The pandemic has plunged the world into a new kind of uncertainty. So much has changed, and so fast. If someone had said last summer that by March 2020 thousands would perish daily from a new virus, 2.6 billion people would be locked down in their homes, 16 million people in the US would be out of work, and occupants of a California town would be howling at the moon together each evening, it would have seemed like crazy talk.

And yet here we are, living a new reality that no one yet fully understands. Some of us can even attest personally to the howling.

For those who work on nuclear weapons threats, the pandemic has an eerie tinge to it. As the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies’s Jeffrey Lewis recently said, the pandemic is a “nuclear war in slow motion.” Some of what we’re seeing right now resembles the kind of large-scale reworking of the world that will unfold if—or when—nuclear weapons are deployed again, whether by accident or by design.

We can’t yet know this pandemic’s full toll. But we can be sure that the consequences for the nuclear threats field will be significant. As we rebuild the economy, address inadequacies in emergency response systems, and anticipate the evolution of biological threats, nuclear weapons are unlikely to be top of mind for policymakers, funders, or the public. Yet in this crisis lies an opportunity to connect nuclear weapons both to an increasingly complex threat landscape and to our aspirations for global well-being.

By exploring intersections between nuclear weapons and other global phenomena—health and climate insecurity, the rise of artificial intelligence, racism and poverty, advancements in brain science—we can reframe nuclear threat reduction in terms of greater human and global security. We can draw resources and ideas to the field that would be elusive if we continued to silo nuclear weapons from other pressing challenges. The field’s ability to adapt to a more intersectional and complex environment, however, will depend on its capacity to embrace change and to innovate. 

“IN THIS CRISIS LIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX THREAT LANDSCAPE AND TO OUR ASPIRATIONS FOR GLOBAL WELL-BEING.”

During our 2019 Listening Tour, many nuclear threat professionals we interviewed talked about the urgency of improving and innovating how the field itself works. They expressed a desire to embrace new tools and approaches—as well as concern that not doing so would make progress harder to achieve. The shock we’re living through now presents the field with a challenge: Will our organizations be sufficiently agile to survive? Will we “make due” so we can get through the crisis, or will the whole field be more resilient and resourceful afterward because of the adaptations we make now?

At N Square, we are reworking our own approach from top to bottom. Our mission remains the same: to accelerate the achievement of international goals for the reduction (and ultimate elimination) of nuclear weapons threats by attracting new human, technical, and financial resources; introducing innovation and design methods; creating collaborative environments and frameworks; and hosting an interdisciplinary, cross-sector network working to develop new solutions to concrete problems. But we also see an urgent opportunity to help nuclear threat professionals develop and hone critical skills for managing uncertainty and anticipating the future.

Here’s some of what you can expect from N Square going forward:

Remote Collaboration
For the next 12 months at a minimum, we are moving all our programming online. While we don’t take this decision lightly—convenings and face-to-face interaction are core to our work—we see so many potential offsetting benefits that we are committing ourselves wholeheartedly to the challenge. Fully remote collaboration will keep our extended community of fellows and partners connected and productive during whatever lies ahead and ensure that our projects move forward with full momentum. But we believe our experiment will prove useful to the field in other ways as well.

N Square already has an established track record of successful online collaboration. Our innovation fellows work largely in geographically distributed cohorts using distance collaboration tools; our staff also work remotely, giving us practice in how to run teams from a distance. But now we are taking that further. Already, we are analyzing and experimenting with new leading-edge platforms that use augmented reality and/or advanced interactivity to enhance remote collaboration and innovation processes. And we plan to share all that we are learning with the field, in service of fostering more flexibility and a new capacity to collaborate remotely.

You can expect to learn about these new tools through DC Hub brown bags, workshops, and virtual mixers in the coming months, as well as through new professional development opportunities using N Square’s learning exchange program on the distance learning platform TechChange. We will also share information about the compelling tools and platforms we’re discovering in our upcoming newsletters.

Foresight: Scenario Planning and Futures Thinking
The pandemic is a shock—but it’s not a surprise. For decades, scenario planners have been calling the outbreak of a global pandemic “predetermined”—not a “wildcard” event but one that was certain to happen at some point. Some of us at N Square have deep backgrounds at the intersection of scenario planning, strategy, and design. In fact our editorial director, Jenny Johnston, and I have worked for decades on futures projects in which bio-threats featured prominently. In 2010, as senior editor at Global Business Network, Jenny opened one of many scenarios on the topic with language that—while some details have played out differently—now seems generally prescient:

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: International mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the US but across borders. However a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.…

The value of scenarios doesn’t lie in the degree to which they prove true. Scenario planning is about preparedness. It’s about envisioning a range of plausible futures in order to inform strategy and “rehearse” responses to change before it happens. Scenario planning and other forms of futures thinking also help to override the human inclination to avoid exploring downside scenarios. They help us face and prepare for a range of circumstances. 

“WHAT ARE WE NOT THINKING ABOUT TODAY THAT WILL AFFECT OUR CAPACITY TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TOMORROW?”

In the nuclear threats field, we need to be thinking about the ways in which social, technological, environmental, economic, and political forces will combine to change the context in which we do our work over the coming months and years. How will our challenges change—and how will we adapt—if bio-threats like this pandemic combine with natural and climate-related disasters like wildfires and earthquakes? How might the politics of nuclear threat reduction shift? In what ways must we be better prepared? What are we not thinking about today that will affect our capacity to respond effectively tomorrow?

In collaboration with colleagues from the professional futures and design worlds, N Square is fast-tracking plans to offer virtual trainings, interviews, and workshops on strategic foresight. We expect these to be available in the summer of 2020.

A few closing thoughts:

This photograph was taken on a street corner in my hometown in 1918, during the influenza pandemic. It seems that over a hundred years later we are using some of the very same solutions to protect ourselves from an invisible enemy. Will we be using the same solutions a hundred years from today? Isn’t it our job to make sure that in the next century we have new tools to cope with evolving threats?

We are a long way from knowing how life will play out right now. But we do know this: More shocks will come. Each will reveal systemic fragilities. The key is to strengthen our ability as a field to communicate and respond to the ways in which nuclear threats interrelate with those fragilities, and to become more resilient, resourceful, and influential as we do.

Emma Belcher grew up in Australia at a time when anti-nuclear movements in that country were flaring—an experience that shaped both her perspectives on nuclear weapons and her career. An early interest in nuclear policy led her to Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where she earned a PhD in international security with a focus on weapons of mass destruction. While there, she also served as a research fellow at the Belfer Center’s Project on Managing the Atom. Belcher’s academic career took a surprise turn, though, when she was presented with the opportunity to join the MacArthur Foundation, where she now directs the nuclear challenges program. Here, she shares how being an Aussie informs her work, and how she’s working to find common ground—even among unlikely partners—in service of ending the nuclear threat.

Q  How did you get started doing this work?

A  You know how people remember where they were when a big event happens, like JFK’s death or 9/11? I remember the room I was in when I learned about nuclear weapons. I was 14, sitting in social studies class. I remember being astonished by the damage they could do. To be honest, I was appalled and awed at the same time. The logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction seemed kind of brilliant, even though it was horrific. This was toward the end of the Cold War, but growing up in Australia I hadn’t heard much about it. At 14, I was shocked by the state of the world.

At the end of high school, though, I got interested in Cold War history. At university I did an arts degree and studied politics, history, and languages—specifically, Russian and Arabic. I also became interested in the ethics of the use of force. Questions about nuclear weapons and whether they conformed to the laws of war started to grip me. My first job out of university was in public affairs at the Australian Embassy in Washington, DC. Then, just as I’d decided to go to grad school and get more involved in policy, 9/11 happened. That tragedy solidified my interest in weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility of nuclear terrorism brought new urgency to my work. Ultimately, I did a master’s in law and diplomacy at Tufts University, and after working as an adviser in Australia’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, returned to Tufts to complete a PhD in international relations, with a focus on weapons of mass destruction.

“QUESTIONS ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WHETHER THEY CONFORMED TO THE LAWS OF WAR STARTED TO GRIP ME.”

While at Tufts, I also had a research fellowship at the Belfer Center at Harvard, at the Project on Managing the Atom, which is still funded by MacArthur. I was part of a cohort of PhD students from a range of institutions working on similar topics. We learned from one another in ways that we couldn’t at our own institutions, where there weren’t a lot of other people working on the same topic. I remember I could always go to my friend Tom, who is a physicist, and ask him if my ideas made sense from a physics perspective, and I could help him see his work through an international security lens. That experience taught me the importance of being in community with people who are working on similar issues but from different perspectives. Of course, that’s the premise behind N Square as well.

Q  How did you get into philanthropy?

A  When I finished my PhD, I did a post-doctoral fellowship in nuclear security at the Council on Foreign Relations. While there, I got a call from the head of the Managing the Atom project. He said that MacArthur was looking for a nuclear program officer. I had never thought about a position in philanthropy, which isn’t established in Australia in the same way that it is in the US. At first I thought it sounded kind of boring. How hard could it be to give away money? How was a PhD going to help with this? But the more I talked with people, the more I realized how interesting it was. The research skills I had developed were helpful in analyzing the quality of proposals. I realized philanthropy could combine my academic interest in nuclear policy with a more practical policy focus.

“HOW HARD COULD IT BE TO GIVE AWAY MONEY? HOW WAS A PHD GOING TO HELP WITH THIS?”

Q  Do you think you have a different perspective on nuclear security because you didn’t grow up in the United States?

A  I think it gives me a sense of how nuclear weapons in the United States are viewed by outsiders, which is something that can get a bit lost here. Growing up in Australia, there was a strong nuclear disarmament movement, particularly in the ’70s and ’80s. I was in high school when the French were doing their testing in Mururoa Atoll, and we were up in arms. Seeing the impacts of nuclear testing and fallout on people and on the environment was quite formative. At the same time, I also understand the issues and the concept of deterrence and how difficult it can be to imagine a world without nuclear weapons. In the US, many people on both sides of the issue are deeply entrenched in their positions; they’re not willing to talk with each other in a meaningful way. As a funder it is crucial to see both perspectives and support constructive dialogue.

Q  MacArthur is one of the few foundations with a specific grantmaking program to reduce the nuclear threat. Why aren’t more foundations funding this issue?

A  When the Cold War ended, many people assumed that the threat was over. The US and Russia dismantled a great number of weapons. At the height of the Cold War there were between 60,000 and 70,000 nuclear weapons, and it’s down to around 14,000 today. People thought these weapons would become a relic of the past, and with a number of other important issues rising to the surface their attention was diverted away. But now these issues are back with a vengeance—and we need to rally more people to invest in finding solutions. Foundations are collectively investing around $40 million in nuclear policy, versus nearly $1 billion a year in climate issues. So we’re hoping to bring more funders back into the field and new ones to it—and to help everyone recognize this as a dangerous, existential threat. A nuclear event could happen very quickly with very little warning.

Q  What has MacArthur been funding in this area?

A  Our grantmaking has been focusing on trying to make sure that members of Congress and their staff have a good understanding of contemporary nuclear issues. Just as we’ve seen funding levels drop since the end of the Cold War, we’ve seen a similar drop in general awareness about the nuclear threat in Congress. Champions like Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar have retired or are no longer with us. We are starting to see new champions emerge, which is promising. There’s now a bipartisan nuclear security working group on the Hill, co-chaired by Republicans Jeff Fortenberry and Chuck Fleischmann, and Democrats Bill Foster and Ben Ray Luján. We provide funding for fellows to serve as advisors on nuclear topics. They don’t work on legislation, but they’re embedded in both chambers as a resource for members. We also support experts who provide technical and practical advice to government officials here and in other countries on how best to solve a range of nuclear problems.

Q  How has being part of a nuclear security funder collaborative—which is funding N Square—advanced your work?

A  Each funder in the collaborative brings something different to the table. Our differences complement each other and help us explore the potential for overlap. Being part of a funder collaborative is also about sharing risk. Being “in it together” means we can make venture-style investments without having a failure devastate any one of our portfolios. It also sends a signal that a group of us are interested in funding more innovation and creativity in the field. We hope it helps many more individuals and foundations see themselves as having something to contribute here. Nuclear weapons can seem like this big secret national security topic, which makes the issue uninviting for some. If we could start to change some minds and have people see where they do fit in, even if they don’t have a nuclear background, that’s valuable.

Q  In a recent TED talk, you outlined a set of questions that everyone should be asking right now about nuclear security and nuclear weapons. What sorts of questions were on your list?

A  I put that list together as a way to help people begin to work past fear or a sense of being overwhelmed and instead start doing something to ensure that this issue gets the attention it deserves—questions like, How much nuclear risk are you willing to take? Or, Who should be responsible for nuclear weapons decision-making? For example, in the US, having one person, the president, decide the fate of millions of people without any requirement to consult with anybody seems particularly undemocratic. Also, What do your elected officials know about nuclear weapons, and what decisions are they likely to make on your behalf? Members of Congress represent their constituents, but right now there isn’t a constituency for nuclear issues. We need to create it. We need our elected officials to understand these issues, because they’re voting and making decisions about our future.

“RIGHT NOW THERE ISN’T A CONSTITUENCY FOR NUCLEAR ISSUES. WE NEED TO CREATE IT.” 

Q  Can nuclear security be depoliticized? Is there room for compromise?

A  Everyone can agree that we need total security around weapons and nuclear material, and nobody wants to see nuclear terrorism. So that’s a starting point. Over the next several decades, about $1 trillion is projected to be spent on nuclear weapons, which is a lot of money. Even where you don’t get bipartisan support on some of these bigger issues, we might see unusual partners coming together around shared goals, even if they’re coming at them from different perspectives. That is, while disarmament is seen as a liberal imperative, fiscal conservatives are less likely to support a massive modernization effort, given the associated cost. Where there is room for bipartisanship, we’ve got to push for it.

Q  What do you think the nuclear field will look like in 10 years?

A  I think it will look significantly different. We’re seeing increased diversity at the early career and even mid-career stages—and we’re actively working to foster more of it. N Square is providing young, diverse, talented people with new opportunities to engage in the field. If we take that out 10 years, we’re going to see much more diverse representation in the field. That’s critical because these issues affect everyone; everybody needs a voice. So I’m optimistic because I’m seeing this change happening and I’m seeing people demand it. I’m also seeing people who’ve been in the field for a while support these changes. They’re lending their gravitas and experience to this in a way I might not have expected. That’s been a fantastic development.

Q  What would the future look like if everything goes well?

A  We would see greatly reduced nuclear risk, greater creativity, innovation, and excitement around this issue, and a sense that people can create positive change. I’d like to see us pulled back from the brink of disaster. But we’re only going to get there through approaches to problem-solving that are creative, inclusive, and innovative.

Top photo, from left to right: Michelle Dover, Emma Belcher, and Eric Schlosser speak at Ploughshares Fund Chain Reaction 2019. Story thumbnail and top photo: Drew Altizer Photography

Ever wonder what would happen if you plunked a nuclear expert and a comedian inside a survivalist-style bunker and started pouring drinks? Wonder no more! Getting Bombed, an unscripted digital series featuring nuclear, cyber, and national security experts chatting over cocktails with comedian Chris Reinacher about the existential threats that keep them up at night, premieres this weekend on YouTube. New episodes will stream each Saturday through February.

Described by its creators as a mashup of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee and Comedy Central’s Drunk History, Getting Bombed aims to bring the discussion of imminent nuclear dangers to a mainstream audience in a compelling new way. “It’s quirky and fun, but it’s also informative,” says Kate Folb, program director at USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center’s Hollywood, Health & Society and one of the show’s originators. Each show runs roughly 10 minutes and features a different expert spilling untold stories while sloshing their favorite drink. The full conversations are available as podcasts. 

The series—several years in the making—was conceived by Folb and roughly a dozen other members of the N Square Innovators Network during their 2017-18 fellowship. N Square fellows spend a year working in teams to brainstorm and prototype promising ideas for bringing innovation to the nuclear field. Folb’s team, comprising a mix of nuclear experts and storytellers, set out to tackle what they saw as nuclear weapons’ “visibility” issue. “Nuclear threat is a vague notion for most people. They don’t even think about it, really,” said Folb. “So how can we change that? Maybe through a bit of entertainment.”

The idea for the show sprung from a chance dinner. Hollywood, Health & Society—which provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate and timely information for storylines dealing with health, safety, and security—had assembled a panel of nuclear experts to speak at the Writers Guide of America East in New York. A few experts arrived the night before, and Folb and a colleague took them to dinner. “They were talking science and nukes and policy, and we’re Hollywood people, trying to keep up,” she explained. During the course of the meal, the experts got progressively more tipsy, but kept talking. Recalled Folb: “My colleague and I looked at each other and said, ‘Oh my God. This is a show.’”

Folb ran the idea by her N Square fellows team, and it stuck. They produced a low-budget pilot and presented it at a full N Square Innovators Network gathering hosted by Rhode Island School of Design in 2018. Dozens of young RISD students were there to see the pilot. “A bunch of them came up to us and said, ‘I would totally watch that,’” explained Folb. “That gave us momentum to keep going and to think we had something viable.”

Back in Los Angeles, Folb showed the pilot to various producers and writers. Among them was Hollywood, Health & Society board member Stephanie Drachkovitch, president and co-founder of 44 Blue Productions, creator of hit shows like A&E’s Wahlburgers, Animal Planet’s Pit Bulls & Parolees, and Netflix’s Jailbirds. They agreed to co-produce the show in a 50/50 partnership with Hollywood, Health & Society. Soon after, Folb began raising money, securing seed funding from N Square, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Ploughshares, among others.

Ovrture, 44 Blue Production’s digital content studio, designed the set to look like a survivalist’s doomsday bunker and recruited comedian Chris Reinacher as host. They also added another person to the mix—a mysterious and silent figure named “Jeff” who hovers in the background and serves drinks while dressed in a yellow hazmat suit.

The decision to stream the series on YouTube was easy, Folb said. “We want to appeal to a youth audience, and young people aren’t watching TV—they’re watching YouTube.” She added: “There’s so little that young people know about this issue. They think it’s a World War II thing and that it’s not really relevant today. So we’re aiming to change that. What is a nuclear weapon? Why is it different? We’re going for all of it in the show.”

And that means bringing some levity to a dark, scary subject that can seem inaccessible to everyone but these experts. “We’re not trying to make light of nuclear weapons—we’re just trying to make it a little lighter to talk about,” said Folb. “One of the ways that we can get people to take action is by informing them, and one of the best ways to inform people is by entertaining them.”

Meanwhile, 44 Blue Productions is already putting together a pitch to turn Getting Bombed into a 30-minute show. But that will only happen if the series attracts a strong viewership. The more people watch the show, the more likely it is that they’ll get to see more. “One of our taglines for the show is, ‘Help us blow this conversation up so we don’t all get blown up,’” said Folb. “We need everyone to help spread the word.”

Watch the premier episode.
View the trailer.

How might the nuclear threat reduction field become one of the brightest sources of creativity and innovation on the planet? That is the question that launched the 2019 N Square “listening tour,” in which we interviewed 72 DC-based nuclear threat reduction professionals to gather diverse perspectives on the state of the field and hopes for its future. Our new report, “Greater Than: Nuclear Threat Professionals Reimagine the Field,” shares the findings of this research. It offers candid insight into barriers to and enablers of innovation and the acceleration of new ideas—along with significant reflections from colleagues about the day-to-day experience of working in this field and their aspirations for improvement. Our hope is that this work shoots a flare across the field, illuminating the contours of a new, collaboratively developed future along with ideas about how we might collectively begin to get there.

Read the full report.

Read the executive summary.

Hear N Square’s Sara Kutchesfahani discuss the report’s findings on the Big Nuke Energy podcast.

We are thrilled to announce the launch of the N Square DC Hub—and with it, an active N Square presence right in the heart of Washington, DC.

In many ways, the DC Hub is the physical manifestation of N Square’s vision and mission, providing a widening community of experts with a home base and a process for learning, collaboration, and developing breakthrough ideas for reducing the nuclear threat. Operating out of WeWork in Chinatown (777 6th Street NW)—an interactive workspace that matches the diverse, collaborative atmosphere that N Square aims to inspire—the DC Hub will offer a range of programs, events, and gatherings designed to serve the needs and goals of this growing community.

“The DC Hub answers a demand that we’ve heard—primarily from early to mid-career nonproliferation professionals in DC—for a place outside their day-to-day workspace where they can connect with each other, build community, and explore new ideas,” says Erika Gregory, N Square’s managing director.

While the N Square Innovators Network—now nearly 100 fellows strong—offers experts from around the world opportunities to work together on novel teams to prototype ideas for ending the nuclear threat, the DC Hub will bring this spirit of innovation and breakthrough collaboration directly to DC, where the US policy, advocacy, and nuclear nonproliferation communities are most concentrated. “Over the past few years, N Square has shown it can bring together smart, creative people with different skills and perspectives to produce inspiring work,” says Carl Robichaud, program officer in international peace and security at the Carnegie Corporation of New York and an N Square founding funder. “Now, with a presence in DC, N Square can better connect with practitioners and expand its impact.”

The DC Hub will be a gathering space not just for nuclear experts but for a range of other professionals—from brand strategists and artists to engineers and technologists—interested in nuclear issues and eager to energize the field with new perspectives and ideas. “Part of serving this community means bringing nontraditional approaches and voices to the space,” says Dr. Sara Kutchesfahani, a nuclear expert with 15 years in the field who will serve as the DC Hub’s director. “We want to engage people from many different backgrounds in solving nuclear issues. Just leave your suit jackets at home, come to the Hub, and get creative.”

In building out the DC Hub and its programming, N Square will have a powerful partner—one uniquely suited to integrate the types of resources that the DC community is asking for. PopTech, one of the world’s leading conveners of global thinkers and leaders, will serve as a primary strategic partner for programming and community development, tapping its own diverse network to bring new voices and new approaches to the conversation. Says Leetha Filderman, president of the PopTech Institute: “We’re committed to creating interactive programming that benefits those in the field, as well as helping those outside the field gain a deeper understanding how to engage in what is perhaps the most significant global threat facing humanity right now.” 

The PopTech partnership is made possible through a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. “Carnegie is stepping up to play a catalytic role in amplifying the collaborative potential of this partnership,” says Filderman. “Their commitment demonstrates the power of forward-thinking philanthropic investment that leverages and builds upon early success.”

N Square has already hosted a few events at the DC Hub, including a listening party for the season premiere of the nuclear-themed podcast Things That Go Boom and a fireside chat about blockchain, featuring Innovators Network fellow Rob Baker from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. This fall, the DC Hub will start hosting monthly events—everything from scenario workshops on the future of nuclear threat to skill-building sessions on creative problem-solving and diverse-team development.

But much of the DC Hub’s programming has yet to be set—and that’s intentional. “We hope the DC community will consider the Hub their own space and actively help us shape it to their needs,” says Gregory. “We heard you, and we’re here in service of your ideas. We’re looking forward to doing this together.”

To learn more about upcoming events at the DC Hub, contact Sara Kutchesfahani at sara@nsquarecollaborative.org.

photos by Trevor Holden for the N Square Innovation Summit at RISD

It’s hard winning a Nobel Peace Prize in the fast-paced internet age. When the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the award in 2017 for its leading role in getting the United Nations to adopt the world’s first treaty to ban nuclear weapons, sudden name recognition and a frenzy of media attention followed. “Nobody even knew who we were before that,” admits Beatrice Fihn, the Swedish activist who serves as ICAN’s executive director. Once they did, the expectations were intense. “Two months after Oslo, people said, ‘Well, that didn’t lead anywhere. You haven’t disarmed a single country yet!’” says Fihn. The media swarm moved elsewhere. “It was pretty disorienting. But we didn’t win the prize by being in the spotlight.”

They really didn’t. ICAN is a coalition of roughly 550 nongovernmental organizations in 100 countries helping to promote the treaty, administered and governed by the UN, and build public support for the abolition of nuclear weapons. But the team coordinating that work is tiny—only a handful of people toiling in a modest office in Geneva, Switzerland. Fihn, now 37, is one of the oldest on staff. “No celebrities, no powerful politicians,” she says. “Just a bunch of 30-year-olds taking on the biggest countries in the world.”

Being millennials may explain their ability to spark global action around nuclear weapons eradication like the world hasn’t seen in decades. ICAN has brought fresh eyes and fresh energy to a problem that has long plagued disarmament activists: how to transform public and political disengagement into active support for abolition. But their success also has a lot to do with Fihn herself. The ICAN head isn’t interested in just drumming up support for the eradication of nuclear weapons. Rather, she wants to knock the foundation out from under the argument that they have any place in the world, rendering support for them nonsensical.

“The actual problem is that people still think these are valuable weapons. So you have to attack the basic, fundamental part of it,” Fihn says. “Is it acceptable to threaten to mass-murder civilians? No, it’s not. It’s crazy.” For Fihn, challenging that acceptability is the key to sparking new movement around the issue. And the best way to do that, she says, is to make nuclear weapons a humanitarian issue rather than a geopolitical one, shifting the inhumanity of these weapons to the center of the nuclear debate. “When you explain what these weapons do,” says Fihn, “suddenly they make no sense.”

“the actual problem is that people still think these are valuable weapons. so you have to attack the basic, fundamental part of it.”

ICAN isn’t the first organization to set its sights on drawing global attention to nuclear weapons’ catastrophic human consequences. But the ICAN campaign has been particularly, even singularly, effective at expanding the audience of people who are listening. They’ve drawn new attention not just to the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki but to the human impacts of the thousands of nuclear test explosions that have taken place around the world since, as well as the continued health and environmental threats posed by unstable nuclear waste. In the age of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, they’ve also managed to connect their campaign with other social movements that share a common cause. “Nuclear weapons are another example of the powerful forcing something on people without power,” says Fihn.

She thinks that how nuclear weapons have been talked about until now has made them easier to accept—and she doesn’t read that as an accident. “There’s been an intentional creation of a conversation on nuclear weapons that excludes regular people, so that if you’re not a 60-year-old white security expert, and if you don’t know all the acronyms and all the details, it’s too complicated for you, so don’t even bother,” Fihn says. Telling human stories helps people see nuclear weapons as what they are—not magic, just weapons. “They aren’t a strategy. They aren’t a security theory,” she says. “They’re just big, radioactive bombs that mass-murder civilians, which means they violate the laws of war. And what do we do with weapons that violate the laws of war? We ban them.”

This human-centered framing also helps puncture another myth—that global security somehow relies on nuclear weapons. “It moves deterrence from a theory into a scenario,” says Fihn. “Are they saying that my country’s strategy is to use me and my family and my city as a human shield for their security? I’m basically deterrence. It’s putting up your own civil population and saying, ‘I dare you to wipe out my cities because then I’ll wipe out your cities.’ Are we comfortable with that?” Adds Fihn: “The whole point of the campaign and the whole point of the treaty is to create something new in this field by reasoning with people.”