A Declaration for the Survival of Humanity
Seventy years ago, two of the greatest minds of the twentieth century issued a warning. They had lived through two world wars, witnessed the birth of nuclear weapons, and looked clearly at what lay ahead. Their conclusion was simple, and it remains unanswered:
We have not chosen. We have delayed, deflected, and pretended the question away. We have built more weapons, sold them to more governments, and told ourselves that deterrence is the same as safety. It is not. Deterrence is a temporary arrangement between human beings under conditions of extreme stress, and human beings fail.
The weapons still exist. The logic of escalation still operates. The institutions built to prevent catastrophic conflict are weakened, underfunded, and ignored. And the window for action narrows.
This is a manifesto. It is a statement of what we believe, what we demand, and what we will do. It is addressed to governments, to institutions, to scientists and engineers, to citizens — and to anyone who has decided that the future of humanity is worth fighting for.
We call it Disarm or Die. Not as a slogan. As a factual description of the choice before us.
We begin with facts, because this is not a matter of opinion.
Thousands of warheads are deployed and ready to launch. A single exchange between nuclear-armed states would produce a nuclear winter affecting global food supply for years. The risk of use by accident, miscalculation, or deliberate decision is documented, recurring, and increasing.
Decades of painstaking treaty-building are being dismantled. Arsenals are being modernised. New domains — cyber, space, hypersonic — are being weaponised without agreement. The world is less constrained today than at any point since the end of the Cold War.
Global military spending now exceeds two trillion dollars annually. These resources — diverted from health, education, climate, and infrastructure — represent a permanent tax on human progress paid to maintain the capacity for human destruction.
No major nuclear-armed government has a credible disarmament programme. The institutions that exist to manage these risks are systematically starved of authority, resources, and political support. This is a choice, not a fact of nature. And it can be reversed.
Every year of inaction is a year in which the probability of catastrophic use accumulates. The mathematics of risk compound over decades. We do not have indefinite time to decide. The decision to delay is itself a decision.
These are not aspirations. They are convictions.
War is not a natural fact. It is a failure of political imagination, institutional capacity, and human will. History contains long periods of peace, successful disarmament, and negotiated resolution of conflicts that appeared intractable. The claim that war is permanent is not realism. It is an ideology that serves those who profit from conflict.
Nuclear deterrence rests on the assumption that all actors will behave rationally under conditions of extreme stress, with perfect information, indefinitely. This assumption has already been violated multiple times and has been preserved from catastrophe by luck as much as design. A strategy whose failure mode is civilisational destruction is not a strategy. It is a gamble with other people's lives.
Disarmament has happened before. Chemical weapons have been abolished under international law. Biological weapons have been prohibited. Regional nuclear-free zones exist and function. The claim that nuclear disarmament is impossible is contradicted by history and by the continued existence of states that have renounced nuclear weapons and flourished without them.
The permanent war economy — characterised by opaque procurement, revolving doors between government and the arms industry, and security classifications that prevent public scrutiny — is structurally hostile to democratic accountability. You cannot have a functioning democracy and a permanent, unaccountable military-industrial complex. The choice between them must eventually be made.
We are not making a political argument. We are making a factual one. The continuation of the current trajectory — increasing militarisation, collapsing arms control, rising geopolitical tension, and the normalisation of nuclear rhetoric — increases the probability of civilisational catastrophe. That probability is not zero. It is not small. And it is within human power to reduce it.
We address these demands to governments, to international institutions, to the scientific and engineering communities, and to the political class that has inherited the world Russell and Einstein warned about.
Immediate recommitment to nuclear disarmament as a stated, timetabled, and verifiable policy objective — not a distant aspiration but a concrete programme with accountable milestones.
Restoration and strengthening of arms control treaties — recommitment to existing frameworks and negotiation of new agreements covering emerging domains including cyber weapons, hypersonic delivery systems, and autonomous weapons.
Immediate reduction in nuclear alert status — removing weapons from hair-trigger readiness as a first step that reduces the risk of accidental use without requiring full disarmament agreements.
Democratic accountability for military spending — full public transparency in defence procurement, the ending of revolving-door relationships between government and the arms industry, and parliamentary or congressional oversight with genuine teeth.
Redirection of military resources — a commitment to progressively redirect military expenditure toward the threats that actually face humanity: climate breakdown, pandemic preparedness, global poverty, and the governance of emerging technologies.
Recognition of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — nuclear-armed states and their allies should engage constructively with the TPNW as the legitimate expression of the international community's desire to eliminate these weapons.
A manifesto without commitment is a document. We intend to be a movement.
The technical and strategic case for disarmament is not widely known. We will produce educational material, public events, documentary work, and media engagement that makes the reality of nuclear risk and the feasibility of disarmament part of mainstream public consciousness.
We will engage with elected representatives, political parties, and institutions at every level to place disarmament on the political agenda. We will support candidates who take disarmament seriously and challenge those who do not. We will use the referendum mechanisms of United Commons to demonstrate that citizens support disarmament and demand action.
Disarm or Die is not a single organisation. It is a declaration. We invite scientists, engineers, medical professionals, educators, artists, faith communities, trade unions, and civil society organisations to associate with this declaration and act on its principles in their own spheres.
Every time nuclear weapons are presented as a normal, permanent, and inevitable feature of international politics, we will challenge that framing. Every time an arms deal is presented as a technical transaction rather than a moral choice, we will name what it is. Every time escalatory rhetoric is treated as statesmanship, we will say clearly what the consequences of escalation are.
Through the United Commons platform, we will submit disarmament proposals to direct democratic vote, demonstrate public support, and create a record of democratic preference that governments cannot indefinitely ignore. The voice of citizens on questions of war and peace has been systematically excluded from the institutions that make those decisions. We will build new institutions that include it.
We are asking you to sign your name to a simple proposition: that humanity's survival matters more than any state's military advantage, that the weapons that threaten everyone belong to no one, and that the choice between disarmament and destruction is one that every living person has a right and a responsibility to make.
We are not asking you to trust governments to do this without pressure. They will not. We are asking you to be the pressure.
We are not asking for a comfortable, incremental adjustment to the existing order. We are asking for a fundamental change in the relationship between human beings and the instruments of their own destruction.
We are asking because the alternative — continued inaction, continued escalation, continued faith that deterrence will hold indefinitely — is a choice too. It is a choice to gamble with civilisation. And we refuse to make it quietly.
Add your name to the declaration
Sign the Declaration →