This meeting – and Nuclear Abolition Day itself (September 26) - come at a time when our global community faces intense international polarization, armed conflicts that are more numerous and more destructive than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and an elevated risk of nuclear war. The use of nuclear weapons could occur through accident, miscalculation, crisis escalation or malicious intent. A nuclear war would cause unprecedented destruction to human life and the environment, possibly ending civilization as we know it.
“The norms and guardrails that have helped prevent a nuclear cataclysm are under strain. The decades-long trend in nuclear arsenal reductions is reversing. Nuclear sabres are being rattled once again in the name of power and coercion.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, August 6, 2026. Statement commemorating the 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.
The nuclear challenge is not only about the weapons. It is also about the conception of security that makes their continued possession appear necessary. The nuclear age has created a profound paradox: states relying on nuclear deterrence seek to protect their people by maintaining the capacity to inflict catastrophic destruction on their perceived adversaries, knowing that such actions will also destroy themselves and likely the entirety of human civilization. As the risks of nuclear war persist – and even increase - humanity must ask whether security can be built upon such a threat of annihilation.
This is not simply a question about existential risk and military doctrine. It is also a deeply ethical question about what we value, what we are willing to gamble, and what responsibilities we owe to one another, to the Earth and to future generations. Across religious, spiritual, ethical and humanist traditions, different languages and traditions converge around a fundamental principle: security must protect life rather than place it under permanent threat.
The challenge before us, therefore, is not only how to reduce nuclear risks, but how to build effective forms of security that do not depend upon threatening others - that rely on common well-being including the protection of others, the environment and future generations. In this way, the abolition of nuclear weapons will not only remove the risk of nuclear annihilation. It will also contribute to a broader transformation to a more peaceful international order where war itself becomes a vestige of history.
The authors of this article draw on different religious, spiritual, ethical and professional traditions to connect principles from these traditions to the nuclear weapons issue. We do not suggest that these traditions are identical. Rather, we identify a remarkable convergence around several moral foundations (principles) relevant to nuclear security. These are: protection of life and creation; reciprocity and our common humanity; human security and justice; responsibility to society and future generations; environmental protection; guardianship and stewardship; and common security.
Nuclear Abolition Day provides an opportunity not only to reaffirm opposition to nuclear weapons, but to also advance practical approaches to common security and wellbeing informed by these traditions. Most importantly, Nuclear Abolition Day provides opportunities for religious and values-based leaders and communities to take effective action, such as:
Endorsing the Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal;
Participating in Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, the global civil society event on September 26 commemorating Nuclear Abolition Day,
Contacting your governments to encourage them to engage in good faith at the September 29 High-Level Meeting, taking up the calls in the Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal;
Creating spaces within religious and values-based communities for sustained reflection, education and dialogue on nuclear weapons, disarmament and alternative approaches to security.
Asking our political representatives and leaders what they are doing to address the threat posed by nuclear weapons and fulfill the legal, moral and practical necessity to achieve global nuclear disarmament.
Protection of Life and Creation
“No civilization can claim to honor human dignity, protect the Earth, and uphold justice while holding the power to destroy them; our sacred responsibility is to choose peace over fear, life over annihilation, and a future in which both people and planet are protected from the shadow of nuclear weapons.”
Dr Iyad Abumoghli, Founder and Chair of the Al-Mizan Foundation
Nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity, our planet and all connected life (sometimes referred to as ‘creation’, ‘our common home’, ‘life’, ‘the Earth’, or ‘the world’). The atomic bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small compared to the nuclear bombs deployed and ready to be used today. The fact that restraint and good luck have avoided further uses does not diminish the threat. There have been numerous times, including one on 26 September 1983, where nuclear weapons have nearly been used, and only human conscience or sheer good luck have prevented nuclear war.
In the 1983 instance, Colonel Stanislav Petrov, a duty officer at a nuclear weapons early warning facility just outside Moscow, broke protocol when Soviet satellites ‘detected’ an incoming attack by US nuclear armed missiles. Had he not broken protocol by reporting a ‘false alarm’, the Soviet command would have most likely launched a nuclear attack against the US, before the ‘incoming US missiles’ had time to hit their targets (i.e. within 8 minutes of the initial report).
“Petrov disobeyed orders and chose not to signal the presumed attack. It was a decision that was made with the conscience of someone who knew that that simple gesture could have caused millions of deaths. A world in which machines, albeit sophisticated and faster than us, are the ones to decide to bomb defenceless people would be truly frightening. The conscience of a single person can be worth the entire world.”
Pope Leo XIV: Peace is built through disarmament, not nuclear weapons, 21 July 2026
The precautionary principle, which is important to religions and faith-based systems, is particularly relevant to the nuclear weapons issue and protection of creation. Summarized as ‘better safe than sorry’, the precautionary principle holds that if there is a possibility that an action or policy could lead to a catastrophe, this policy must be changed to prevent such a possibility.
Applying the precautionary principle to nuclear weapons, implies that policies and practices which include a possibility that nuclear weapons might be used, need to be replaced by policies and practices that rule out such a possibility. Nuclear deterrence is such a policy that must be replaced. It relies on the fallacious assumption that deterrence will always work, warning systems will always function correctly, leaders will always make rational decisions, and crises will always remain controllable. The existence of a pathway to an existential catastrophe, even if its probability is considered to be low, is itself a reason to reduce and eliminate reliance on that pathway.
.
The Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal enacts the precautionary principle to ensure protection of creation and our common home, in particular in the first two of its five calls, i.e. that governments:
Affirm that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible;
Advance tangible measures by nuclear-armed and allied States to implement this obligation, including standing down nuclear forces and adopting policies never to initiate a nuclear war.
However, the principle is also related to the third call in the appeal - to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. Risk reduction is essential, but risk reduction alone cannot be the final objective. As affirmed in UN Resolution 68/32 establishing Nuclear Abolition Day, “nuclear disarmament and the total elimination of nuclear weapons are the only absolute guarantees against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”
Reciprocity
Nuclear deterrence is based on threatening massive destruction on an adversary. This violates the principle of reciprocity, otherwise known as the ‘golden rule’ in many religions. Reciprocity is the principle that you treat others the way that you would want them to treat you. An approach that violates reciprocity is both unjust and unstable. Nuclear deterrence is a blatant violation of this principle. No-one would want nuclear weapons used against themselves, so how can they plan to use nuclear weapons against others?
“The concept of reciprocity embraces the protection of human rights, the requirement to resolve conflicts in ways that respect both parties’ rights and needs, and the rejection of violence against others—as one would not want to be subjected to violence or human rights abuses. In particular, it compels the rejection of policies of mass destruction—or the threat of such acts— against others, as such acts would be unacceptable against oneself or one’s own community/nation. The principle of reciprocity thus precludes the possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”
Religions for Peace, page 9
The principle of reciprocity provides an ethical foundation for the Appeal's call for States to affirm that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The fact that nine nations claim the necessity and value of the weapons for only themselves is not only morally incoherent, itis also manifestly unstable. Could a domestic legal order that asserted that weapons could only be held by a small class of people unaccountable to the rest of the population be sustained? Are we comfortable knowing that today nine men -- the leaders of US, UK, Russia, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea -- can each put in motion the termination of civilization? Is anyone so wise to hold such a power?
Common humanity, human security and unity
The principle of common humanity holds that we are not solely individual people or individual nations, but that we also share a commonality of connection, one planet, interconnected systems of life and a common human future. Nuclear weapons divide us and prevent us from cooperatively managing our planet.
In addition, the principle of common humanity emphasizes the importance of human rights and wellbeing in the development of security policies. This is the human security dimension, which holds that the purpose of government is not primarily to protect itself, but to protect its citizens. This includes protecting the rights to life and a healthy environment, both of which are threatened by nuclear deterrence.
‘The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law.”
General Comment 36, UN Human Rights Committee, October 20, 2018
The principle of common humanity is closely associated with the principles of unity, compassion and integrity of the soul. Our compassion for, and connection with, others is severely damaged or even destroyed by the capacity for nuclear annihilation and by our entertaining the possibility that this could be done to others.
“The atom bomb brought an empty victory to the allied armies, but it resulted for the time being in destroying the soul of Japan. What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation? So far as I can see the atomic bomb has deadened the finest feeling that has sustained mankind for ages.”
Mahatma Gandhi, cited in Guide on Nuclear Disarmament for Religious Leaders and Communities, Religions for Peace, page 11
The Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal embraces the principles of common humanity, unity and human security in its calls on states to work cooperatively through multilateral negotiations to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world (call 3), and to redirect nuclear weapons budgets to support environmental and human security needs (call 5).
From deterrence to Common Security and justice
The principles discussed above - and the principles of responsibility to present and future generations, environmental protection and stewardship developed below - converge on a larger proposition: security must ultimately be understood as a shared condition rather than a competition in vulnerability. This is the logic of Common Security, which is an embodiment of the principles of reciprocity and justice at the international level. Peace and security are global common goods of the highest order.
Common Security does not infer that states have no legitimate security interests. Rather, it recognizes that no state can achieve lasting security by making the survival of others more precarious. It relies on achieving security not by threatening others or diminishing their security, but by ensuring security for all through conflict resolution and the role of law.
Common Security requires global governance – and is closely associated to the UN Charter which requires member States to resolve conflicts peacefully and fairly, and which provides a range of mechanisms to do this, including Good Offices of Mediation, international courts (most notably the International Court of Justice) and regional mechanisms.
“For our part as faith-based individuals and communities from around the world, we remain committed to working cooperatively with you and other stakeholders to build better global governance for a world which is secure for all from aggression and war, without reliance on nuclear weapons.”
Pursuing Peace, Security and Nuclear Disarmament through our Common Humanity: A joint Inter-faith and Values Appeal to the States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (2024).
The Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal highlights this in the preamble, which notes that “The world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, affirmed that the threat and use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that there is a universal obligation for states to negotiate in good faith to achieve comprehensive nuclear disarmament. States currently relying on nuclear weapons for their security have an obligation to replace these policies with approaches based on international law and common security, as outlined in the UN Charter.”
Moving beyond nuclear deterrence does not mean accepting insecurity. It means investing in the means by which security can be achieved not through nuclear threats, but through effective diplomacy and mediation; conflict prevention and resolution; stronger regional security arrangements; compliance with international law; arms control and disarmament measures; confidence-building and verification; and institutions capable of addressing legitimate security concerns cooperatively.
Enhancing common security will therefore ensure that the elimination of nuclear weapons will increase the security of all, including of those who currently rely on nuclear deterrence.
Responsibility to present and future generations
The principle of social responsibility holds that everyone’s basic needs should be met and that no-one should be left behind. This principle is reflected in the UN Charter and in the Sustainable Development Goals. The principle of intergenerational equity (justice) holds that current generations have a responsibility to ensure that future generations inherit a world that is equivalent or better - not worse - than the current world. This includes economic, societal and environmental wellbeing.
“As people of faith we understand that all of creation is a precious and sacred gift to us and succeeding generations. We acknowledge the sacred duty to nurture and preserve it, and we know of no greater desecration of God’s creation than to assault it, or even threaten it, with the almost limitless destructive power of nuclear weapons.”
H. E. Sheikh Shaban Mubajje, Grand Mufti, Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, and Co-Moderator, African Council of Religious Leaders.
“Religious principles require protection of future generations. Islam, for example, espouses trusteeship of resources for future generations. Traditional African views of humanity embrace not only those who are alive today, but those who came before us and those yet to come; all three segments together comprise the human community. Some Native American ethical and religious principles hold that we must consider the next seven generations in our decision-making. It is a danger of the highest order and a manifest crime to future generations to leave them with nuclear weapons capable of destroying human civilization and the natural environment.”
Guide on Nuclear Disarmament for Religious Leaders and Communities, Religions for Peace, page 8
Regarding the principle of social responsibility, the Appeal draws attention to the enormous resources devoted globally to nuclear weapons and calls for a substantial redirection of those resources toward peace, human security, climate protection and sustainable development.
Regarding the principle of intergenerational justice, the appeal points to the irresponsibility of transferring to future generations a security system in which civilization remains vulnerable to catastrophic nuclear destruction. The Appeal highlights that “No time is better than 2026 - the 81st anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the establishment of the United Nations – to undertake these actions to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world to protect current and future generations.”
Environmental protection
The principle of environmental protection is closely linked to the principles of intergenerational justice and stewardship. It holds that the environment must be protected even in times of war or to protect the security of a nation.
The environmental dimension also changes how nuclear security should be understood. Nuclear weapons are not only instruments of military power; their production, testing, use and potential consequences are inseparable from the integrity of ecosystems and the conditions that sustain life. The possibility of nuclear war therefore belongs within a broader understanding of planetary security. There can be no durable planetary security while humanity retains the capacity to cause environmental destruction on a scale that could undermine the foundations of human civilization.
This convergence is also reflected in contemporary faith-based initiatives. The Al-Mizan Covenant for the Earth, for example, explicitly calls for the condemnation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and for their elimination, grounding this position in principles of protection of creation and responsibility toward the Earth.
“Muslim legal scholars prohibited environmental destruction as a military tactic and ruled that the inviolability (hurmah) of God’s creatures is not nullified by war. The scorched-earth tactics commonly employed in modern warfare are the antithesis of such restraint and the embodiment of the destruction of tilth and fertility (halāk al-harth wa ’nnasl). We call on governments and jurists in Islamic countries and in all the countries of the Earth to condemn unequivocally scorched-earth tactics and the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, to strive to ensure that their governments abjure them, and to work together for their elimination.”
Al-Mizan: A Covenant for the Earth, page 41
The Nuclear Abolition Day Appeal highlights the catastrophic environmental consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and also the opportunity costs to the environment with the massive budgets dedicated to nuclear weapons production.
Stewardship: responsibility for our common home
The principle of guardianship/stewardship holds that humanity does not own the Earth, even if some land territory is divided into private property. Rather we are guardians/stewards of the planet for both current and future generations. Those of us living today should not pass on to future generations a continued threat of nuclear annihilation.
This principle is highlighted in the Laudato Si' encyclical (Pope Francis); in Islamic law and scripture promoting water conservation, tree planting, and the humane treatment of animals as a direct reflection of faith; and in moral obligations under Judaism to repair and protect the environment. (Tikkun Olam)
“We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings, for people, animals, and plants, and for the preservation of Earth, the air, water and soil.”
Declaration: Toward a Global Ethic, Parliament of the World’s Religions,
Cape Town, 1999
Faith and values-based communities cannot resolve the nuclear challenge alone. Nuclear disarmament requires political leadership, diplomacy, legal commitments, technical verification, arms-control expertise and sustained international cooperation. But religious and values-based communities possess a distinctive capacity: they can shape moral imagination, challenge assumptions that have become normalized, create constituencies for peace, and remind political leaders that security is ultimately a means to protect life rather than an end in itself. Their contribution is therefore not peripheral to the nuclear debate; it is part of the wider effort to redefine what security means.
From Moral Conviction to Action
We call upon religious, spiritual, ethical and values-based leaders and communities to:
1. DECLARE — affirm publicly that human security cannot ultimately depend upon the threat of catastrophic nuclear destruction.
2. EDUCATE — create sustained programmes of education and dialogue on nuclear risks, disarmament, international law and the ethical foundations of security.
3. CONVENE — bring together faith leaders, scientists, diplomats, policymakers, humanitarian actors, young people and affected communities to explore credible alternatives to nuclear deterrence.
4. ADVOCATE — urge governments to reduce nuclear risks, fulfil their disarmament obligations, strengthen international law and participate constructively in multilateral disarmament efforts.
5. REIMAGINE — contribute to a transition from deterrence based on threatened destruction toward common security based on cooperation, justice, conflict prevention and shared responsibility for humanity and the Earth.
Conclusion
The ethical principles explored above reinforce commitments already made by governments - under UN resolutions and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) - to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons, as well as obligations under the UN Charter not to threaten or use force in international relations and to resolve conflicts through peaceful means.
The continued reliance of nuclear-armed and allied States on nuclear deterrence, together with the slow pace of progress toward nuclear disarmament, raises serious questions about the fulfilment of these commitments and the political leadership required to advance them. The gap between these commitments and current policies is ultimately a challenge of political leadership, trust and integrity.
The High-Level Meeting on the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons taking place at the United Nations on September 29, provides an opportunity for these governments to demonstrate true leadership and integrity.
Governments should attend the meeting at the highest level (President/Prime Minister), and announce an intention to change course, from the current path of continued threats of nuclear annihilation and indefinite possession of nuclear weapons, to one of common security and good faith negotiations to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.
Such a path will not be easy. Confidence in common security alternatives to nuclear deterrence will need to be built. Agreed verifiable processes for mutual reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles will require detailed negotiations. However, the experience in establishing global treaties prohibiting Chemical and Biological weapons demonstrates that this is feasible if there are political will and strong leadership to make it happen.
If global leaders announce such a commitment on September 29, and start such negotiations soon after, then on Nuclear Abolition Day in 2045 we might be able to celebrate the achievement of global nuclear disarmament and the new-found peace and security of a nuclear-weapon-free world.
Wouldn’t that be a wonderful gift to leave future generations?
About the authors
Iyad Abumoghli is Founder and Director of Al-Mizan - A Covenant for the Earth, Founder and former Director of the Faith for Earth Coalition of the United Nations Environment Programme, and a Member of the United Religions Initiative Strategic Advisory Council. He has worked for more than four decades with the United Nations and allied global institutions, advancing environmental policy, economic development, interfaith collaboration, and peacebuilding.
Kehkashan Basu is Founder and Director of Green Hope Foundation, Trustee of the Parliament of the World's Religions, Co-President of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, former Global Coordinator for the UN Environment Program’s Major Group for Children & Youth, winner of the 2016 International Children’s Peace Prize and the first ever winner of the Voices Youth Gorbachev-Schultz Legacy Award (for nuclear disarmament).
Giulia Bordin is Advocacy Officer at Pax Christi International. She has ten years of professional experience in advocacy at the European and international levels, complemented by an academic background in human rights, international relations, and political science. Alongside her studies and professional career, she has remained actively engaged in volunteer initiatives promoting peace, disarmament, human rights, and equality.
Jonathan Granoff is an international lawyer and former professor of international law. He serves as President of the Global Security Institute, Ambassador for Peace and Security of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, Senior Advisor and Special Representative to the United Nations for the Permanent Secretariat of the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates and Chair of the Task Force on Nuclear Nonproliferation of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association.
Alyn Ware is Global Coordinator of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Director of the Basel Peace Office and Program Director for the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy. He is principal author of the Religions for Peace Nuclear Disarmament Guide for Religious Leaders and Communities.
Comments