By Simpson Global Media News Desk
Nigeria has renewed its call for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, telling the United Nations that the country does not possess nuclear arms and does not consider them necessary for its national security as governments confront a renewed period of nuclear tension, weapons modernisation and weakening arms-control arrangements.
Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, delivered the country’s position at a high-level General Assembly meeting in New York on Tuesday, September 29, convened to mark the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
Ibrahim said Nigeria’s security does not depend on nuclear weapons and called for international action aimed at eliminating the arsenals rather than relying on them as instruments of security.
The Nigerian position was presented against a global backdrop in which the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that nine nuclear-armed states collectively possessed about 12,187 nuclear warheads at the beginning of 2026. About 9,745 were in military stockpiles, including an estimated 4,012 deployed with operational forces. Between 2,100 and 2,200 deployed warheads were assessed to be maintained on high operational alert.
The United Nations said the September 29 meeting was part of its longstanding effort to advance nuclear disarmament and described global nuclear disarmament as the organisation’s highest disarmament priority.
The meeting also came at a particularly sensitive point for the international arms-control system. The President of the 81st UN General Assembly, Khalilur Rahman, said in his remarks that the global nuclear inventory remained above 12,000 warheads and warned that new technologies, including artificial intelligence and advanced delivery systems, were creating additional uncertainty around nuclear command, control and decision-making.
For Nigeria, the latest declaration represents a continuation of its stated policy of supporting nuclear disarmament while maintaining that nuclear technology can be used for peaceful purposes.
Nigeria’s Position at the UN
Speaking at the high-level meeting, Ibrahim said Nigeria neither possesses nuclear weapons nor has pursued a nuclear-weapons programme.
He said the country’s security does not depend on nuclear weapons and argued that lasting international security should instead be supported by dialogue, international law and multilateral cooperation.
The Nigerian envoy also conveyed the administration’s call for stronger international action against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
According to Nigeria’s statement as reported by Channels Television, President Bola Tinubu urged the UN Security Council to provide leadership in enforcing the principles of the UN Charter, including through sanctions against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, while advancing the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.
The Nigerian position is consistent with statements made by Ibrahim earlier in September.
At a previous General Assembly session, he said Nigeria had no nuclear weapons or weapons-of-mass-destruction programme and that the country's nuclear activities were intended for peaceful purposes. He also said the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission oversees nuclear activities in the country.
The September 29 intervention therefore did not represent a new decision by Nigeria to abandon a nuclear programme. Instead, it reaffirmed a position the country has been expressing in international forums.
Why the Issue Has Returned to the Centre of Global Debate
The renewed focus on nuclear weapons comes as the international arms-control environment faces several pressures.
SIPRI's 2026 assessment says all nine nuclear-armed states continued to modernise their arsenals during 2025, with most deploying new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable systems.
The nine states identified by SIPRI are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
SIPRI estimates that the global inventory stood at 12,187 warheads in January 2026.
Of these, about 9,745 were in military stockpiles considered potentially available for use.
The organisation estimated that 4,012 warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft, while the remainder of the military stockpile was held in central storage.
The figures are estimates rather than official inventories published by every nuclear-armed state.
SIPRI says its nuclear-weapons assessments rely on publicly available information, including government documents, parliamentary publications, official statements, media reports and technical analysis. The institute notes that secrecy surrounding nuclear arsenals means precise numbers cannot always be established independently.
That limitation is important when discussing the global nuclear balance.
The exact number of weapons held by individual states is not fully transparent, but independent research organisations broadly agree that thousands of nuclear warheads remain in existence.
The Nine Nuclear-Armed States
The United States and Russia continue to possess by far the largest nuclear arsenals.
SIPRI's January 2026 estimates put the two countries' combined inventories at roughly 86 per cent of the world's total.
The United States and Russia each maintain large numbers of deployed and stored weapons, alongside extensive programmes to modernise delivery systems and warheads.
China's arsenal has also expanded.
SIPRI estimated that China's nuclear inventory increased from approximately 600 warheads to up to 620 during 2025.
India and Pakistan also maintain nuclear arsenals, while France, the United Kingdom, Israel and North Korea possess smaller inventories.
The distribution is uneven, but the strategic significance of the weapons extends beyond their numerical totals.
Nuclear weapons affect international diplomacy, military planning, crisis management and relationships between nuclear-armed states and their allies.
The possibility of escalation is one of the reasons nuclear risk remains a major subject at the United Nations.
The United Nations' Warning
At the September 29 General Assembly meeting, UN General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman described the continuing existence of nuclear weapons as an unresolved global danger.
He pointed to the estimated 12,000-plus warheads worldwide and highlighted the number believed to be maintained at high operational readiness.
He also referred to developments in artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities and advanced delivery systems as factors that could add uncertainty to nuclear decision-making.
The concern is not limited to deliberate nuclear attacks.
International arms-control discussions also focus on accidental launches, miscalculations, technical failures, misunderstandings and rapid escalation during conventional conflicts.
When weapons can be launched quickly, decision-makers may have only a limited period to interpret information and determine whether an apparent threat is genuine.
New technologies can potentially improve warning and command systems, but they can also introduce new uncertainties.
That is why the United Nations has increasingly linked nuclear risk discussions with technological developments.
The End of New START
One of the most significant recent developments in the nuclear arms-control environment was the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, commonly known as New START.
The treaty was a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia that placed limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
The President of the UN General Assembly said in his September 29 address that New START expired on February 5, 2026, without a successor framework.
He described the development as significant because it left the United States and Russia without binding limits on their strategic nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972.
The loss of such limits does not mean that the two countries immediately increase their arsenals.
Rather, it removes a formal framework that had placed constraints on certain categories of strategic nuclear weapons.
Arms-control agreements also provide mechanisms for transparency, verification and predictability.
Without them, governments and analysts can face greater uncertainty about future force levels and deployments.
That is one reason the expiration of New START has been repeatedly cited in international discussions about the future of nuclear risk management.
The NPT Remains Central
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, known as the NPT, remains at the centre of the international nuclear regime.
The treaty has three broad pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, advancing nuclear disarmament, and promoting cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The United Nations describes the NPT as the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, advance disarmament and promote peaceful nuclear cooperation.
The treaty also recognises the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in verification and safeguards.
For countries such as Nigeria, the distinction between nuclear weapons and peaceful nuclear technology is important.
Nuclear science has applications in medicine, agriculture, energy research, industry and other areas.
A country's commitment to non-proliferation therefore does not require abandoning peaceful nuclear research.
Nigeria has repeatedly said its nuclear-related activities are intended for peaceful purposes and are overseen through national regulatory institutions.
The country's latest statement at the UN reinforces that distinction.
Nigeria and Peaceful Nuclear Technology
Nigeria has developed a nuclear programme focused on peaceful applications rather than nuclear weapons.
The Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission is responsible for coordinating the country's nuclear energy development activities.
Nigeria has also worked with international organisations and other countries on nuclear technology, safeguards and peaceful applications.
The country's position is consistent with its participation in international non-proliferation arrangements.
Earlier this month, Ibrahim said Nigeria's nuclear programme was not aimed at developing weapons and that the country remained committed to international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
That distinction is particularly relevant for developing countries.
Nuclear technology can be used for medical diagnosis and treatment, food and agricultural research, industrial applications and scientific research.
The challenge for international institutions is therefore not simply to restrict dangerous military applications but also to maintain access to legitimate peaceful uses of nuclear science.
The NPT framework attempts to balance those objectives.
Africa's Nuclear-Free-Zone Framework
Nigeria's position also reflects the wider African nuclear policy framework.
Africa is covered by the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, commonly known as the Treaty of Pelindaba.
The treaty establishes the continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone and prohibits participating states from developing, acquiring, possessing or testing nuclear weapons.
Nigeria has been part of the African effort to maintain the continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
The policy has particular significance because Africa has historically faced concerns involving the spread of weapons of mass destruction while also seeking greater access to peaceful nuclear technology.
The continent therefore occupies a distinctive position in global disarmament discussions.
African states generally participate in the international non-proliferation system while calling for progress toward universal disarmament.
Nigeria's latest intervention at the UN fits within that broader diplomatic position.
Why Nigeria's Statement Matters Internationally
Nigeria is not a nuclear-armed state and does not possess a strategic nuclear arsenal.
Its influence in nuclear discussions therefore comes primarily through diplomacy, multilateral institutions and participation in international treaties.
As Africa's largest country by population and one of the continent's major diplomatic actors, Nigeria regularly participates in UN discussions involving international peace and security.
The country's Permanent Representative has also taken on responsibilities within the General Assembly system.
Ibrahim was elected chairman of the General Assembly's Fifth Committee earlier in 2026, giving a Nigerian diplomat responsibility for the committee dealing with administrative and budgetary matters.
That role is separate from nuclear disarmament, but it reflects Nigeria's broader participation in UN affairs.
At the September nuclear meeting, however, the issue before the Assembly was specifically disarmament.
Nigeria's intervention was therefore part of a larger debate involving countries with very different security doctrines and positions on nuclear deterrence.
The Deterrence Debate
One of the central disagreements in global nuclear policy concerns the concept of nuclear deterrence.
Nuclear-armed states and some of their allies argue that nuclear weapons can discourage major attacks by making the potential consequences of aggression unacceptable.
Other governments argue that reliance on nuclear deterrence perpetuates risks associated with accidental use, escalation, proliferation and humanitarian consequences.
Nigeria's September 29 position falls on the disarmament side of that international debate.
Ibrahim said Nigeria does not regard nuclear weapons as necessary for its national security and called for their complete elimination.
That is a description of Nigeria's stated diplomatic position rather than a judgment on the broader deterrence debate.
The nuclear-armed states continue to maintain their arsenals, while international institutions continue to debate how disarmament can be achieved alongside the security concerns cited by nuclear-armed governments.
A Changing Strategic Environment
The nuclear debate is taking place against a backdrop of broader geopolitical tensions.
Wars involving states connected to nuclear powers, disputes involving military alliances and growing competition among major powers have increased international attention to escalation risks.
SIPRI said in its 2026 assessment that the risks surrounding nuclear weapons were increasing because of technological advances, weakened arms-control arrangements and heightened geopolitical tensions.
The institute also noted that all nine nuclear-armed states continued to modernise their arsenals during 2025.
Modernisation can involve replacing older delivery systems, developing new missiles or aircraft, improving command systems and upgrading existing warheads.
Governments generally describe such programmes in terms of maintaining or improving national security.
Critics of nuclear modernisation argue that continuing investment can encourage further arms competition.
The international debate remains unresolved.
Russia-NATO Tensions Add to Concerns
The latest nuclear debate also coincides with renewed tensions between Russia and NATO.
On September 30, Reuters reported that Russia issued a nuclear warning in the context of tensions surrounding Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania.
Moscow accused NATO of pursuing actions that could risk direct confrontation, while NATO said its posture was defensive and rejected the allegation of aggressive intent.
The episode illustrates why nuclear rhetoric continues to attract international attention.
Even when governments do not intend to use nuclear weapons, statements made during military crises can affect perceptions among opposing governments and the public.
The possibility of misinterpretation is one of the reasons international institutions advocate communication channels, transparency and crisis-management mechanisms.
Nigeria's emphasis on dialogue and multilateral cooperation therefore comes within a wider international effort to reduce the risks associated with military confrontation.
North Korea and the Nuclear Question
North Korea is another major element of the current nuclear debate.
Reuters reported on September 24 that North Korea rejected international calls to halt nuclear testing and described its nuclear status as irreversible.
The statement followed calls by the Friends of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty for North Korea to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and refrain from nuclear testing.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or CTBT, seeks to prohibit nuclear weapon test explosions and other nuclear explosions.
Although the treaty has established a strong international norm against nuclear testing, it has not entered into force because the required ratifications have not all been completed.
The continued existence of nuclear arsenals, combined with disputes over testing and modernisation, means that the international nuclear framework remains incomplete.
The CTBT and Nigeria's Position
Nigeria has consistently supported the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
The country's diplomatic position includes support for stronger international controls on nuclear testing and for measures designed to prevent proliferation.
The treaty is important because nuclear testing allows states to develop and validate nuclear weapons technologies.
A global prohibition on testing is therefore intended to make the development of new nuclear weapons more difficult.
However, enforcement depends on international cooperation and the treaty's entry into force.
The UN General Assembly President used his September 29 remarks to urge countries that have not yet signed or ratified the CTBT to do so, while calling on all states to maintain the existing moratorium on nuclear-weapons test explosions.
Nigeria's position is consistent with that appeal.
The Humanitarian Dimension
The argument for nuclear disarmament also rests heavily on the potential humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
A nuclear detonation can cause immediate destruction, burns and radiation exposure, while longer-term effects can include environmental contamination and public-health consequences.
The scale of the potential damage is one reason nuclear weapons are treated differently from conventional military systems under international diplomacy.
The United Nations has repeatedly emphasised that nuclear weapons have consequences that extend beyond the territory where they are used.
The humanitarian argument is also relevant to countries that do not possess nuclear weapons.
A nuclear conflict between other states could affect food systems, international trade, financial markets, migration patterns and the global environment.
The consequences would therefore not necessarily be confined to the countries directly involved.
For Nigeria and other non-nuclear states, international nuclear policy is consequently a security and development issue as well as a disarmament issue.
The Role of Verification
Calls for nuclear disarmament raise an immediate technical question: how can governments verify that weapons have actually been dismantled?
Verification is central to arms-control diplomacy.
The International Atomic Energy Agency plays a major role in nuclear safeguards, particularly in verifying that declared civilian nuclear materials are not diverted toward weapons programmes.
Arms-reduction agreements can also contain detailed verification mechanisms involving inspections, data exchanges and monitoring.
The United Nations General Assembly President said the IAEA should receive the cooperation, access and resources required to perform its safeguards and verification responsibilities effectively.
For any future nuclear-disarmament agreement to be credible, verification would be essential.
States would need confidence that commitments made by other governments were being implemented.
That requirement makes nuclear disarmament considerably more complex than simply announcing a reduction in weapons.
The Technology Challenge
Technology is increasingly part of the nuclear debate.
Artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, satellite systems, hypersonic weapons and other advanced technologies can influence how governments detect and respond to potential threats.
The UN General Assembly President specifically identified AI and cyber capabilities as technologies that can introduce additional uncertainty into nuclear command and decision-making.
AI could potentially improve early-warning analysis by processing large quantities of information rapidly.
But the same technology could also create risks if automated systems misinterpret data or if decision-makers rely excessively on machine-generated assessments during a crisis.
Cyberattacks present another challenge.
A hostile actor attempting to interfere with military networks could create uncertainty about whether a detected event was genuine or the result of manipulation.
As nuclear systems become more technologically sophisticated, international discussions are therefore increasingly concerned not only with weapons themselves but also with the digital systems surrounding them.
The Cost of Nuclear Arsenals
Nuclear weapons also have significant financial implications.
Maintaining nuclear arsenals involves spending on warheads, missiles, submarines, aircraft, command systems, security infrastructure and personnel.
SIPRI has highlighted the continuing modernisation of nuclear arsenals by all nine nuclear-armed states.
The United Nations has argued that global military spending also competes with resources needed for development.
The General Assembly President noted that global military expenditure reached nearly $3 trillion in 2025, while calling attention to the development implications of sustained military spending.
Nigeria's position links disarmament to broader international security and development concerns.
For developing countries, resources allocated to military systems can be part of a wider debate over competing national priorities.
At the same time, nuclear-armed states generally argue that defence spending reflects their assessment of national security requirements.
The debate therefore involves both security calculations and questions about economic priorities.
What Happens Next?
Nigeria's September 29 intervention does not itself create a new international treaty or impose new restrictions on nuclear-armed states.
The United Nations General Assembly can provide a forum for diplomatic discussion, resolutions and international commitments, but the implementation of arms-control agreements ultimately depends on states.
Nigeria's immediate diplomatic position is clear: it wants the international community to continue moving toward complete nuclear disarmament and stronger controls on proliferation.
The wider international system faces a more difficult task.
Governments must address the absence of a successor to New START, disagreements over nuclear doctrines, concerns about modernisation and the continuing failure of the CTBT to enter into force.
They must also deal with new technological risks.
The UN has urged states to restore dialogue and strengthen what it describes as the guardrails intended to prevent nuclear escalation.
A Wider African Perspective
For African countries, nuclear disarmament remains linked to the continent's established nuclear-weapon-free-zone policy.
African governments have generally maintained that the continent should remain free of nuclear weapons while retaining the right to use nuclear technology peacefully.
Nigeria's latest statement reinforces that approach.
The country's position also reflects a broader concern among non-nuclear states that international security arrangements should not permanently divide the world between countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons and countries expected never to acquire them.
At the same time, nuclear-armed states continue to argue that their security circumstances require nuclear capabilities.
Bridging those positions is one of the central challenges facing international disarmament diplomacy.
No Immediate End to the Nuclear Era
Despite repeated international calls for disarmament, there is currently no indication that the world's nuclear arsenals will disappear quickly.
SIPRI's 2026 assessment shows that nuclear-armed states continue to modernise their forces.
The organisation also estimates that more than 12,000 nuclear warheads remain in global inventories.
The overall number has declined dramatically from Cold War-era levels, but SIPRI says the pace of dismantlement has slowed and military stockpiles are again increasing.
That creates a difficult contradiction.
The world has substantially fewer nuclear weapons than during the Cold War, but the remaining arsenals remain extremely destructive and several states are investing in new systems.
The international community therefore faces a choice between maintaining existing arrangements, developing new arms-control frameworks or allowing further erosion of restrictions.
Nigeria has made clear where its own diplomatic preference lies: toward eventual elimination.
Nigeria's Message to the International Community
The significance of Nigeria's latest intervention lies partly in its consistency.
Nigeria is not calling for the country itself to acquire nuclear weapons.
It is instead reaffirming that it does not possess them, does not intend to pursue them and supports international efforts toward their elimination.
That position has been expressed at the UN during previous sessions as well as during the latest high-level meeting.
The September 29 statement places Nigeria among the non-nuclear states pressing for progress on global disarmament.
It also allows Nigeria to emphasise its support for peaceful nuclear technology while opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The country's message is therefore twofold: nuclear science can have peaceful applications, but nuclear weapons should not remain a permanent feature of international security.
The Global Challenge Ahead
The coming years will determine whether the current international nuclear system can be strengthened.
The expiration of New START has removed an important bilateral arms-control framework between the world's two largest nuclear powers.
The failure of recent diplomatic processes to produce broader consensus has increased uncertainty.
Nuclear-armed states continue to modernise their arsenals.
New technologies are introducing additional complications.
Regional conflicts and military tensions can create circumstances in which nuclear threats or warnings become part of political communication.
Against that backdrop, the UN continues to promote dialogue, transparency, verification and disarmament.
Nigeria has joined that call through its latest intervention.
For Nigeria, the issue is also tied to its broader participation in international diplomacy and its long-standing support for Africa's nuclear-weapon-free status.
The Road to Disarmament
The road from political declarations to actual nuclear disarmament is long.
It requires agreements between governments with different security priorities.
It requires verification systems capable of establishing whether commitments are being honoured.
It requires mechanisms for handling disputes.
It requires safeguards for peaceful nuclear technology.
And it requires confidence that reductions by one country will not leave it exposed to another country's strategic advantage.
Those conditions explain why nuclear disarmament has remained one of the most difficult issues on the international agenda for decades.
The United Nations' latest high-level meeting did not resolve those differences.
But it placed them once again at the centre of international discussion.
For Nigeria, the position presented by Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim is that national and global security should not depend on nuclear weapons and that the international community should work toward their complete elimination.
The wider international picture is more complicated.
The nine nuclear-armed states continue to possess thousands of weapons, and several are modernising their arsenals.
The UN estimates that more than 12,000 warheads remain globally, while SIPRI's research indicates that thousands are deployed or maintained for potential military use.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply to restate the objective of disarmament.
It is to create the diplomatic, legal, technical and security conditions under which nuclear-armed governments can make verifiable reductions without believing that doing so would leave them vulnerable.
Nigeria's latest intervention adds its voice to that continuing international debate.
As the global community enters another period of uncertainty over arms control, the question before governments is increasingly focused on whether existing safeguards can be strengthened and whether a new generation of agreements can reduce the risks associated with thousands of nuclear weapons.
Nigeria has made its position clear at the United Nations.
The country says it does not possess nuclear weapons, does not intend to pursue them and supports their total elimination.
The international system now faces the much larger task of determining how that objective can be translated from diplomatic declarations into verifiable action.
Comments
Post a Comment