so i'm going to talk a big just because i think it's fundamental to considering nuclear weapons to talk a bit about the consequences the current science to make sure we're all on the same page address very briefly the growing danger of the use but then spend most of the time talking about the really quite remarkable problem process of the humanitarian issues that led to this historic treaty adopted last year and  particularly on what it means and how we can use it to awards progressing abolition of these things that really don't deserve to be called weapons i'm often reminded by the extraordinary foresight and wisdom of albert einstein particularly for me expressed in these two sayings any versity context i think it's particularly apt to pay reference to the responsibility to act that comes with the privilege of knowledge and just how much thinking needs to change with nuclear weapons in a way that our institutions have have yet to deal with most policy around nuclear weapons is not evidence  if you drop the hiroshima size bomb every two hours since the end of nine hundred forty five you would not have finished yet to reach the current even though happily fifty thousand nuclear weapons have been dismantled there's an extraordinary level of destruction in body dinars weapons particularly in washington state the home of hanford i think some reference to the things that put the nuclear a nuclear and growing you need a handful of kilograms of plutonium or about three times as much use for a weapon there's enough plutonium and highly enriched uranium in the civilian and military stockpiles to re constitute the global nuclear arsenal more than ten times over dealing with these ending their production keeping those that remain as secure as possible eliminating the way possible is go essential to achieving and sustaining a world free of nuclear weapons and it highlights for me particularly how the cat's out of the bag here we can't restrict access to these weapons and control them by controlling access to the f materials that make the weapons we need a rules based order that applies the same standard to all countries any determent state can acquire these materials the world health organization went and examined the effects of nuclear war on health and health services in some landmark reports in the nineteen eighties concluded that they constitute the greatest immediate threat to human health and welfare i found that actually profoundly  providing a really i'm a benchmark for professional and ethical behavior as a health professional when the first report was released in one thousand nine hundred three that really was affected me very considerably i made it clear that no health service in any country or in combination could deal with effectively with the aftermath of even a single nuclear detonation on an urban center and in medical terms pointed out that really the only feasible approach was primary prevention the most important new science that should send waves of policy ramifications to every day of the nuclear  prize is the evidence around the climate impacts of even a relatively small scale regional nuclear war most people when they think about climate change think appropriately of of global warming most people don't realize that the greatest risk of acute climate disruption is from nuclear weapons it's estimated that the relatively small tactical saw as weapon by today's standards that destroyed hiroshima released about as much energy in the fires that it ignited as in the explosive power of the weapon so nuclear weapons are extraordinarily efficient at igniting simle tiniest fires over a large area that will  kilometers twenty three kilometers in each direction it would essentially obliterate the whole of the of seattle and its surrounding areas the scenario that most that a number of climate science groups have studied is what would happen if india and pakistan used one hundred sized hiroshima bombs that's actually just over a third of the nuclear weapons that they possess it's not an unrealistic scenario they've been to war three times since independence mobilized half a million troops on the border and the kabul emergency in one thousand nine hundred nine so it's both states have policies for early use of nuclear weapons if it came to a war with invasion this is less than one half of a percent of the global nuclear arsenal in terms of numbers and because the average sized weapon in the  tons but two hundred killer tons it's less than a tenth of a percent of the explosive yield of that arsenal it would of course have calamitous immediate consequences but it's really the climate impacts of about six million tons of smoke injected that i want to just quickly review for you this is from alan roy books studies which would show that within a batter of about ten days all saw the smoke from such a war in south laser would cover most of the inhabited regions of the planet this is from mike mills at the national center for atmospheric research in boulder colorado a more sophisticated and recent model this is if you took a cross section through the atmosphere with the south pole here they quite are in the middle the north pole here the troposphere where our weather happens there's clouds and rain and snow and particulate matter can get washed out is here less than twenty kilometers in hyatt have a look what happens to the smoke that would be injected from nuclear weapons essentially the smoke is very rapidly within a matter of days in the stratosphere spreads poleward in both directions and actually much of it goes well into the maze a sphere where it is hot the smoke would heat be heated by sunlight so that the stratosphere above would be around fifty to eighty degrees hotter than normal while it would be called a darker and dry impacts are not beneficial for agriculture the modeling that's available to days and there are some additional major studies underway that will produce results over the next couple of years to extend these findings the current modeling looks at just cold a darker drier what does that do to major grain crops in the u s and china of the two largest global producers it doesn't address yet the other impacts on agriculture of loss of land to t chemical in right or active contamination the major increase in ultraviolet radiation from the drastic always on depletion as a result of all that hot smoke in the stratosphere and perhaps most importantly the loss of all who really pioneered this work such a small localized regional nuclear war would put billions of people at risk of starvation in proportion to the current food insecurity  on the other side of the planet highlight just how existential is these threat and just how remote from reality the current consider the warheads on one of the submarines that house not too far from here those warheads which each of which is between six and thirty times the size of the hiroshima bomb if targeted on the most fuel dense cities in the world those in china would produce not five or six million tons of smoke the scenario of showing you but twenty three million tons of each of these is a climate catastrophe let's put a perspective on this this is the warming trend that is producing so much justified concern which would be more than rapid and very rapidly offset by a average cooling by about a degree and a half by the scenario that i've shown you if just the long range weapons that the u s and russia have on high alert were targeted on cities it would produce about five degrees average cooling which is essentially average ice age conditions if all of the long range weapons that russia in the united states have now that new stuff is fully implemented as of earlier this year it would produce cooling about twice that about ten degrees colder it's very hard to imagine humanity surviving so many of those involved in the studies of have drawn the conclusion that the theory of mutually assured destruction that underpins supposedly deterrence theory amongst rational leaders is really not the reality the reality is that any risk any use of nuclear weapons involves essentially a global suicide risk these are really global suicide bombs is the most appropriate conceptual analogy could this happen well unfortunately things are not generally heading in a very positive direction with one important exception will come to light none of the nuclear armed states are disarming there is obviously promising discussions  firm agreements that we can be confident will survive the vagaries of the individuals involved we're seeing even the limited constraints that we've hard won at the end of the cold war that constrain particularly the two largest arsenals russia and the us between them ninety two percent of the world's nuclear weapons are being eroded and worse than not fulfilling the that are really involved vast sums of money one point two billion dollars just in the obama administration envisaged expenditures over the next thirty years even if you don't consider in the increases planned under the current and negative is the putting the i m f treaty at risk which was really the signature treaty that started the end of the cold war and the reductions in nuclear arsenals between russia and the us that happened at that time of course accidents of various combinations of human and technical error of borders to the brink many times these are not going to end anytime soon in complex widely dispersed five instances when the u s actively let it be known that nuclear use was was on the table and we've seen a an escalation of very explicit nuclear threat over the last couple of years not just in relation to the korean peninsula about it in the middle east between india and pakistan and between nighter russia that we really haven't seen since the worst days of the cold war so most of those who've been around managing nuclear weapons in the past really conclude that that the current danger of nuclear weapons being used is probably as great as it's ever brain mikhail gorbachev continuing to be very major report on to his disarmament plans for his tenure used some pretty blunt language about how dangerous of the times that we live in an essentially what looks like a resume cold war the longer term trends that worry me the most a rapid increase in the last decade in the number of conflicts globally that involve a state outside the area of conflict many of those are nuclear states each of these involves a risk of nuclear escalation by inadvertence so if not deliberate this is i think pre print simply driven by the reality of climate disruption food and water insecurity population displacements really starting to bite a climate stressed world is not a cipher a place to have nuclear weapons and the other trend is these morass of cyber technology used for malevolent purposes available to non state actors as well as stites with now multiple private entities public entities banks as well as nuclear systems being the subjects of attack even the sick computers of the u s national security agency where extensively hacked light last year so disarmament i think it's useful to remind ourselves of just how deep and consistent is the will of the international community since in every expression since the end of  the second world war two eliminate these these heinous weapons the very first resolution of the un general assembly and in january nine hundred forty six called on the elimination of atomic weapons the  disarmament the international court of justice the world's highest legal authority has unanimously concluded that that obligation is not just to negotiate in good faith but to actually bring these negotiations to a conclusion that is to finish the job we have made really substantial progress on controlling the other major classes of inhumane and indiscriminate weapons biological and chemical weapons enshrining their rejection in an international treaty that provides the same consistent standard for all states and then has provided the basis and motivation for the progressive elimination of the weapons stigmatise prohibit eliminated spain there's a really lesson that that really was much of the basis for for i can see in that  history everything that you can say that's horrible and indiscriminate and on acceptable about a landmine or a cost to mission is of course written in the case of a nuclear weapon the humanitarian initiative that led us to the prohibition treaty let me just pick some of the elements because there are there are some i think important lessons for us that i hope we can we can draw out some more in the discussion so i can was very much inspired by the international campaign to ban land mines that remarkable initiative that achieved a prohibition treaty on landmines despite the opposition of the major uses and produces russia china us opposed that tr haven't signed it yet it was concluded and it has has done a power of good so a focused campaign coalition with a very clear goal a treaty based process to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons not on the politics or the security arguments but they're on acceptable inhumane consequences however they might be used helpful was the rhetoric a fair bit thin on delivery  of president obama that really put the abolition of nuclear weapons firmly on the international agenda in a mainstream way that it hadn't been for a long time think agent of the red cross and red crescent movement the world's largest humanitarian organization was really important in two thousand and ten president kellenberger called the diplomatic core in geneva and really light this on the line as a humanitarian imperative and henceforth a major focus with for the for the red cross red crescent movement that helped to galvanize a number of governments to insist that the outcome document the consensus documents in the two thousand and ten n p t referred for the first time to deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and we then saw a remarkable three international conferences it's extraordinary that it took seventy three years after nuclear weapons were first used in war before there was an international conference dedicated to considering the impacts of the weapons but in no way mexico and austrian pretty rapid succession in two thousand and thirteen and fourteen there were evidence based conferences that drew eighty percent of the world's governments where the evidence including what i've just shown you in summary form was widely accepted the recognition essentially unchallenged of these conclusions that any  weapons was would be an unmitigated catastrophe for which no effective response is possible that the risks are greater than previously estimated and the probably growing and that there is a legal anomaly that sees the last weapon of mass destruction the only weapon that poses an existential threat not prohibited by international treaty the austrian government stepped up immediately at the end of the vienna conference and made a commitment to work to fill that legal gap and invited other governments to join and pretty quickly got two thirds of the world's governments to say yes where in and resolutions related to that in the u n grew very rapidly in support between two thousand and twelve and twenty fifteen from a dozen or so to a serious number but of course the dilemma is that unfortunately the states that don't on the weapons con eliminate them so what can they do you know what's that and there were an important process in over these years in getting building international consensus that the next best step that most of the world that sick of the failure of to some progress can do is to ban the weapon i'm happy to say that one of the things i'm most proud of about that process was the very productive collaboration public health is a lot about coalition building making your business other people's business and and we were able to build a very effective coalition involving the major peak international health federations world medical association international council of nurses the world federation of public health associations speaking about the planetary health imperative to get rid of these weapons with one voice i'm really proud that some of the language of those submissions is in that treaty so the mandate that the u n adopted at the end of tw over three to one was pretty ambitious new treaty kick the can down the road towards elimination as far as you can and by the way you've only got you'll turn into pumpkins if you haven't finished by seventh of july but including the respect for evidence and they why that we could present the evidence to the diplomats even during the negotiations really quite quite remarkable the other strategy that i can used that enormously proud and pleased about was the facts and data is our shop health professionals scientists but they are difficult challenging are not some abstract great power chess game of parity and balance but a live daily reality of indiscriminate suffering and loss and discrimination and ill health across generations they were powerful this is courageous work to do and further because of their presence this treaty for the is the first to sign the treaty to recognize the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on indigenous people so when it came to the vo e as you know it was spectacularly overwhelming for the adoption of the text by simply all of the rest of the world except for the non nuclear states and the to rely on u s nuclear weapons three nice separate agreements for japan south korea and a stratus died away and in the normally very formal proceedings of the the u n this was a pretty emotional and historic moment the hiroshima survivor who played such a crucial role in color except for the nobel peace prize for i can't all of the diplomats that i've ever heard say anything about this say this would not have happened without civil society we should all take enormous pride and encouragement from that nuclear weapons are on the way to becoming and the same unacceptable legal footing as those other indiscriminate weapons the treaty thanks very much i'm getting a little short on time so i'll move quickly but i want to point out just a couple of aspects of the treaty i would strongly commend it to you should be i never travel without it if it's a slim volume it's not hard to raid it's really worth the raid it's a very comprehensive and categorical prohibition of nuclear weapons the evidence is very well currently summarized in the preamble that outlines the object and purpose and i think increasing what's becoming increasingly important over time is that it provides fulfill their binding obligation to get rid of nuclear weapons it's currently the only defined pathway for states that have nuclear weapons that don't that have had them in the past that have them stationed on the church to get on with disarmament  it provides a pathway we should which we should take the red cross has been absolutely unequivocal in talking about how crucial prohibition is to elimination and its historic significance one piece of evidence that i find extraordinarily compelling so don't listen to me that this trade in matters if i had to cite one thing that tells me this trading matters it's this in the u or dangerous wouldn't be joined by the nuclear states would undermine the n p t what did they say to their allies they said nothing of the sort they said this would stigmatize nuclear weapons or nuclear deterren yes that this could impact parties as well as non parties even before it enters into force that this could interfere with nato's nuclear war planning nuclear sharing yes the reasons th because they recognize that it would work as intended one of the intangible but i hope important benefits of the treaty is that even its mere existence should make professional military people who want to comply with international law less likely to consider recommend or i buy in order to use nuclear weapons norms are powerful in the same breath enormous credibility and access to governments some faiths ladies particularly pope francis making it clear that even possession of nuclear weapons is unacceptable morally the red cross being unequivocal in its call for all states eliminate nuclear weapons we're seeing cities and states including one large one not too far south of here saying some very positive things about even though it's not formally within their jurisdiction these are important expressions of will that have political and moral force we are already seeing money starting to move even before the trade enters into force the world's largest sovereign wealth fund europe's largest pension fund some large banks deutsche bank as well as some smaller ones on the basis of the humanitarian considerations and the treaty assange way out of investments in companies that make nuclear weapons this has enormous potential for divestment that is accessible to everybody at my university we have a research collaboration i regret to tell you with lockheed martin i'm sure many universities in this country have research collaboration's with nuclear companies universities should not be collaborating in research on weapons of mass destruction that jeopardize that are existential threats and that are prohibited now by an international tr back from the brink campaign that has played a crucial role in that puts the abolition of nuclear weapons firmly as the goal with some important feasible steps to reduce the danger so i was really impressed when i was in boston and how much resonance this seems to be having with with civil society partners and also galvanizing the the physician's movement we have had profound influence in the past reading if you doubt ever the power about organized global health activity based on evidence using our access in north already to influence policy to the two nobel peace prize publicly as a way of driving policy and i can surprise similarly this should give enormous encourage meant to all of us i'm happy to bring a medal we me you're very welcome to enjoy it and take photographs of it all with it it's yours as much as anybody's the question that we asked in a new england journal p lights the existential dilemma that we face will it be the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us it will be one of the dollars we all have a significant responsibility and can play a major role in making sure that the answer to that question is the right one thanks very much another avenue that we didn't have two years ago so a couple questions i'd like to frame to come on and then we'll open it up for questions from the audience what's your sense of which of the nuclear arms traits might be the first to break from the pack these could change quickly and it really depends on on leadership you know electoral outcomes popular pressure i wouldn't under emphasize underestimate the value of leadership i think looked at currently one would hope that north korea might be the first and i think the united kingdom is an interesting prospect you could imagine that a labor government with led by somebody like jeremy colgan in combination with scottish desire for autonomy and some increase perhaps even without complete secession could revisit the decision to renew the trident nuclear arsenal if it were not able to be housed in scotland by understanding is that essentially it would have no way to go it would be enormously difficult and expensive to try and find somewhere else most of the thinking you know i can his  it may be more likely to want to know more of the nuclear dependent states to sort of break ranks and a very important experience in relation to that i think it's quite well for that potential and that is that membership of this treaty is entirely consistent with a military ship with a nuclear studies provided activities that justify assist preparations for possible use of nuclear weapons are excluded the u s does ignite seventeen states as major norm nato allies eleven of them voted for the tr adoption three have signed thailand philippines and new zealand and to have ratified thailand in new zealand for none of them has there been any ructions in their ongoing military cooperation with the united states because it doesn't involve nuclear weapons activities so it's quite possible to continue military collaboration provided nuclear weapons are excluded so i think that the kind of weaseling out under pressure from the nuclear arms it's within the once you have a sense of where the first break might occur yes the way there's a new technical term that into diplomatic  gusto around twenty fifteen fourteen fifteen and it really refers to the states that claim to support disarmament including nuclear disarmament but at the same time  completely conflicted by also claiming that those same weapons are central to their own security that makes them fairly decisively more part of the problem than the solution this can change many of us you know quickly with electoral cycles many of us had hoped that norway would be a major leader in nato a very strong history of of humanitarian and peace work around the country around the globe had been an important funder of and hosted the first of the humanitarian conferences but a change in government has made that look much less likely that is currently conducting a public enquiry the foreign minister wants to sign the treaty the nato forces don't so there's a bit of a tussle on so this could depend on  opportunities that arise depending on elections the only one of the nato members that actually participated in the negotiations was the netherlands that made it clear that they wouldn't couldn't support anything that came out of the negotiations they have u s nuclear weapons on their territory but were forced by public and parliamentary pressure to at least be there which is  it's hard to know we should as a global connected campaign swarm like babies to support and help push change where political it's my understanding with civil society in the netherlands when with is quite strong and that might be a breakthrough it's certainly got the government to to the negotiations even though they couldn't support the outcome  and there is a very strong coalition in no way that involves peace organizations faith based organizations both protestant and catholic the no the dutch red cross in a very powerful coalition more on than we know including the president could you comment on that yes it was it was strong pressure and it wasn't all of the nuclear armed states that were pressuring states not to conciliatory at one stage even let it be known that they were considering joining the negotiations and as far as we know haven't been putting pressure on any states not to not to support this process much of this is not entered the public domain but the south african ambassador shortly after the vote when the treaty was adopted spoke very strongly about group and through the new general assembly processes and the negotiations and it hasn't stopped now some of it has been very well organized very consistent the u s a sense senior representatives thomas countryman when reliable to my mind at least reports pretty consistently that at the highest level presidential secretary of state level during the obama era calls were made during the austrian humanitarian conference and during some of the other processes for example to the head of the leader of mexico which has been a leader of the ban treaty to try and shut this down the u s had it was reported to have twelve department of state officials at the twenty sixteen general assembly specifically to try and avoid a successful vote on the trade in negotiations some of this pressure has what little is known publicly suggests that some of it is fairly unsavory for example i know that the country that happens to be the poorest in southeast asia and the most heavily land mine country on earth los most of the land mines in laos were u s land mines the u s threatened secession of funding for the mining if laos voted for the in negotiations that's just one small example that i'm aware of but there was clearly very fierce pressure and it had some effect i mean there were twelve african states who would have been expected to vote for the treaty who didn't  two thirds majority can make a decision that pressure was not sufficient just to rile the process but that pressure's on going  the treaty but happily most of the states that have signed have reported that once they have signed the pressure has laid off so if the countries that are concerned about the pressure they're getting that the message is signed quickly and get it be done on the phone to presidents rather countries like mexico urging him not to participate i don't think i heard that i don't think i knew that and given the sort of respect and recognition he international norm is powerful it puts the nuclear armed states on the defensive it puts them on on notice they can no longer claim that that through you know selective interpretation of the international court of justice advisory opinion that that couldn't unequivocally conclude that use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances would be contrary to international law this these sort of loopholes have been firmly close initially that's crucial to progress so that gives me great comfort that this treaty matters and it will matter even more as more states sign and ratify as it enters into force as sites then obliged to reflect their treaty obligations in domestic legislation for example making involvement in nuclear weapons activities criminal for anybody subject to their legal jurisdiction promote the treaty and diplomacy meetings of states happen regularly to promote the treaty implementation each of these steps will will increase the normative pressure and of course it's up to civil society to make sure that that that pressure linked with the evidence that that these weapons don't increase anybody's security they only make you a target for everybody else's nuclear weapons and jeopardize everybody's security that this will help progress elimination that states can do this currently sixty nine have signed and nineteen have ratified these things take time there are constitutionally mandated processes in every state that that often take considerable inspections that were crucial to the successful and timely elimination of two thousand six hundred ninety two intermediate range missiles before the fifth of june one hundred ninety one so i think in and profoundly increased the dangers of nuclear war which was the reason why those missiles in europe as this twenty's in the cruzan persian missiles that i'm sure many of you remember aroused much public concern around the world that played a major role in that landmark treaty hi i'm david berg and i'm just a member of the public i understand that the united states is is currently trying to fund completely replace seeing the nuclear triad clue including submarine it politike missiles and i've heard embers like five hundred the whole every aspect of the nuclear forces and the infrastructure that builds them with extraordinary sums of money planned to be committed  decade long time frames and essentially signaling you know if you follow the money really no serious intent to do so those are not compatible they increase the danger as well as hemorrhaging resources from saw many more urgent and productive ways of increasing health and well being and the projects and the cost of one point seven trillion dollars over the next thirty years the entire arsenal is basically replaced that's part of the reason for immense push now to try to stop that because you can bet that if these weapons are completely replaced hagopian i'm on the nuclear weapons task first with the p s r i'd like bruce i'm disturbed to hear that a previous recipient of the nobel peace prize was such a terrible redemption in his retirement here i'm not the slightest surprised to hear hillary clinton was involved in the sanctity i expected no less from her but perhaps given the dynamics now in the country somebody might appeal to barack obama to play a different role in his retirement and move this treaty alon i think there is room for all voices or people all wheels anybody who wants to contribute to this now's the time to step it certainly would s valuable way to offset to create a different legacy from from you know the enormously hopeful promise that really excited the world that was solid youth you know delivery and the has been made but i think all such approaches would be welcome and appropriate you know this needs leadership we desperately lack global leadership  thank you for your time appreciate the world health approach to this topic and my specialty i am in the private community and my specialty is in cyber security i'm a director for a multinational offensive cyber security organization and so  question centers around the intersection of maybe the global organizations that you deal with and their understanding and observations and opinions when it comes to the cyber security side because in twenty ton we saw the stocks that were that was also of reactor and iran so just curious if those topics ever come up in your circles and if they're included in the general view of the policymakers they certainly didn't come up in specifically in any form in the negotiations for the trees not referred to but i think the general development of sauber take knology and its malevolent use on repeated occasions seen since that that land intervention you know almost certainly by the us and israel as i understand and you if you have suggested zeal for controlling nuclear  of cyber attack potential particularly if combined with emerging out of official intelligence capabilities plus nuclear weapons i mean any intersection between those things  got to be an extraordinarily dangerous development and really accelerate the urgency of dealing with these weapons before in a climate stressed world where conflict is likely to get more frequent and not less