Sue Miller’s comments on nuclear weapons convey both a sense of urgency and a chilling reality: “The last significant figures to engage seriously with this issue were Gordon Brown and Margaret Beckett.” Their efforts seem distant now, as Brown continues to advocate against poverty while Beckett serves as a baroness. However, their contributions to the discourse on nuclear disarmament feel more like distant memories than contemporary voices.
The Doomsday Clock, a symbolic indicator by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists representing the proximity of global catastrophe, currently stands at an alarming 85 seconds to midnight, a situation that has worsened with the ongoing conflict in Iran. Since the start of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has issued subtle threats regarding the “tactical” use of nuclear weapons. Additionally, its drone activities in NATO countries have intensified European fears, which, rather than prompting discussions on nuclear de-escalation or disarmament, seem to have led non-nuclear European nations to consider developing “nuclear latency,” or the capability to swiftly create nuclear weapons.
Among the nine nuclear-armed states, modernization seems to be the priority rather than risk mitigation. Most of these nations are part of the P5 group—China, the UK, Russia, the US, and France—who are nominally committed to non-proliferation. “Now we’re hearing discussions about nuclear weapons in space and hypersonic technology,” Lady Miller noted during our conversation from her home in Totnes, Devon. At 72, she has been a lifelong advocate against nuclear armament and serves as a patron of a new all-party parliamentary forum focused on global nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, which convened for the first time at the end of March. She is also a co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, an international organization that includes members from countries like Bangladesh, South Korea, Canada, Japan, and the European Parliament—nations with alarming nuclear neighbors, including the UK itself.
While Miller asserts that non-proliferation remains a stated goal, she points out a “slight doublespeak” in current policies. The original 1970 treaty primarily focused on reducing the number of nuclear weapons, which has become outdated; having fewer but more powerful weapons still constitutes a proliferation issue that poses a greater threat. Moreover, as detection of nuclear arms becomes more challenging, the risk of misidentifying other missiles as nuclear threats increases. “I initially believed that the danger of hypersonic weapons lay in their speed, but it turns out the real concern is their stealth,” she explained. “They’re significantly harder to detect.”
In the realm of nuclear states outside the P5, heightened tensions were evident during the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, which raised alarm in neighboring Bangladesh and should have heightened global concern. North Korea’s nuclear development also persisted last year. Miller noted, “We can discuss North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, but we’re often discouraged from addressing Israel’s nuclear capabilities.” China is the only country that maintains a no-first-use policy regarding nuclear weapons. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has highlighted a troubling lack of communication about strategic stability among nuclear rivals.
This situation reflects the risks that governments are intentionally creating. Miller referenced a Chatham House report that chronicles near-misses from the Cold War to the present, where potential disasters were averted due to individuals recognizing that an incident wasn’t an attack—one instance involved geese flying in formation. There have been many less dramatic, yet equally perilous, errors, such as misinterpreting a missile launch or misunderstanding a military drill. Some of these near-misses are simply categorized as “miscommunication.” Interestingly, a recommendation from the report’s authors three years ago was to enhance awareness of the consequences of nuclear weapons, a seemingly absurd oversight given the gravity of the topic.
In the 1980s, Miller was not yet involved in politics; instead, she managed a bookstore in Sherborne, Dorset. Her political journey began when she approached her MP, Paddy Ashdown, for assistance after her father disappeared in Turkey. Following his suggestion, she reluctantly decided to run for the district council as a Liberal Democrat, initially dismissing the idea as unappealing. However, after losing her first election, she succeeded in the next round. This period coincided with the arrival of the first US missiles at RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire, a significant moment in history that coincided with the early years of her daughter’s life. While she never camped at Greenham due to her child’s age, she did visit the site.
The geopolitical landscape was undergoing profound changes at that time. “Unexpected leaders, including Reagan and Thatcher, along with the Soviet Union, were making strides towards better treaties focused on limiting proliferation and discussing verification,” Miller reflected. “The world then was markedly different from what we face today.” The anxiety surrounding nuclear threats permeated popular culture throughout the 1980s, with one analysis counting over 100 songs about nuclear apocalypse.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament aimed for an ambitious goal: complete elimination of nuclear weapons rather than merely limiting them. Miller recognizes that such aspirations have faded significantly, stating, “Disarmament is no longer a priority; we now need to focus on reducing risks associated with nuclear arsenals.”
