The Problem · 2026
Governments are not doing enough. The evidence is clear, the moral case is simple, and the cost of inaction is civilisational. This page sets out what is wrong, why it persists, and what must change.
In every democratic society, the legitimacy of government rests on a single principle: the consent of the governed. Yet on the most consequential decisions — whether to wage war, whether to build weapons, whether to pursue armament over peace — the governed are rarely, if ever, asked.
Few citizens vote for war. Fewer still vote for arms races, military expansion, or the redirection of public wealth toward destruction. These decisions are made by governments, by cabinets, by defence establishments, by the networks of interest that surround them — and their consequences fall on citizens, on soldiers, on the children of people who were never consulted.
This is not democracy. It is the appearance of democracy with the substance removed from the questions that matter most.
"Wars are decided by governments, but their consequences fall upon citizens and future generations who rarely consent to them."
The technological systems that now make war possible — nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger alert, autonomous weapons capable of making lethal decisions without human input, AI systems integrated into military planning — operate at a speed and scale that places them entirely outside the realm of meaningful democratic oversight. No parliament debates a nuclear launch. No citizen votes on the deployment of a lethal autonomous system.
The gap between what citizens want and what governments do is not an accident. It is a structural feature of systems that have been built, over decades, to concentrate the most dangerous decisions in the fewest possible hands.
It has taken humanity approximately five thousand years of recorded warfare to kill an estimated one billion people through armed conflict — a figure drawn from compiled war death tolls spanning documented history, from the earliest Mesopotamian conflicts to the present day, incorporating both direct combat deaths and the famine and disease that wars reliably produce in their wake.
One billion human lives. Five millennia. The full sweep of recorded civilisation.
"The weapons now in existence could achieve that in an afternoon.
This is not rhetoric. It is arithmetic."
That is the discontinuity that changes everything. Every previous chapter of human violence — however catastrophic — operated within limits imposed by technology, geography, and time. Wars took years. Destruction was local. Societies could survive, recover, rebuild.
Nuclear weapons eliminate those limits entirely. A serious exchange between two major nuclear powers would kill hundreds of millions within hours, and trigger the agricultural and ecological collapse — nuclear winter — that would threaten the survival of civilisation itself within weeks. The weapons do not merely scale up the damage of conventional war. They represent a categorical break from all previous human violence.
Add to this the autonomous weapons systems now under development — platforms capable of making lethal decisions without human oversight, at machine speed, across entire theatres simultaneously — and the AI systems being integrated into military planning at the highest levels. The direction of travel is toward conflict at a pace and scale that no human institution was designed to govern, and no democratic process was designed to stop.
The question DisarmOrDie asks is simple: knowing this, what is the rational response?
Sources: Wikipedia, List of wars by death toll (compiled ranges across all documented conflicts, ~570 million direct deaths); University of Maryland Center for International and Security Studies, Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century; Our World in Data, War and Peace (Max Roser et al.). The ~1 billion figure incorporates estimated indirect deaths from war-related famine and disease, and partial estimates for pre-literate and undocumented conflicts. All figures carry substantial uncertainty — serious scholarly estimates range from approximately 500 million to 2 billion. The argument does not depend on precision at the upper end. Even the conservative figure is sufficient.
The concept of war — organised, state-sanctioned mass killing — is an abomination. It is the deliberate destruction of human life, carried out not in the heat of individual passion but as a calculated act of institutional policy. It is industrialised murder, dressed in the language of strategy, national interest, and necessity.
We say plainly: war is morally indefensible. The very concept is abhorrent. Not merely its excesses, not merely its worst manifestations — but war itself, as a means of resolving disputes between states, as a tool of foreign policy, as an accepted feature of the international order.
"The concept of war is abhorrent. It must be made illegal under common law — and leaders who resort to it must face the full consequences."
We therefore make the following demands, without equivocation:
Every signatory state should make a binding legal commitment that war — as an instrument of national policy — is prohibited. This is not idealism. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 established this principle. It was abandoned, not disproved. The principle was correct and must be restored with teeth.
The decision to initiate armed conflict must carry criminal liability. Not merely in the abstract courts of history, but in the actual legal systems of every state. The act of committing a nation to war — outside of genuine self-defence — must be treated as what it is: a crime against the people who bear its consequences.
No leader should be able to commit their citizens to armed conflict and retire comfortably to a speaking circuit. Those who order wars that were not acts of genuine self-defence must be held personally, criminally accountable. The law that applies to citizens must apply to governments. Accountability is not optional.
Systems that make lethal decisions without meaningful human oversight are incompatible with any concept of legal or moral accountability. They remove the human from the decision to kill. They must be prohibited before they proliferate to a point at which prohibition becomes impossible.
Over two trillion dollars are spent on military capacity every year. This figure — representing a permanent diversion of public wealth into the machinery of destruction — is larger than the GDP of most nations on earth. It is drawn from the same public budgets that fund hospitals, schools, scientific research, infrastructure, and the conditions of civilised life.
This is not a natural law. It is a choice — made, repeatedly, by political systems that have been captured by the interests of those who profit from it. The military-industrial complex is not a metaphor. It is a network of commercial, political, and institutional interests that depends on the perpetuation of conflict for its revenues.
"The finances misspent on war belong to health, society, intellectual excellence, and a progressive future — not to a murderous hegemony."
Every pound spent on a weapons system is a pound not spent on a cancer ward, a school, a climate solution, a research programme, a social safety net. Every trillion spent on nuclear modernisation is a trillion not spent on the threats that actually face human beings: disease, poverty, climate breakdown, the challenges of building societies where people can flourish.
Public budgets must be redirected. Not gradually, not contingently, not subject to the permission of defence establishments — but as a deliberate, democratic choice to invest in life rather than in the capacity for destruction.
The problem is not individual leaders making bad decisions. The problem is not a temporary failure of political will that better leadership would correct. The problem is structural. The systems that produce war, that perpetuate arms races, that redirect public wealth into military capacity — these systems have their own logic, their own interests, their own momentum.
The arms industry is among the most profitable in the world. Its revenues depend on conflict, on insecurity, on the perpetuation of the belief that the next enemy requires a more expensive weapon than the last. This creates a structural incentive — embedded in the financial system, in lobbying, in revolving doors between government and industry — to maintain the conditions that generate profit from destruction.
Organisations built around the management of conflict develop institutional cultures, career structures, and budget dependencies that generate their own pressure for relevance. The peacetime military is an organisation whose purpose is the preparation for war. It will, rationally, advocate for the conditions under which its purpose seems necessary.
Electoral cycles reward postures that feel strong over policies that are wise. Security rhetoric is politically low-risk — it is always possible to claim that the threat warranted the response. Long-term thinking about disarmament, about the compounding risk of maintaining nuclear arsenals, about the slow catastrophe of redirecting human resources into destruction — this is politically difficult. The system punishes it.
The resources of civilisation — energy, land, critical infrastructure, the technological commons — are increasingly concentrated in private ownership serving private profit. This is not an abstract philosophical complaint. It is a practical observation about who controls the systems on which human life depends, and whose interests those systems are optimised to serve. Resources essential to human life and civilisational survival must be nationalised, removed from the profit motive, and governed as commons.
The changes required are not technical adjustments. They are fundamental reorientations of the relationship between citizens, governments, resources, and power. They follow directly from the evidence, and from any coherent commitment to the principle that human beings matter more than states, that life matters more than profit, and that the future belongs to everyone.
War must be outlawed under binding international and domestic law. States must commit, as a matter of legal obligation, to the resolution of disputes by means other than armed conflict. The Kellogg-Briand principle — that war is not a legitimate instrument of national policy — must be restored, codified, and enforced.
Political leaders who commit their nations to wars of aggression must face criminal accountability under common law. The immunity that political office confers must not extend to the decision to send other people's children to kill and be killed. Accountability for war must be real, personal, and unavoidable.
Public money must serve public purposes. Military budgets must be progressively, verifiably, and irreversibly redirected toward health, education, housing, scientific research, climate, and the foundations of a society in which people can flourish. This is not charity. It is the correct use of the public's money.
The resources on which civilised life depends — energy, water, critical minerals, essential infrastructure — must be removed from private profit and governed as public commons. Their management must be transparent, accountable, and oriented toward the collective good, not shareholder return. Resources belong to everyone.
The decisions that shape civilisation — on war, on weapons, on public budgets, on the governance of powerful technologies — must require and receive genuine democratic consent. This means new institutions of direct participation, not the periodic election of representatives who then decide unilaterally. Citizens must govern.
The measure of a civilisation is not its military capacity. It is the quality of life it sustains, the knowledge it produces, the fairness with which it distributes its wealth, and the care it extends to its most vulnerable members. A progressive society invests in minds, not missiles. In cooperation, not conquest.
These are not radical demands. They are the minimum requirements of a species that intends to survive. The choice between the world as it is and the world as it must become is a choice that every living person participates in — whether they know it or not.
Sign the Declaration → Read the Manifesto