Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation

This assignment delves into the critical topic of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It examines various perspectives on achieving complete nuclear disarmament, including legal frameworks, political obstacles, technological advancements, and humanitarian concerns. Students are tasked with critically evaluating existing approaches, identifying key challenges, and proposing potential solutions for a future free from nuclear weapons.

Running Header: Critical Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
Title: Critical Assessment of both desirability and feasibily of nuclear disarmament
Presented By:
Presented To:
Date: 07/01/2017

Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
Preface:
Nuclear disarmament has become the focus of attention of intellectual communities and the political
power groups across the globe since the first nuclear explosion at WWII was successfully done by
United States of America. Though USA launched the massive destruction weapon after US president
Truman came to the conclusion that there is no other alternative available at the time to bring WWII
to an end. There are varying controversies and opinions existing on matters like why allies selected
Japan rather than Germany for bomb attack, possibilities of racist driving forces for making Japan as
target. In any case the massive destruction capacity of atomic explosion is evident to the mankind
from the devastation experienced from twin bombings on Hiroshima and Naga Saki in 1945. As high
as 1,35,000 causalities reported in Hiroshima and about 64,000 causalities reported in Nagasaki
during that the atomic explosion times. From then, there is global outcry from different sections of the
world to stop nuclear race and to abandon the nuclear weapons. The tension and the intense pressure
experienced by United States and USSR during the cold war are known to the world during that time.
The fear and mutual untrust between the superpowers of that time resulted in arm race. By 1952,
United States tested the first hydrogen bomb. By 1950, the nuclear weapon pressure from USSR,
made it to develop the secret defence strategy NSC-68, which almost quadrupled the defence budget
of the country. Though there is no witness recorded of any nuclear attack since the WWII, unlike the
times of the world war, the nuclear bomb potential has grown at present. There are several countries
in the world having the potential to bomb the nuclear weapons. About nine countries in the world,
USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are reported to
contain about 16,300 nuclear weapons. There were several treaties put before under the international
organizational frameworks and by mutual understandings, with the operation of which USA and
Russia have disarmed several nuclear weapons from the cold war times however still at present more
than 90% of the current nuclear weapons are in the inventory of these two countries(Feiveson,2014).
Under the treaty of reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms both the countries reduced
their nuclear inventory in the yester years. Now considering the seriousness and unique danger
associated with the nuclear weapons, partial reduction of inventory is not a comprehensive solution to
the objectives of the global countries. 100% mitigation of the nuclear weapons is needed and the
following part of the report presents more detailed and critical discussion of the possibility of the
nuclear disarmament and the feasibility of the nuclear disarmament. Specific focus will be there on
the lessons learnt from the past and application of the experiences to the contemporary situations to
facilitate more harmonious future to the mankind(Bunn,2015).
Overview of Nuclear Disarmament:
Nuclear disarmament postulates directives to totally forbid the manufacture and purchase of the
nuclear weapons. Further the idea insists that the nuclear power countries need to eradicate and
reduce the usage of the nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation of the nuclear weapons treaty (NPT) is a
milestone in the international security and it is signed on July 1st 1968. Unanimously the treaty is
accepted by all the five nations in the Security Council and it is also accepted by about 59 countries
unconditionally(Rublee,2017). Then the five stars of the country (The nuclear weapon possessed
countries) proposed and accepted the treaty and is the first success in establishing a framework to
mitigate the nuclear weapons and to constrain the spread of the nuclear weapons across the world.
Bothe the spread of the weapons as well as the technology of making nuclear weapons are quite
dangerous to allow for spread and the members of the security council countries rightly taken a
responsible initiative to propose the NPT and enabled several international countries to become part
of the enforcement of the reduction procedures in the globe(Morgenthau,2018,P.89). Well when there
is no existence for any measure or tool to limit the spread the nuclear weapons or more precisely for
nuclear disarmament, it is worth to consider the initiatives of the powerful countries of the world to
consider the same. Majority of the global countries if not total world, expecting now an everlasting
global harmony, stability and security(Zehner,2016). There is no hesitation to say that the arms race is
disturbing the serenity of the world and there is need for the total nuclear disarmament in the world.
Essentially the emphasis of the concept needs to be imparted voluntarily on the global countries and
the first priority need to be there on the voluntary disarmament as it is most powerful strategy,
embargo need to be the next preference. Since materialization of enforcement using the voluntary
2

Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
strategies are more powerful than those with use of power as well as other barriers like
trade(Kuhn,2017).
Though there is no record of any other country except United States of America using the nuclear
weapon, several countries both the nuclear powered and non-nuclear powered countries recognized
the ill –effects of the nuclear rat race and they have indicated their approval for nuclear non-
proliferation(Keller,2016). The first partial test ban treaty (PTBT) is prepared in 1963 and since then
ban of the nuclear weapons under the water has become empowered. North Korea, Israel in
collaboration with South Africa are the few countries joined in the nuclear rat race due to several
reasons. In these circumstances, Comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT) is proposed and
adopted in 1996(Burroughs,2016). It has actually banned the usage of nuclear weapons by all the
countries. The comprehensive test ban treaty totally bans the nuclear explosions on the planet for any
type of the testing either for the sake of military or even for the sake of civilian
operations(Hynek,2015). The total test ban of nuclear explosion has rightly put pressure on several
global countries. Vulnerability of supporting the terrorist countries and losing their neutral stand
towards Nuclear test ban treaty is infact practically materialized and the drive for the same is
augmented by this strategy. CTBT is signed by 182 countries of the world and is ratified by about 153
global nations. It is infact a glimpse of the potential to put an end to the nuclear race. A new hope for
nuclear disarmament has arised from the approval of CTBT. There are few disturbances and the
breach of the policies and adjustments as well in the aftermath of CTBT, specifically in the context of
IAEA inspections. Few instances of deviations reported from North Korea as well as from Israel in
terms of breach of the articles as well as in terms of deceiving by hiding the critical information
related to the nuclear resources and processing capabilities(Nielson,2014,P.15). USA negotiated with
North Korea to abandon its nuclear reactors in exchange for agreeing the same made North Korea to
take up the alternative energy resources from United States of America. However the understanding
lasted only till 1994, where North Korea came out of the IAEA and tested missile attack in Japan
waters. Also by 2003, North Korea came out of NPT totally(Thakur,2017,P.90). US launched six way
talks in 2005 were failure and the North Korea came out of the understanding and commitment to
NPT and infact announced that it will going forward for nuclear testing by 2006. Though the tests of
2005 are not confirmed whether the nuclear tests or not, at present North Korea is definitely
possession of nuclear powers by North Korea is proven beyond doubt and the exact statistics of
nuclear weapons the country possessing at present is also known to the global community at present.
Iran informed in 2010 itself that it is nuclear capable and it has already enriched uranium by about
20% and they can do so for 80% as well. However the Iran leadership reiterated that they will use the
power only for the sake of peaceful purposes. In any case, considering the wide diversity and
difference in conditions and the opinions of the global nations and also considering the wide spread of
the global terrorism, it can be said that the PTBT and CTBT have successfully contributed to the
limitation and regulation of the nuclear weapon spread on the globe and it is an indication of the
potential of the unity and commitment of the global nations to put an end to the nuclear
crisis(Kaufman,2014). The undertakings and the volumous positive response to the measures from the
global nations and the aftermath all provide a positive picture and reiterate the potential and the
possibility of the nuclear disarmament in the country(Ruzicka,2015,P.31).
Feasibility and critical insight:
Nuclear deterrence and the disastrous retaliation argument is the argument by several of the nuclear
powered countries. They insist that the nuclear power possession provides them a more convenient
political framework to negotiate security as well as to negotiate better concessions from the countries
like United States of America and other superpowers of the world. DPRK(North Korea) is a good
example country which iterated several times that the possession of the nuclear weapons for them is a
necessity and demonstrated the usage of nuclear weapons as a political tool to control the relations
with USA, Japan, South Korea. Nuclear deterrence and the power from the strong retaliation is the
incentive accepted by Israel for making its bold move towards nuclear power. Well though these are
only few countries moved a step towards nuclear power on the global framework there is also
consistent threat of selling the nuclear weapons to the other countries. With the same fear that Korea
can sell nuclear weapons to the other countries or terrorist organizations, China prevented the
3

Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
imposition of the harsh enforcement as well as the application of the force to control the nuclear
interventions of North Korea(Nielson,2014). In 1975, Israel is believed to offer the sale of its nuclear
weapons to South Africa. There is no open acceptance of the issue by Israel, however still it is
possible that it may happen in the future that the Israel or any other nuclear powered country can sell
the nuclear weapons to a third country(Pollack,2017). However still considering the minimum spread
of the open sale of the nuclear weapons and very minimum spread of the technology, it can be said
that the policies of the security councils and the efforts of the members of the security council are
actually working out to generate a global conscious towards limiting the nuclear weapons and to
control the spread of the nuclear devastation technology. Several Middle Eastern countries already
backing the NPT and supporting the Security Council to limit the activities of Israel and put an end to
the nuclear fear spread in the Middle Eastern region.
Conclusion:
It is an accepted and open fact that the efforts of the Security Council are quite impressive and
leaving whether they are adequate or not, essentially have controlled the nuclear weapon usage since
WWII. However still the nuclear technology cannot be owned by any single country in the world and
it can be disseminated from one to other. Considering the seriousness of the problem and varying
arguments and the opinions about the menace like nuclear deterrence, multiple solutions to the
problem need to be employed and solutions needed to be tailored by case to case basis. Such approach
will essential provide a comprehensive nuclear disarmament and it will make it feasible as well to
bestow the serenity and harmony in the global platform. Some of the possible dimensions of the
solutions include the following, for example when Iran and Israel conflicts and the conditions are
considered, it is possible that the peace can be established in the region by promoting the financial
sanctions and by limiting the financial resources in case of the breach. Agreements based on this stick
and carrot strategies are mostly viable in most of the cases, however still there are also instances of
North Korea breaching several agreements before. The fear of strict corrections and loss of sanctions
has not deterred the country’s passion for the weapons. There is no alternative except to go for
diplomatic strategies to bring back North Korea on to peace talks and for NPT. However this is quite
difficult and need to be executed with tact considering the current leadership and the conditions of the
country. Friendly countries of North Korea like china who happened to be still members of Security
Council(wit,2015) and obstructing the usage of force on Korea has to play an intelligent and moderate
role in controlling the North Korea for further succumbing to the usage of the nuclear
weapons(Gauthier,2016,P.96). Nuclear Disarmament is definitely possible and all the nations of the
world can collectively execute the programme(Berger,2015,P.30). There is no other option except to
move forward collaboratively and with unified spirit to abolish the nuclear warfare. World countries
already envisioned that if a nuclear war broke out there is nothing like winners and losers, every
country in the world will be equally suffered and mankind totally has to feel regret for their lack of
foresight. As such there is nothing like unsolved problem possible, and whatever may be the
complexities associated, a detailed and comprehensive strategies will work for the total nuclear
disarmament. Yes it is feasible and possible, but what is needed is much more intelligent and matured
strategies which combines intellect, political, economic and other modes of force and power control to
make the world free of nuclear weapons.
4

Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
References
Berger, A., 2015. I. North Korea in the Global Arms Market. Whitehall Papers, 84(1), pp.12-34.
Bunn, M.G., 2015. Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and
Non proliferation (Book Review).
Burroughs, J., 2016. Legal aspects of general and complete disarmament. United Nations Office of
Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) Occasional Papers, pp.15-25.
Feiveson, H.A., Glaser, A., Mian, Z. and Von Hippel, F., 2014. Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile
Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gauthier, B.K., 2016. North Korea–US Relations under Kim Jong Il: The Quest for Normalization?,
written by Ramon Pacheco Pardo. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 23(1), pp.94-
96.
Hynek, N. and Smetana, M. eds., 2015. Global Nuclear Disarmament: Strategic, Political, and
Regional Perspectives. Routledge.
Keller, U., 2016. Achieving Security Through Nuclear Disarmament? The Middle East as a Test
Case (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St. Gallen).
Kaufman, S., 2014. Getting to Zero: The Path to Nuclear Disarmament.
Kühn, U., 2017. Introduction: Nuclear disarmament and arms control for the next decade.
Morgenthau, H.J., 2018. The fallacy of thinking conventionally about nuclear weapons. In Arms
Control and Disarmament(pp. 79-89). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Nielsen, J. and Hanson, M., 2014. Nuclear disarmament? Not yet. Open Security.
Nielsen, J., 2014. The humanitarian initiative on disarmament and the 2015 NPT review process.
In New Perspectives on Global Nuclear Order: Inaugural Conference of the BISA Global
Nuclear Order Working Group 2013 (pp. 13-17). British International Studies Association
(BISA).
Pollack, J.D., 2017. No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. Routledge
Rublee, M.R., 2017. India-Pakistan nuclear diplomacy: constructivism and the prospects for nuclear
arms control and disarmament in South Asia.
Ruzicka, J. and Wheeler, N.J., 2015. 3 Trust building in nuclear disarmament. Global Nuclear
Disarmament: Strategic, Political, and Regional Perspectives, p.31.
Thakur, R., 2017. The Nuclear Ban Treaty: Recasting a Normative Framework for Disarmament. The
Washington Quarterly, 40(4), pp.71-95.
Wit, J.S. and Ahn, S.Y., 2015. North Korea's Nuclear Futures: Technology and Strategy. US-Korea
Institute at SAIS.
5

Assessment of both desirability and feasibility of nuclear disarmament
Zehner, R., 2016. Mutually Assured Survival: A Constructivist Analysis of Transnational Cultural
Interactions and Their Influence on Nuclear Disarmament Initiatives.
.
6