Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Essay

Over the past twenty years, the debate on who is allowed to own nuclear weapons has become more intense with some countries opting out of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) while some rejecting the offer to sign the treaty in the first place. It has been suggested that due to the vast and devastating effects of nuclear weapons (which are considered capable of mass destruction), that the use of the technology and its weapons be limited to a few countries so as to promote the peaceful use of the energy. The benefits that are drawn from its use in the countries authorized to use should be shared with the NPT non-nuclear states as a bargain in exchange for not being allowed to own and use the technology ("Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) - UNODA"). There are standards that a nation must adhere to for it to be considered a nuclearlized country but since some countries that have not been cleared, regardless of the membership of the treaty, already possess nuclear weapons or bear the technology, the danger of a nuclear war breaking bears worry among concerned parties. To this end, this paper seeks to elucidate why the United States supports the NPT. Furthermore, it seeks to present some of the standards in place for a nation to be considered as a nuclearlized country.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Not all countries have been ruled out of the possibility of possessing nuclear technology. Countries such as Britain, India, France, Israel and the United States have been successfully granted the authority to possess nuclear technology. These countries have been evaluated according to the standards to be a nuclearlized country and have been deemed as stable enough to have nuclear weapons. According to Hanson, trust is the factor that the set standards are evaluating. It is the thought that if these countries have been approved to own nuclear technology, then the whole world can view them as trust worthy enough to be allowed to have the technology. If a country is relatively transparent and democratic as the few mentioned above, then it is allowed to possess nuclear technology because of the unlikely nature that they would start a war (Hanson). China and Russia were not really considered as democratic or transparent for that matter but because of their stake in global trade, it would not be in their best interest to start a war. The global scale of their trade serves as a deterrence to their possibility of starting a war. In other words, China and Russia would have too much to lose if either or both of them were to start a war. For this reason, they do not pose a danger of mass destruction even though they are in possession of nuclear technology.

As put by Hanson, Pakistan managed to develop nuclear technology in some way and though it is considered an unstable nation, their nuclear rival happened to be India, their immediate neighbor. India's nuclear arsenal is perceived to be far much superior to Pakistan's and for the obvious reason; Pakistan would be kept in check by the fear of ever starting a nuclear war or deploying its weapons because India would retaliate in an effort to bring Pakistan to its knees. More problems are seen to be presented by North Korea and Iran. Democracy and stability are not the strong suits of the two nations yet they have both been transparent about their possession of nuclear technology.

According to one of the standards to be a nuclearlized country, stability and democracy are the core values that are put into consideration. The lack thereof of the two most important qualification values presents a danger of a war breaking out leading to mass destruction. Furthermore, unlike Pakistan that is kept in check by India, Iran and North Korea do not have nuclear deterrents. They also happen to have initiated their pursuit of nuclear technology in secret (Hanson). Finally, as stated by Hanson, the two nations are gravely antagonistic with the United States. The treaty restricting the ownership and use of nuclear weapons that came into effect in 1970, was formed to prevent scenarios such as this but Iran and North Korea have been found to violate the nonproliferation accords. The neighbors of the two countries (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt), being in fear of the uncontrolled possession of nuclear technology by North Korea and Iran, will prompt them to develop nuclear technology in a bid act defensively should they be attacked by either nations. Should any of the above scenarios occur, the goal of the NPT would not have been achieved (Hanson).

The increase of countries investing in nuclear weapons poses a threat to international peace especially since rival countries are acquiring nuclear weapons at a rate that is quite alarming. Following the drop of North Korea from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the country has advanced its nuclear weapon arsenal and it is believed that they now possess about 60 nuclear weapons which is highly suspected to be an estimate. According to Brennan Weiss, the intervention by the United States government to inhibit the development of nuclear weaponry in North Korea has so far failed. Starting from efforts by former US Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the continued efforts by the current President Donald J. Trump are also seen to bear no fruits (Weiss). The autocracy nature of the North Korean government presents a threat to international peace especially with the advancement of North Korea in nuclear weapons development. Recent efforts by President Trump have been washed down the drain with Kim Jong Un's reluctance to stop its involvement in nuclear technology (Weiss).

It is worth looking into history to determine the trend that North Korea has left behind regarding nuclear technology. In 2003, the then North Korean leader Pyongyang decided to sign out of the NPT which allowed the country to perform its first nuclear test on. Ever since, the country has intensified its nuclear weapons development. In Israel, nuclear technology has been speculated to have been in development but the country's leadership has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement (Weiss). There is tension between three countries that are considered illegible to have nuclear weapons; Iran, Pakistan and now Israel. The NPT acknowledges five nuclearlized nations which include Russia, United Kingdom, United States, France and China. The number of nuclear warheads since 1985 has drastically reduced from over 68,000 to 4,000 active ones. The success of this reduction is solely attributed to the NPT which saw some of the member countries disarm their weapons before joining the treaty. South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine are examples of the nations that took the bold step of disarming their weapons and relinquished their title of being nuclear- weapon states ("Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) - UNODA").

During President Bill Clinton's reign, efforts were made to curb the nuclear status of North Korea. The goal was to halt North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. Glenn Kessler reported that Bill Clinton structured an agreement with North Korea to stop their development of nuclear technology. In order to entice North Korea into the deal, Clinton structured the agreement such that it could not be treated as a treaty and therefore requires less involvement of the senate in the matters. Despite fight from the congress to move the agreement and set it as a treaty, the efforts failed and the agreement stood as it was. North Korea agreed to stop any kind of exploration of nuclear weapons which they alleged were for the production of power to be used in the country. In exchange for that stoppage, Bill Clinton's administration agreed to supply 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil to North Korea to compensate for their power production by nuclear methods. However, when George W. Bush's administration stepped in, there was difference in ideas that led to the investigation of North Korea and its involvement in nuclear weapons development. There was confirmation that North Korea had not honored the agreement with Clinton and they had been developing nuclear weapons secretly using different methods; highly enriched Uranium. Bush terminated the supply of fuel to North Korea and the country immediately reopened its nuclear plants and started developing weapons (Kessler).

Recent reports indicate that there is an increasing rate of terrorist threats that have raised an alarm on the illegal buying and selling of nuclear materials and weapons to the wrong people. A report by The Economist revealed that terrorist groups in search of nuclear weapons have gone searching to as far as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. These threats have increased United States' vigilance on former Soviet nuclear weapons. Heavy investment of up to $3 billion over the past decade has been directed to improving security services in the storage sites in Russia. Suspicions of Iran acquiring a nuclear war head from Russia have been investigated and the scrutiny by the police was increased. It is said that the nuclear material that had been attempted to be smuggled out of the country was confiscated and the amount was less than the threshold of 9 - 15 kg required to build an active nuclear weapon. However, there is still risk because there is a possibility of the small amounts that make it out of the country to be assembled and can be used to inflict a radioactive contamination by the use of a radiological device (The Economist). It is for this reason that the treaty was formed in the first place. Should the nuclear weapons fall in the wrong hands, majorly terrorists, they could be used to target enemies and the mass destruction would be catastrophic. The NPT's goal is to reduce the number of active warheads in the world deeming the possibility of a war breaking out and the use of nuclear weapons could inflict irreversible losses and destruction that would set the development of the world ages aback (White).

It is predictable that questions comparing the United States' and North Korea's possession of nuclear power. It is an unavoidable circumstance and any rational mind would be compelled to request for a reason for the decision that has been the fuel of the ongoing fiery debate. In the recent failed negotiations between President Donald Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un, President Trump alleged that the increase of Korea's nuclear armory triggered the same reaction for the nuclear arsenal of the United States, with a $1 trillion program being put in place to expand it. He termed it an arms race. Russia has also followed suit and the vibe that is drawn from all these occurrences is that there is a threat to the treaty (Mosher). Whether or not this will survive is still an unanswered question that only time will tell.

Conclusion

The legitimacy of the United States and the illegitimacy of North Korea as pertains to Nuclear Weapons have been discussed and theories have been developed that attempt to give credit to the US and discredit North Korea. First of all, North Korea is considered to be a very secretive country and that not many people are aware of what goes on in that nation, not even the Chinese, the immediate neighbors are aware of the doing of the government of that country. For this reason, it is impossible to predict what actions they will take when provoked (Yushina). Additionally, their secretiveness put other endangered nations at a risk because the state of the government there is unknown. In case of a disagreement on the nuclear warheads, they could be deployed to enemy countries without due democratic process. As was mentioned earlier, one of the qualifying standards for a country to be nuclearlized was transparency and democracy. These two traits hugely lack in the North Kor...