A treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons has been adopted at the United Nations with the support of 122 countries. It will be formally signed at the General Assembly session in September and take effect 90 days after it has been ratified by at least 50 nations. The treaty may not produce immediate concrete results. But its significance as an antithesis to the idea of nuclear deterrence, which serves as the basis of development and possession of nuclear weapons by some countries, should not be dismissed.
There are no signs that nuclear weapons powers and countries under the United States' nuclear umbrella, including NATO members, South Korea and Australia, will join the treaty. The U.S., Britain and France issued a joint statement criticizing the treaty as ignoring the reality of the international security environment and declaring that they will not sign it. Japan — the only country in history to suffer nuclear attacks in warfare but is now under the U.S. nuclear umbrella — made it clear that it will not sign the treaty, either. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said the treaty is "not consistent with Japan's basic ways of thinking" on the issue and that Tokyo will instead pursue a framework that engages both nuclear weapons powers and non-nuclear weapons states.
Opponents of the treaty say that since there is no prospect of nations with nuclear arms joining the treaty, it will have no practical effects and will not lead to the reduction or abolition of nuclear arsenals even if it goes into force. But if they believe the treaty is a meaningless document, they are wrong.