The UN Security Council could
put an end to Nuclear Weapons

The Preamble to the UN Charter

states, “We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… establish respect for international law and promote social progress….Have resolved to combine our efforts to achieve these aims.”

But have the nuclear-armed nations been truly determined to eliminate the threat of nuclear war?  No.

Why aren't they making an effort to disarm and eliminate nuclear weapons?

The UN General Assembly (composed of all nations) have passed many proposals for nuclear disarmament, which they have the power to do as given in Article 11 of the UN Charter – “The General Assembly may consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both. ”

But the UN Security Council has failed discuss or give any legitimacy to these proposals for nuclear disarmament. The five permanent members (those nations with the largest nuclear-weapon arsenals) refuse to reduce and disarm their nuclear weapons, and they even refuse to start any negotiations for eliminating nuclear weapons.

Article 26 of the UN Charter

Article 26 of the UN Charter states that the Security Council is responsible for regulating global armaments and reducing military expenditures. It states, “In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

In essence, Article 26 requires the Security Council to create an effective plan for global nuclear disarmament and to reduce military expenditures (that divert financial resources from being used for humanitarian and peaceful purposes).

It should also be remembered that this UN Charter was originally formulated by the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Nuclear-weaponized nations refuse
to follow UN Charter Article 24

Instead of negotiating and implementing an International Plan for the reduction of nuclear weapons and other military armaments, the most powerful governments in the United Nations have engaged in ever-increasing weapons production and profiteering, as they continue to perpetuate a global arms race!

They spend many billions of dollars on their militaries and sell billions of dollars worth of weapons to other countries.

This creates more wealth for the owners and investors of weapons companies, but this does nothing to improve people's lives, nor to make the world safer and more peaceful.

In fact, by spending over $400 billion every year on weapons, there is that much money NOT spent on social and environmental needs!

Is this just simply Capitalism at work, or is this a sign of governments being corruptly influenced by wealthy investors and corporations in the Weapons Trade?

So they keep making more money on producing and selling weapons, while the rest of all humanity suffers from the consequences of their weapons and also from the everpresent threat of a nuclear bomb wiping out a city somewhere, or anywhere, either intentionally or accidentally.

In short, the most powerful and wealthy States, predominately in the UN Security Council, have failed to fulfill one of the original intentions of the United Nations, as mandated in Article 26 of the UN Charter. They have failed to be responsible for regulating their armaments, reduce their military expenditures, and redirect financial and technological resources towards our safety and peace.

Therefore, if the Security Council cannot function in a cooperative and collaborative way, in the way that the original UN intended, then it has to be revised to be more successful at fulfilling its intended function. In fact, at this point in its continual neglect of its intended duties, the Security Council needs public oversight and encouragement from the UN Assembly and citizen coalition representatives from the whole world.

It's time for all nuclear bombs
to be eliminated from the world.
We don't want them.

Nobody sane and caring would ever want
nuclear weapons in the world.
So let's get rid of them!

We demand that the Security Council begin immediate negotiations and plans for reducing and finally eliminating nuclear weapons, and we also support all UN resolutions calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

The Security Council
needs to fulfill its duties

We should remember that the five major nuclear-armed nations are permanent members of the Security Council, so they are already sitting at the same table. Therefore, if they were truly sincere about global security and protecting humanity from nuclear war, then they should be negotiating plans for reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons – rather than planning to increase and improve their nuclear weapons!

The bottom-line is that for many decades now the permanent members of the Security Council have been failing in their given responsibilities.

Therefore, the UN General Assembly has the authority to revise the Security Council – in order to make it effective in fulfilling its originally intended responsibilities.

If the Security Council cannot function in a cooperative and collaborative way, in the way that the original UN intended, then the UN must revise it to be more successful at fulfilling is intended function.

The Security Council is composed of
the most powerful militaries in the world,
and they have the power to create
a peaceful, secure, nuclear-free world.

The United Nations Security Council should be working towards solving armed-conflicts and nuclear-armed threats. They should be helping the UN Peacekeeping system resolve armed conflicts and ensure human safety in all regions of the world. And they should be making immediate plans for reducing and finally eliminating all nuclear weapons.

We the People of this world demand:
the UN Security Council immediately
negotiate a step-by-step Plan for reducing
and finally eliminating all nuclear weapons.

We call for:

1) A guaranteed No-Nuclear-Use Policy from all nuclear-armed nations.

2) An immediate reduction of nuclear-weapons budgets.

3) Practical plans for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World.

Bi- and Tri- lateral Negotiations

Bilateral Nuclear Negotiations between
the U.S. and Russia is necessary,
given that the US and Russia
hold 90% of all nuclear weapons!

One vitally important step in Global Nuclear Disarmament is for the U.S. and Russia to begin serious bi-lateral negotiations for an immediate reduction of nuclear warheads and to create an effective Plan for gradually eliminating all nuclear warheads, since these two nations have the most nuclear weapons.

Then the next step is to add in China to the negotiations, since they are the third largest holder of nuclear weapons. These three nations can then tri-laterally collaborate on creating a practical and effective Plan (with definite steps and timelines) for a UN-monitored proportional reduction of nuclear weapons.

Read... In 1986 the Soviet Leader Gorbachev proposed an end to nuclear weapons by 2000

Unilateral Reductions

However, even though bi and tri lateral agreements are needed, we (the U.S.) should still reduce our nuclear weapons unilaterally, because we already have so many.

William Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, pragmatically said, "our levels of nuclear forces should be determined by what we need, not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for missile."

How many nuclear bombs are needed
to ensure national defense?

How many nuclear weapons do we need to blow up other nations and the global climate as well? Not too many and certainly not more than a few.

But the U.S. already has a stockpile of 3,800 nuclear warheads, with 2,385 of these are waiting to be dismantled and disposed of in some undecided way. The U.S. has already stated in the 2019 New START declaration that 1,365 nuclear warheads are deployed on 656 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers.

With all of this vast amount of mass-destructive weapons, the U.S. can very easily and very safely give up 90% of these, and yet still destroy many millions of people and the whole global climate as well. Why would we need more than that?!

So ultimately, we ourselves should unilaterally reduce nuclear weapons, independently of what Russia or China does, because this will not lower our national security at all, as if a deterrence policy requires anymore than a dozen or so of these weapons, and also because there is no rational economic reason for spending loads of money on maintaining and keeping them ready to employ. There is no safety concern for unilaterally reducing nuclear weapons, and there are economic reasons for eliminating them; therefore, what could be the reason to keep them?

The 1991 START I Bilateral Treaty
(The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)

START I was a bilateral treaty between the US and the USSR on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1994. This was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence.

• START I – Brief Facts

• START I – Background History

The NEW START TREATY

START I expired in 2009, but in 2010 the 'New START' treaty was signed by US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It went in force in 2011 and set forth large reductions of American and Soviet/Russian strategic nuclear weapons.

The NEW START Treaty calls for verifiably halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers, though it does not limit the thousands of operationally inactive nuclear warheads stockpiled by Russia and the United States.

Today, the United States and Russia each deploy roughly 1,350 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles, and are modernizing their nuclear delivery systems.

These warheads are counted using the provisions of the New START agreement, which caps each country at 1,550 strategic deployed warheads and attributes one deployed warhead per deployed heavy bomber, no matter how many warheads each bomber carries. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs are counted by the number of re-entry vehicles on the missile, and each re-entry vehicle can carry one warhead.

The United States’ total nuclear inventory is 5,800, with around 3,800 active warheads in the stockpile and another 2,000 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. Under the 2010 New START Treaty, the United States is allowed 1,550 nuclear warheads on 800 strategic launchers.

How many nuclear bombs does
a nation need to attain national security?

Is there any good reason for each nation
to maintain and globally deploy
this many nuclear weapons?

Read more...

• Improving the New START Treaty

• Negotiating Issues for New START

• Fact-sheet on the New START

• New START Treaty Facts & Analysis

• Details provided by the US Government

China and a Tri-lateral Agreement

Once this New Start Bilateral Treaty is negotiated with sincere and progressive improvements to boldly reduce nuclear weapons, then the next step is to include China in a Trilateral Treaty for nuclear disarmament. After that, France and the U.K. would certainly oblige, then other weaponized nations would gladly back away from any global competition or escalation of nuclear weapons, until finally a global consensus is achieved to gradually but quickly eliminate all nuclear weapons, so that no one evermore feels threatened by these human and environmentally mass-destructive weapons.

Thus, the New Start Treaty can quickly expand to include China, then all others, with a expedient timeline for the proportional reduction of all global nuclear weapons. In addition, a New Trilateral Nuclear Disarmament can factor in new technologies, such as hypersonic glide vehicles and low-yield devices.

China has a smaller arsenal (about 300 warheads), but China could double its nuclear stockpile in the coming decade unless dissuaded by the larger powers, the U.S. and Russia. A proportional agreed reduction is an economic benefit for all parties, as all parties have better uses of their national capital. Also, this would be a first step in a inspection and verification process between China and the US.

Nuclear Weapons are being advanced
by a few other nations

Both Russia and China possess smaller numbers of non-strategic (aka tactical) nuclear warheads, which are not subject to any treaty limits. China, India, and Pakistan are all pursuing new ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. In addition, Pakistan has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use by developing tactical nuclear weapons capabilities to counter perceived Indian conventional military threats. North Korea continues its nuclear pursuits in violation of its earlier de-nuclearization pledges.

Read...
• Global Inventories of nuclear weapons

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) became international law in 1970 when it was ratified by 190 governments of the United Nations, including the five major nuclear-weapon states at that time: China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR.

Read... Overview of the NPT
Read... Actual Document of the NPT

Yet, the number of nuclear weapons in the world peaked at over 70,000 weapons in 1986 during the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Since then, stockpiles of nuclear warheads have diminished to about 13,400, but this is still an outrageous number of mass destructive weapons, which are not only unnecessary but also extremely dangerous to global security and all of humanity.

2020 Global Inventories of Nuclear Warheads

2020 Countries with Nuclear Warheads

Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

In the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a requirement for nuclear-weapon states to pursue effective measures for complete nuclear disarmament.

Article VI of the Treaty states that “All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament.”

However, the countries with nuclear weapons have not been actively pursing nuclear disarmament. Instead, they have continued to build and stockpile more weapons, thus perpetuating a nuclear arms race, and each year they fail to meet together for nuclear disarmament negotiations.

In addition, all nine of the current nuclear-weapon states – China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States – have been developing and modernizing their nuclear weapons, warheads, missiles, bombers and submarines, as they continue spending $billions to further threaten each other and the whole planet with mass destruction.

Therefore, the rhetoric about their commitment to nuclear disarmament is disingenuous. They are not complying with their obligations in the Non-Proliferation Treat and are thus in violation of the International Law to which they had agreed.

Calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention

Each year the UN General Assembly calls for a 'Nuclear Weapons Convention' (a global Treaty) – to prohibit the threat or use of nuclear weapons and to establish a phased program for their complete elimination under strict and effective international control.

It has been proposed that this Nuclear Weapons Convention include prohibitions on: the possession, development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat-of-use of nuclear weapons, along with provisions for their verified elimination.

This Convention would be similar to existing Conventions outlawing other kinds of mass-destructive weapons, such as the Biological Weapons Convention (ratified in 1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (ratified in 1993).

The vast majority of all nations have supported these UN Resolutions for nuclear-weapon states to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Yet countries with the largest nuclear arsenals (the U.S., Russia, France, and the UK) have not supported the UN Resolutions, along with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, who are under the extended nuclear deterrence relationships of NATO. The five major nuclear-weapon countries also happen to be permanent members of the UN Security Council and they each have veto power on all Security Council resolutions.

Read more about...
The Nuclear Weapons Convention

Citizens of nuclear-weapon countries need to pressure their governments to agree to a Nuclear Weapons Convention
– to immediately reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons in gradual stages.

The Conference on Disarmament

The Conference on Disarmament was established for countries to negotiate Arms Control and Disarmament agreements. It meets three times a year and is currently composed of 65 formal members representing all areas of the world along with all nuclear-weapon states.

The Conference is formally independent from the United Nations. However, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva serves as the Secretary-General of the Conference. Furthermore, while the Conference adopts its own rules of procedure and agenda, the United Nations General Assembly can pass resolutions recommending specific topics to the Conference.

The Conference was created with the following Permanent Agenda for discussion:

• nuclear weapons in all aspects;
• other weapons of mass destruction;
• conventional weapons;
• reduction of military budgets and armed forces;
• disarmament and international security;
• confidence building measures;
• effective verification methods for disarmament;
• a comprehensive programme of disarmament leading to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

It is here in this Conference that negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention should take place. But a major obstacle to these negotiations is the Conference's founding rule that all of its decisions must be approved by consensus – consequentially, the Conference has been unable to achieve any substantial progress in nuclear disarmament for nearly
25 years!

However, a consensus could be achieved
if the five major nuclear-weapon countries would unanimously agree, within the transparency of the Conference, to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention along with a defined Disarmament Plan.

The UN's Five-Point Proposal
for Nuclear Disarmament

In 2010 the States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed by consensus that all States should make special efforts to establish a Nuclear Weapons Convention (treaty) or an agreed framework for a 'nuclear weapon free world', and it was suggested that a good starting place for discussion and negotiation would be a Five-Point Proposal presented in 2008 by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Additionally, in 2014 the Inter Parliamentary Union (comprising 164 parliaments) adopted a resolution calling on all governments to commence negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or at least a package of agreements such as the Five-Point Proposal, to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.

Summary of the Five Point Proposal:

I. All parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially the nuclear-weapon States, need to fulfill their requirement to enter into negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

II. The nuclear-weapon States need to assure non-nuclear-weapon States that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

III. Existing nuclear arrangements and agreements, such as a ban on testing, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and strengthened safeguards, need to be accepted by States and brought into force.

IV. The Nuclear Powers need to be transparent about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material, and specific disarmament achievements.

V. Complementary measures are needed such as the elimination of other types of Weapons of Mass-Destruction (WMD); new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons.

Read... Full Text of the Secretary-General’s Five-Point Proposal

Positive Steps for all nations:

• Honor and Support the United Nations
  and Civil Society Initiatives for Nuclear Disarmament. read more...
• Abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• Ratify & Abide by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
• Cooperate with the UN's Five-point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament
  to eliminate Nuclear Weapons.
• Ratify & Abide by ALL Arms Control Treaties & Agreements
• Ratify & Abide by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons

This UN Treaty has made nuclear weapons Illegal by International Law

The UN Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament have been failing for decades to seriously initiate negotiations for reducing and gradually eliminating nuclear weapons.

Therefore, since there is an obvious stalemate in getting going with negotiations for global Nuclear Disarmament along with a resurgence of spending and improvements of nuclear weapons, non-governmental organizations throughout the world formed a coalition to develop a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – to make nuclear weapons illegal under International Law.

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), is a civil society coalition made of over 500 partner organisations from over 100 countries, and in 2017 it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons."

In July 2017, in the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, 122 member states, a majority of UN members, voted for the adoption of this Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), or also known as the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. And since then, more governments from around the world, particularly in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Africa, have signed and ratified this Prohibition Treaty.

The Treaty is intended to be an international legally-binding agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons and move swiftly towards their complete elimination. The Treaty stipulates that it is internationally illegal to develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess, stockpile, transfer, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, and also illegal to assist or encourage anyone to engage in these activities. It provides for a time-bound framework for nuclear armed states to succeed in negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons.

In order to become International Law, at least 50 countries are required to ratify/join the Treaty. This finally happened in October 2020. So now, nuclear weapons are not only immoral – they are also illegal.

Nuclear Weapons are now illegal
under International Law

However, none of the nuclear-weapon states and none of the NATO members voted in favor of this Treaty. In fact, all nine nuclear-armed states boycotted the negotiations and urged their allies to do so as well. Both the Obama and Trump administrations instructed countries of NATO to not support the Treaty. Therefore, the Treaty does not directly impact the nine nuclear-armed countries, because they refuse to sign the Treaty.

Thus, some people argue that the Treaty is irrelevant, since none of the nuclear-armed countries have joined. But many others believe that the Treaty will, nonetheless, have a pressuring influence on the nuclear-armed countries and on global financial institutions. As past social movements have taught us, a needed change rarely happens easily – it must be constantly defended, strengthened and pushed forward.

Already, more than 1,600 elected officials in nuclear-armed countries have pledged to work to get their governments on board, as cities and towns can adopt resolutions demanding their governments to join the Treaty.

Citizens can help make this Treaty a reality
by building social and political pressure

The TPNW bans the development
of new nuclear weapons systems

Article 1 of the treaty prohibits states parties from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.

Citizens need to Demand – No More Development of Nuclear Weapons!

The TPNW bans any assisting
with developing nuclear weapons

Dozens of U.S. universities are involved in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, including through direct management and research partnerships with the laboratories that design and can produce nuclear weapons components.

Students should demand their universities focus on research to save lives not end them

The TPNW bans the manufacturing
of nuclear weapons

Even outside of nuclear-armed states, companies contribute to the development and production of nuclear weapons.

Financial institutions should divest from
companies that produce nuclear weapons

The TPNW bans the hosting
of nuclear weapons

Article 1(g) of the TPNW explicitly prohibits allowing the stationing, installation or deployment of nuclear weapons.

There are five countries in the world that are currently engaged in this soon to be banned behaviour: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey. These five countries currently host collectively about 150 U.S. nuclear weapons at bases on their territory. Not only does the continued hosting of U.S. nuclear weapons run contrary to international law, it also flies in the face of public opinion. Less than one-third of the public in hosting states support the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction on their soil.

Citizens in any country hosting
nuclear weapons should be allowed
to ban these weapons from their land

The TPNW bans encouraging
the use of nuclear weapons

Nuclear-armed states are always ready-to-use nuclear weapons, and they regularly prepare to use nuclear weapons through joint exercises with non-nuclear-armed states.

Encouraging the use of nuclear weapons
by participating in or allowing these exercises is now internationally illegal !

More Info on the Prohibition Treaty:

• The Significance of the Treaty

• Five Activities Prohibited by the Treaty

• The Actual TPNW Document

• 56 former officials of nuclear-armed nations support the Treaty

Steps and Goals
for Global Nuclear Disarmament

• Establish a global crisis-management system – to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict.
• Establish global institutions for peacebuilding, diplomatic dialogue, and conflict-resolution, – to assure that no nation launches a nuclear attack, 'preemptive' or retaliatory strike.
• Take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert – to prevent a hasty or accidental nuclear strike.
• Remove Nuclear Weapons from Europe, the Middle East, North East Asia, and the Arctic.
• Reduce Nuclear Warheads.
• Stop developing more Nuclear Warheads.
• Stop upgrading or enhancing Nuclear-warhead delivery systems.
• Remove Nuclear Warheads from their delivery systems, dismantle the warheads, and remove nuclear pits.
• Place all removed fissile material under International Law and Observation.
• Create Safe-storage for all radioactive nuclear material.
• End Production of Highly Enriched Uranium.
• End all research and testing of nuclear weapons of all sizes.
• Agree to the PAROS Treaty (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space)
• Agree to Regulations on Laser Weapons
  
  Read...
  • Directed-energy Laser Weapon Systems (LaWS)
  
  • How Laser Weapons have entered the Arms Race
  
  • About Laser Weapons from their manufacturer
  
  
• Stop developing 'Lethal Autonomous Weapons' (killer-bots)
  
  Read...
  • The Global Threat of Killer Robots
  
  • The Dangerous Rise of Slaughterbots
  
  • How Military AI is promoted as a 'New Age in Defense'

Ending the International Arms Trade

Arms Sales proliferate hi-grade military weapons all around the world, thus making the world a less safer place. And yet, the Defense Department supports US Arms Sales to other nations, even dictators. How do Arms Sales help us be safer? What kind of 'Defense' is that?

The bloated Military and Weapons Budget is promoted by the Weapons Industry. But these corporations that produce weapons also profit from international Arms Sales, which helps to fuel regional warfare and authoritarian political regimes.

Between 2012 and 2016, US arms producers were responsible for one-third of all major global arms exports. And most of these US-made weapons go to repressive and brutal government regimes to harm and kill civilians. In fact, the U.S. supplies military and weapons training, military arms financing, and weapons transfers to 73% of the world’s dictatorships.

Weapons manufacturers and 'Defense' Corporations also sell weapons to US domestic police. Since the 1990s, over 5 billion dollars worth of military-grade weapons and equipment have been sold to city police forces. This militarization of the police perpetuates a culture of police aggression and hostility.

It is estimated that the US now accounts for 34% of all global arms sales, up from 30% five years ago, and are now at their highest level since the late 1990s.

The world spends nearly $3 trillion a year on Weapons, and the United States drives the bulk of the globe’s weapons trade – about 79%, according to figures compiled by the U.S. State Department.

Read more...

• U.S. Arms Transfers Increased by 2.8% in 2020 to $175 Billion

• Fact Sheet on the U.S. Arms Sales & Defense Trade

– The top 100 arms companies made an estimated $398 billion worth of sales in 2017.

– Sales of arms and military services by the sector’s largest 25 companies totaled US$361 billion in 2019.

• Global military expenditures and Arms Trade

• Killer Facts about the Global Arms Trade

• The top-25 Companies profitting on Arms Sales

• The Arms Trade is Big Business

Military spending vs. Social spending

The world diverts huge amounts of resources to the defense sector, leaving basic needs such as food, health, education, employment and environmental challenges greatly under-funded. The imbalance between defense and social or development aid budgets is striking in most countries. Yet despite the global economic crisis and world public opinion opposed to military spending excesses, there are few real signs that governments are ready at this point to initiate a radical shift in spending priorities.

• Sustainable Development instead of an endless Arms Race