Nonkilling Conflict Resolution and Nuclear Conflict

CONFLICT RESOLUTION - MEDIATION, 7 Jul 2025

Roland Joseph, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service

International Day of Global Nonkilling – 28 Jun 2025

What we face in the world today stems from an ideology that makes us believe that killing and violence are normal in politics and political science. This ideology leads us to think that we are naturally violent and that killing and violence are inevitable principles we must accept. We buy into this system, and it is also taught at schools and universities. Teaching this way of thinking to children, young people, and adults creates political leaders who believe in violence, either to stay in power or to protect their countries. Since 1945, this has resulted in the world being under the constant threat of nuclear weapons and mass killings.

The leaders of the nuclear powers are more comfortable spending billions of dollars each year to modernize their arsenals. I believe this mindset cannot be sustained because these weapons cannot guarantee lasting security and peace. Experts warn that these weapons could at any moment destroy humanity, either accidentally or intentionally, by the leaders of nuclear states. In today’s world, where there’s a significant risk of these weapons being used in conflicts, an approach based on nonkilling conflict resolution is essential. My reflection will focus on these threats and the importance of nonkilling conflict resolution in the context of nuclear conflicts. In other words, how can nonkilling conflict resolution be applied to address the threat of nuclear war?

Nuclear Conflict

The reason we talk about nuclear conflict is that nine countries have over 12,000 nuclear warheads, and most are in ongoing conflict with each other. These countries are Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Therefore, a nuclear conflict happens when one or more of these states engage in a confrontation involving the potential use of one or more of these 12,000 weapons. In an article titled “Nuclear Conflict in the Twenty-first Century,” Dr. Andrei A. Kokoshin defines a nuclear conflict as “A crisis situation in which one or more parties that possess nuclear weapons are involved, and in the course of which tensions reach the level where one or more then use nuclear weapons as an instrument of political influence” (Kokoshin, 2007, p. 1). One of the closest times the world nearly faced nuclear escalation was during the Cuban Missile Crisis between the two nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Fortunately, neither side escalated the conflict by deploying nuclear weapons.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin made a frightening statement about the Russia-Ukraine conflict when he reminded Ukrainian and Western leaders that Russia remains one of the world’s leading nuclear powers. Many people worldwide, including peace advocates, have condemned and responded to Putin’s rhetoric. Although nuclear weapons have not yet been used in this conflict, the threat persists.

In June 2025, Israel, a nuclear-armed state, launched an attack on Iran under the claim that Iran’s nuclear program threatened the Middle East and global security. Israel’s assault prompted Iran to respond swiftly, leading to significant damage on both sides. Several other nuclear-armed nations, including the United States, China, and Russia, had already mobilized to enter the conflict. The United States, Israel’s primary ally, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Regardless of whether the materials were destroyed or not, this did not stop Iran from firing several missiles at the US military base at Al Udeid in Qatar in retaliation for the US attack on its nuclear facilities. Of course, the parties agreed to a ceasefire. However, the situation in the Middle East remains tense, with Israel continuing strikes against the Palestinian population, particularly innocent residents in Gaza.

Almost all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons are directly or indirectly involved in conflicts. This situation creates pressure and anxiety, especially when recalling the damage these weapons caused to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II. Every day, the threat of nuclear conflict feels more imminent and urgent. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which updates the “doomsday clock” annually, set it at 89 seconds to midnight in January 2025. One main reason for this is the growing risk of nuclear weapons being used in conflicts. That is why I believe it is crucial to continue exploring new ways to urge all nuclear-armed countries to completely and immediately abolish these weapons.

Nonkilling Conflict Resolution

The nonkilling approach to conflict resolution, particularly in the context of nuclear conflict, originates from Professor Glenn D. Paige’s research on nonkilling political science in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Paige was among the first, if not the only, political scientists to challenge the work of researchers and thinkers who emphasized “killing” and violence in political science, and to establish a foundation for a new political practice where actors neither produce nor use weapons in conflicts within societies and between nations. As we know, he defined the nonkilling society as follows:

It is a human community, smallest to largest, local to global, characterized by no killing of humans and no threats to kill; no weapons designed to kill humans and no justifications for using them; and no conditions of society dependent upon threat or use of killing force for maintenance or change (Paige, 2009, p. 21).

Achieving a society without killing is challenging, but Dr. Paige offers a path toward a world free of killers and weapons designed to cause harm. That’s why he emphasizes nonkilling education as a key strategy for reaching this goal. In other words, to build a nonkilling society, we must teach people what nonkilling truly is. Paige urges researchers from all academic and scientific fields, including those in peace and conflict resolution, to adopt this new paradigm in their research and educational practices. The core idea of his original book is: “a nonkilling global society is possible and that changes in the academic discipline of political science and its social role can help to bring it about” (Paige, 2009, p. 129). It’s not a process that can happen automatically; it requires significant effort. That’s why Paige established the Center for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) to promote change toward the measurable goal of a world without killing.

While nuclear conflict remains one of the greatest threats of this century, I believe that nonkilling conflict resolution could be one of the most effective ways to address it. What do I mean by nonkilling conflict resolution? In the context of nuclear conflict, I mean that the principle of nonkilling should be considered in all dialogues and negotiations about banning nuclear weapons. Nuclear actors must agree on the principle of nonkilling, which states that no nuclear weapons should exist in society. They must agree that nuclear weapons are immoral and cannot ensure lasting peace and security in the world, so no one should possess or seek to possess them. When I say no one, I mean neither the states that supposedly possess them legally (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France) nor those that possess them illegally (India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea).

Paige quotes former US general George Lee Butler, who spoke on December 4, 1996, before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. For the general, the United States should take the lead in this effort because it created and was the first to use them (Paige, 2009). He states that if the US does not initiate this movement, it will lose its moral authority to stop other countries from developing nuclear weapons (Paige, 2009). Butler’s main reason is: “Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient, and morally indefensible.” (Paige, 2009, p. 136). The principle of nonkilling is not only about preventing countries that do not have nuclear arsenals from acquiring them, but also about what countries that already possess them will do to eliminate these weapons while they work to prevent others from creating and obtaining them.

One of the final aspects of nonkilling conflict resolution is that nuclear actors must recognize that it is possible to eliminate all nuclear weapons. It is not easy, but it’s not impossible either. Paige suggests that achieving a global nonkilling society is possible. However, he also acknowledges that possibility does not equate to certainty. He states: “To assert possibility, of course, is not to guarantee certainty but to make problematic the previously unthinkable and to strengthen confidence that we humans are capable of nonkilling global transformation” (Paige, 2009, p. 71). When we encourage nuclear actors to believe that a world without nuclear weapons can be achieved, it does not mean it will happen automatically. Believing in this possibility helps us reconsider what once seemed impossible but has now been achieved, and it inspires us to do more as humans to create a world where human life is not threatened by nuclear destruction. Paige says, “Every person can be a center for nonkilling.” I would extend this idea to nuclear disarmament: every mind in nuclear-armed countries is a potential center for nuclear abolition. This means if they can develop nuclear weapons, they can also destroy them if they take non-lethal measures.

I believe that a world without nuclear weapons can be achieved. In the past, there were around 70,000 nuclear warheads; today, that number has decreased to about 12,000. If we can reduce it back to 12,000, I think there is still hope, even as more countries develop their nuclear capabilities. However, many countries such as Ukraine, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Belarus have already voluntarily given up their nuclear arsenals.

Our top priority should be building on existing nonkilling initiatives to prevent the escalation of nuclear conflict. Key nonkilling efforts include the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Under the NPT, Article VII allows states to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones (ZEAN), which has led to the creation of five major denuclearized zones worldwide: the Treaty of Tlatelolco for Latin America and the Caribbean, the Treaty of Rarotonga for the South Pacific, the Treaty of Bangkok for Southeast Asia, the Treaty of Pelindaba for Africa, and the Treaty of Semipalatinsk for Central Asia. Let us build on the existing nonkilling efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent conflicts related to them from escalating.

References:

Paige, G. D. (2009). Nonkilling global political science (3rd ed.). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling. Retrieved from http://www.nonkilling.org/pdf/nkgps.pdf

Kokoshin, A. A. (2011, June). Ensuring strategic stability in the past and present: Theoretical and applied questions (Discussion Paper). Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/pantheon_files/files/publication/Ensuring%20Strategic%20Stability%20by%20A.%20Kokoshin.pdf

__________________________________________________________________

Roland Joseph, Ph.D.: Department of Conflict Resolution Studies, Halmos College of Arts and Sciences, Nova Southeastern University. Email: rj739@mynsu.nova.edu

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 7 Jul 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Nonkilling Conflict Resolution and Nuclear Conflict, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.