Get Updates from the Nuclear Security Project

Discussion Guide

Thank you for watching the documentary Nuclear Tipping Point. The Nuclear Security Project produced the film to help build support for the urgent actions needed to reduce nuclear dangers.  This discussion guide offers some suggested questions, to raise with your group following the film, to help you better understand the complex issues raised in the documentary.

Nuclear Tipping Point discussion questions

  1. How likely is the continued spread of nuclear weapons and their use by a state or terrorist, if the nuclear status quo continues?
  2. How can the United States gain the support of other nations for the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical steps towards that goal?
  3. How can the United States and other nations address the nuclear threat posed by North Korea or Iran?
  4. What can be done to ensure that the United States and other nations are confident that states are fulfilling their nuclear-related agreements?
  5. What can be done to ensure that the expansion of civil nuclear energy does not lead to the further spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials?

Nuclear Tipping Point Study Guide

You may also want to use this study guide developed by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Stanford University.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Nuclear Security Project and Nuclear Tipping Point

1.  Does the Obama administration support the vision of and steps towards a world free of nuclear weapons?

President Obama has embraced both the vision of and steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. In his April 6 speech in Prague, the President stated "clearly and with conviction" America's commitment to seek a world without nuclear weapons.  In Prague, the President defined a trajectory for progress that includes many of the steps, including:

    • A new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians, one that will set the stage for further cuts, including all nuclear weapons states;
    • Achieving ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
    • A new Treaty that ends the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;
    • Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, with more resources for inspections and a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank; and
    • Securing vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years.

2. Who else is supporting the "Shultz-Perry-Kissinger-Nunn" initiative depicted in this film?

So far, the initiative has received the support of approximately two-thirds of the living former Secretaries of State and Defense and National Security Advisors.  In addition to Shultz, Perry, and Kissinger, this list includes:  Madeleine Albright, Richard V. Allen, James A. Baker III, Samuel R. Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Melvin Laird, Anthony Lake, Robert McFarlane, and Colin Powell.

Overseas, distinguished groups of former senior statesmen – including Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ministers of Defense – have emerged in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and the United Kingdom, all enthusiastically supporting the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and concrete actions towards that goal.  

There have also been important international conferences sponsored by the Norwegian and Italian governments in Oslo and Rome, each involving more than 100 leaders and experts from around the world, and each converging around the imperative of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies.

3.  Is there any evidence that any of the established nuclear powers would go along with this?

In 2007, the British government was the first to declare its support for the vision and steps initiative.  Since then, a number of leaders and governments have voiced their support, including Russian President Medvedev in a Joint Statement with President Obama issued in London. 

In September 2009, President Obama chaired a United Nations Security Council meeting with other heads of state on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament, which lead to a Security Council resolution endorsed by all five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China) affirming many of the steps towards and the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

4.  If achievement of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons has been unobtainable for over 50 years, why do you think it should or can be achieved now?

The vision remains essential, and is in our national interest; but the vision must be married to practical steps.  The Nuclear Security Project is an important, nonpartisan effort to do that.

The vision and practical steps go hand in hand:  without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent; and without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. 

5.   At a time when North Korea and Iran are advancing their nuclear programs, is this the right time to be advocating a vision to eliminate nuclear weapons?  Why should we believe there is any relationship between what the United States and Russia do with their nuclear weapons stockpiles and the actions of North Korea or Iran?

The 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) envisions the end of all nuclear weapons.  Every president of both parties has reaffirmed this commitment since Richard Nixon. 

What the Four are advocating is that a major campaign should be mounted to give this commitment credibility – through a series of agreed and urgent steps. 

Such an effort would help efforts to gain international support and cooperation for efforts to deal with North Korea and Iran.  In short:  we are not saying that if Russia and the United States set a shining example that Iran and North Korea will suddenly see the light and immediately abandon their nuclear programs.  That is not our point.  But we do believe that if we take this path, many more nations are likely to join us in a tough approach to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials and prevent catastrophic terrorism.

6.  Given that terrorists are likely to pursue their nuclear ambitions no matter what happens with the arsenals of existing nuclear powers, why does it make sense to work towards the abolition of nuclear weapons in states that have them?  Why would we be safer if terrorists were the only ones with nuclear weapons?

The strategy outlined here will greatly strengthen barriers against a terrorist group acquiring nuclear material or a nuclear weapon. 

Reducing nuclear inventories, eliminating tactical nuclear arms, and securing nuclear weapons and nuclear materials means there will be fewer weapons for terrorists to get their hands on, and better security around those remaining weapons and materials. 

Getting control of the uranium enrichment process and halting the production of fissile material for bombs will also reduce the stockpile of nuclear materials globally, reducing the risk that a terrorist group could ever get access to nuclear material for making a bomb.

Alternatively, if we continue down the path we are on now – that is, more nations with more nuclear weapons and more nuclear material around the globe – terrorists are much more likely to succeed in acquiring and using a nuclear bomb. 

7.  How can you envision any progress on these issues in regions where the combination of historical antagonisms and access to nuclear technology appear to be creating more, not fewer, states who will seek nuclear arms?

Progress can be envisioned, but it will take a greater diplomatic effort and greater international cooperation to reduce tensions, build confidence and resolve points of conflict.

In some cases, security assurances for giving up nuclear weapons might be part of the solution, as they were with Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus during the 1990s; in others, nuclear weapons free zones might be considered; and in others, long-standing disputes will need to be addressed.

8.  What has been done to reduce nuclear dangers?

Important progress has been made, including work under the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program in Russia and the other former Soviet Union states.  For example:

    • For the last ten years, the U.S. and Russia have been working together to recycle weapons-grade uranium from 10,000 dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into fuel used by American power plants to produce electricity.  Today just about half of America's nuclear power is generated by fuel derived from Russian nuclear warheads.
    • Ninety percent of Russian navy sites with nuclear materials have had cooperative security upgrades; and
    • Thousands of nuclear weapons experts are now gainfully employed in peaceful enterprises, reducing the risk that they would sell their knowledge to a rogue nation or terrorist organization.

9.  What is the single most important point or statement to take away from this initiative?

We are now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.  It will take bold U.S. leadership and international cooperation to pull the world back.  This initiative is an important, nonpartisan effort to outline a strategy for doing just that.  Shultz, Kissinger, Perry and Nunn are pursuing an approach to energize progress in this vital area by laying out a bold vision for a world free of the nuclear threat with practical steps for making progress towards that vision.  The two go hand in hand:  without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent; and without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. 

10. What can citizens do to support this effort?