Nuclear weapons: the mere mention is enough to send a chill down the spine. For many of us who grew up during the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war was a constant, if unspoken, presence.
Fast forward to today, and you might think the world has moved on. But as it turns out, the risks are still very real—and, in some ways, more complex than ever.
That’s why a new Australian-led push to rewrite the rules around nuclear launches is making waves on the global stage.
At the heart of this movement is a call for international rules and a global code of conduct to prevent accidental or unlawful nuclear launches—an idea that could have profound implications for global security.
Why now? The world’s nuclear tensions are heating up
Recent years have seen a worrying uptick in nuclear posturing and rhetoric, especially in hotspots like the Middle East and South Asia.
With more countries flexing their nuclear muscles, the risk of a catastrophic mistake—or a deliberate escalation—has never been higher.
Professor Emily Crawford from the University of Sydney Law School, who led the new study, warns that urgent action is needed.
‘Increasing political tensions in declared and non-declared nuclear states have brought back into sharp focus the need to better regulate nuclear weapons,’ she says.
But it’s not just the politics that are worrying. The study highlights a dangerous cocktail of ageing nuclear infrastructure, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), and a lack of global cooperation.
Together, these factors create what Professor Crawford calls ‘an unstable and dangerous landscape’.
How do nuclear launch systems actually work?
Let’s break it down. Countries with nuclear weapons rely on what’s known as NC3 systems—nuclear command, control, and communications.
Think of NC3 as the central nervous system of a country’s nuclear arsenal. It’s the web of people, policies, and technologies that make sure nuclear weapons are only used (if ever) under the strictest conditions.
‘It’s the framework that governs the process that, as its ultimate end product, results in the launch of a nuclear weapon,’ Professor Crawford explains.
‘It encompasses the entire chain from when a decision is made to launch a nuclear weapon to the actual launch.’
But here’s the catch: every country does things a little differently. Some have more checks and balances than others.
And in many cases, the technology underpinning these systems is decades old—hardly reassuring in an age of cyberattacks and AI-driven disinformation.
The risks: Ageing tech, AI, and human error
You might be surprised to learn that some nuclear systems are still running on technology from the 1970s and 80s.
In a world where hackers can breach major corporations and AI can mimic official communications, that’s a recipe for disaster.
‘In a world where AI tools can mimic official communications and cyber incursions can scramble critical infrastructure, the possibility of a false alarm triggering an escalation is no longer far-fetched,’ Professor Crawford warns.
And it’s not just about technology. Human error, miscommunication, or even a rogue actor could set off a chain reaction with unthinkable consequences.
The infamous 1983 incident, when a Soviet officer named Stanislav Petrov correctly judged a false alarm and averted nuclear war, is a sobering reminder of how close we’ve come before.
Is an accidental launch really possible?
Unfortunately, yes. While NC3 systems are designed to prevent accidental or unlawful launches, they’re not foolproof.
Outdated hardware, unclear chains of command, and the growing threat of cyberattacks all increase the risk.
And as Professor Crawford points out, there’s currently no binding international legal standard governing how nuclear-armed states design or operate their NC3 systems. That’s a glaring gap in global security.
Australia’s proposal: A global code of conduct
So, what’s the solution? Professor Crawford’s study calls for an international code of conduct—a set of universal rules that all nuclear-armed countries would agree to follow. Key recommendations include:
- Ensuring an accountable chain of command for any nuclear launch decision
- Guaranteeing that no single person can launch a nuclear weapon on their own
- Keeping AI out of nuclear launch decisions
- Committing to a ‘no first strike’ policy (never using nuclear weapons offensively unless attacked first)
This could be modelled on existing frameworks like the Missile Technology Control Regime, which has successfully limited the spread of missile technology since the 1980s.
Are countries likely to agree?
Here’s where things get tricky. While many countries already follow some of these rules—China and India, for example, have a ‘no first use’ policy, and France requires two people to authorise a launch—not all nations are on board.
Political differences and strategic interests mean that universal agreement won’t be easy.
Still, Professor Crawford is optimistic. ‘Because of the potentially devastating impacts of an accidental or unauthorised launch, most states have been very pragmatic about embracing guidelines that ensure that lines of communication remain open [such as nuclear hotlines] and that measures should exist to prevent unnecessary escalation of hostilities where nuclear weapons are in the mix,’ she says.
Why should Australians care?
You might be wondering: what does all this have to do with us here in Australia? The answer is simple.
Nuclear war doesn’t respect borders. Even a ‘limited’ exchange could have catastrophic global consequences, from radioactive fallout to climate disruption and economic chaos.
Australia, as a respected middle power with a strong tradition of international diplomacy, is well-placed to lead the charge for sensible, pragmatic reforms.
By pushing for a global code of conduct, we’re not just protecting ourselves—we’re helping to make the world a safer place for everyone.
What can you do?
While most of us won’t be sitting at the nuclear launch console anytime soon (thank goodness!), we can still play a part.
Stay informed, support organisations that promote nuclear disarmament, and encourage our leaders to keep pushing for international cooperation.
And of course, we’d love to hear your thoughts. Do you think a global code of conduct for nuclear weapons is realistic? Have you lived through moments of nuclear tension in the past? How do you feel about Australia taking a leading role in this debate? Share your stories and opinions in the comments below—let’s keep the conversation going!
Also read: Australians choose batteries over nuclear after election fought on energy
I hope that Professor Crawford did this study and proposal pro bono. It will have absolutely no influence in the international sphere of political and military power.
I was one who was significantly concerned by the MAD scenario that was thrust onto us continuously from the 1950’s to the 1980’s.
When “The Wall” came down and we could evaluate the real threat, it was obvious that it was never as great as portrayed. None of the nuclear weapons powers actually had delivery systems that could be confident of better than a 10% success rate and as the atmospheric detonation of over 1,000 atomic bombs through the 1940’s to the 1970’s showed, the adverse effects were difficult to show.
Australia has never been and continues not to be a military target of interest to any nuclear armed country. If it were, there remain only two targets of strategic interest and neither are in areas that would cause any real social impact. (Atomic weapons and their delivery systems are very expensive items and all countries do consider “bang for their buck” before unleashing their personal Armageddon on their enemies. Australia has no enemies that see us worthy of such expenditure.)
There are no countries of interest in the Southern Hemisphere and as atmospheric currents show, there is very little particle spread in the levels that the fallout that would be circulating in and across the Equatorial latitudes.
Any actual atomic exchange would be very localised and as Japan demonstrated, there would be minimal long term effects and life would go on for most of the world as if little had happened.