Nuclear security is one of the most important issues of modern times, as the 2016 nuclear security summit in Washington showed (Malin & Roth, 2016). As Malin and Roth (2016) note, the international community has embarked on a possibly dangerous post-summit era, “in which nuclear security will probably receive less-regular high-level political attention than it has in recent years.” This means there is likely to be less cooperation, less communication, and less sharing of important information that nations can use to help develop a world in which nuclear security is a top issue. After all, according to Malin and Roth (2016), “there is still critical work to be done to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons or the materials needed to make them could end up in the hands of a terrorist organization such as the Islamic State.” One of the purposes of nuclear security is “to protect people, property, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation” (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2018). Cyber threats are a new issue to emerge in the field of nuclear security and for good reason: they represent an existential threat for the whole of the planet should nuclear weapons or technology be hacked by cyber terrorists. This paper will discuss the new era for nuclear security and what it means for the nations of the world going forward.
One of the biggest breakthroughs of the 2016 summit in Washington, D.C., was the agreement among the nations to support “a foundational and legally binding international nuclear security instrument” (Malin & Roth, 2016). This instrument would ensure that nuclear security principles, rules and regulations are put in place among all the signing nations. This support has been a long time coming: “after more than a decade, the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) reached the required number of ratifications to enter into force in May,” as Malin and Roth (2016) observe. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities, as the breakthrough amendment is now known, “could be a helpful tool for states to hold one another accountable for maintaining physical protection and strengthening norms” (Malin & Roth, 2016). In other words, it would provide the nations invested in nuclear security with a means of ensuring that all nations are adhering to the principles and regulations that will ensure security—and if they are not there will be ramifications and punishments. This is a big...…standard may be reached because there are far too many going concerns, potential risks and threats and possible negative outcomes that could result should such a standard not be reached in the near future (Malin & Roth, 2016). The tension between the U.S. and Russia over the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which is set to be terminated this year, is an example of just how serious and out of hand the situation can get when nations do not agree to work together.

Thus, the new era of nuclear security demands that the nuclear powers come together as one body to hash out their differences and engage in respectful, trusting dialogue so that a security standard and a means of overseeing adherence can be developed. The nuclear nations of the world today are too powerful and too dangerous not to engage in such a dialogue. The sooner the standard is achieved, the sooner the threat of nuclear war, nuclear theft, or nuclear destruction can be put behind all nations. Nuclear power is something that can advance the world further into the future in a positive manner, but it requires the mutual agreement of nations working together in a multipolar world.