Author and Page information
This print version has been auto-generated from https://www.globalissues.org/issue/67/nuclear-weapons
On this page:
On various occasions, there have been
close calls to annihilation:
And over a decade earlier than that:
Nuclear Proliferation Treaties Under Pressure
There have been a number of significant and controversial treaties to try and control nuclear weapons:
- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
- The NPT was ratified in 1975. It has been ratified by 187 countries, more than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement. The objective is
to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.Some 180+ countries thus agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear powers to adhere to treaties that would have the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. However, as others have put more bluntly, this treaty was to prevent new members from joining the
- The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
- The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, prohibits the use of defensive systems that might give an advantage to one side in a nuclear war. The Mutually Assured Destruction scenario was invoked here to assure that each nation had enough weapons to survive a nuclear attack and therefore have the ability to annihilate the other. Their rationale was that as long as both sides remained defenseless, in this respect, neither country would dare attack the other.
- The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
- The CTBT was designed to prevent testing of nuclear weapons and hence reduce the chance of an arms race.
- The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, START I and START II
- START I and II were designed to reduce the weapons that Russia and the US have.
All four of these have been under pressure for a few years:
- The NPT is seen by some critics as a means for the five nuclear powers at that time to retain their weapons while telling others not to develop them, and thus allow these five to remain militarily more powerful than other nations. This is feared to then provide a pretext for other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons. For example,
- India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba did not sign the NPT.
- India and Pakistan went nuclear2 in 1998.
- Israel is known to have nuclear capabilities too.
- North Korea went nuclear in 2006. (More on this below.)
- The US is currently looking at developing an expensive national missile defense system, which goes against the ABM treaty. [Since writing this page initially, the U.S. has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty.]
- Although President Clinton had signed it in 1995, the US Senate rejected the CTBT3 in 1999. Other countries such as China and Iran are also
balkingon the idea, using the excuses of U.S. policies and costs, for example 4, as reported by Reuters (March 7, 2002).
- Russia initially stalled on START II because of the USA’s national missile defense program. However, they finally endorsed the treaty5 in April 2000, but warned that if the US still pursues its missile defense program, which goes against the ABM treaty, then Russia would pull out of the arms negotiations.
While the major nuclear powers have agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal6 at a UN review of the NPT, it remains to be seen how much of that will be rhetoric and how much real political will there will be to follow it through.
Almost five years after writing the above paragraph, it would seem that much talk has been rhetoric. David Kreiger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, notes some additional grim developments:
The US Nuclear Superpower
This section on The US Nuclear Superpower has now moved to its own page8.
North Korea and Nuclear Weapons
This section on North Korea and Nuclear Weapons has now moved to its own page9.
Iran and Nuclear Weapons
This section on Iran and nuclear weapons has now moved to its own page10.
The Right to Have Nuclear Weapons?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every country does have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy). The fear is that countries may use this as a guise for weapons development. This is what the Bush Administration has been concerned about in the Iran example.
More fundamentally, if (as also noted further above) powerful countries, such as the US itself, are pursuing nuclear weapons options (defying various nuclear non proliferation treaties in the process), this raises arguments that many have made in the past, such as:
- Surely others have a right to develop nuclear weapons as well?
- Why should only a few powerful countries have them?
- Won’t they use their position to pressure or bully other countries to their interests?
North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, for example (and possibly Iran, depending on how things progress) would seem to directly or indirectly support these questions for their own interests.
The right to nuclear weapons will be an attractive argument for those who feel threatened by the current world powers, or for those with more ambition. Furthermore, the world’s foremost nuclear powers appear unwilling to provide sufficient help. Some, such as the US, appear to reverse and actually develop more weapons, citing reasons such as fear and mistrust of others.
In that context, it would be hard to argue against other countries also demanding such terrible weapons. The US may even find it will have to accept that others will want nuclear weapons too, as they will recycle these same concerns, often back towards the US, adding the charge of hypocrisy if the US opposes them.
Perhaps in the ideal sense most citizens in the world would like to see all countries give up their nuclear weapons, but in the world of real-politik, that would seem suicidal. The arms race fear seems hard to avoid.
For countries such as the US that wish to dissuade others from pursuing nuclear weapons development, a negotiated approach that is also backed by real commitments where powerful countries live up to their parts of nuclear non proliferation treaties would go a long way towards achieving a more agreeable and peaceful future. But to achieve this requires an almost colossal shift in foreign policy and requires such a level of friendship and trust between countries currently opposed to each other, that it is hard to see if this can ever happen.
Ironically then, the need for international
stability will be used as an argument both for the reduction in nuclear weapons, and for their proliferation.
Ultimately, the threat of more nuclear weapons, of increased arms races and insecurity are all diversions of precious resources that lots of countries can ill-afford. Close calls on nuclear annihilation, such as the two examples at the beginning of this article, may become harder to avoid.
5 articles on “Nuclear Weapons” and 1 related issue:
Read “The US Nuclear Superpower” to learn more.
Read “North Korea and Nuclear Weapons” to learn more.
Iran has had a turbulent history in just its recent past. From a democracy in the 1950s, Iran seems to have moved backwards, from an authoritarian regime (backed by Britain and the US) that overthrew the democratic one, to a religious fundamentalist regime toppling the authoritarian one and taking an anti-US stance.
The US ended its support for Iran and instead supported Iraq in a brutal war through the 1980s against Iran where over 1 million people died. More recently, Iran was described as being part of an “axis of evil” by US President George Bush, as part of his “war on terror.”
The US has also accused Iran of pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, while Iran says it is only pursuing peaceful development. Internally, movements towards moderate policies and democratic values are gaining traction, but not with hardliners in power trying to hold on. This section looks into these and related issues.
Read “Iran” to learn more.
Read “India and Pakistan go Nuclear” to learn more.
Read “The US and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty” to learn more.
Read “Arms Control” to learn more.
Back to top