The possibility of a nuclear war is terrifying for most people. Nuclear weapons are synonymous with destructions of great magnitude. For this reason, possessing nuclear weapons comes with great powers and responsibilities. The ethical dilemma surrounding the use of nuclear weapons has been a subject of major debate since the twin atomic bombings in Japan. To address these concerns, a treaty governing modes of developing and purchasing nuclear weapons was put together in 1968.
Under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, countries with nuclear programs were to reduce their weapons gradually and eventually eliminate them. On the other hand, countries without nuclear weapons were not to start manufacturing them. Most of the countries involved in the NPT have not honored it so far (Baker, 2010). There is an ongoing debate on whether countries should be curbed from developing and/or purchasing nuclear weapons. This paper will argue that considering the current situation, there should be limitations when it comes to the development and purchasing of nuclear weapons by countries around the world.
During the last century, the world witnessed an increase in the number of dictators and tyrants. Unlike in the past, dictators are not only a threat when they are in charge of big countries. Tyrants from small countries are also proving to be a threat to the stability of the modern world. Most tyrants could use nuclear weapons as tool of furthering their tyranny.
If nuclear programs were not limited, any country would have the chance to own these weapons. Past dictators have been known to use their countries’ weapons to intimidate their critics. For instance, past dictators like Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Muamar Gaddafi, and others used their arsenals to intimidate their detractors. If any of these leaders had access to nuclear weapons, it is likely they would have used them for the wrong purposes.
If manufacturing and purchasing of nuclear weapons is not limited, several countries would have access to these weapons. This would increase their number and make them easy to access. This scenario would increase the amount of tension associated with small conflicts. Currently, whenever there is tension between two countries, the countries react by getting their armor ready.
With nuclear weapons, the country that strikes first most likely wins the war. For instance, Japan was unable to recover from the Hiroshima bombings and inevitably surrendered. Therefore, if all countries had access to nuclear weapons, war tensions would dramatically increase. This would have a destabilizing effect on several global affairs. Moreover, an increase in nuclear weapons may make them accessible to terrorists and rebel groups. This would compromise world peace in a big way.
Many of those who are against limiting nuclear weapons argue that it violates countries’ right to self-defense. However, all rights to self-defense have to be within the confines of law. Nuclear weapons are not ideologically defense tools but more of extermination tools. Nuclear weapons have the ability to kill millions of people in mere seconds (Scheffran, 2012).
Whenever there have been a threat of a nuclear war, the imminent danger has been worse than that of a normal conflict. During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the estimated casualties of the imminent nuclear conflict amounted to millions. Some people were worried that such an event would wipe out more than a third of the world’s population at the time. There have been several incidences when nuclear warfare has seemed imminent. During such times, the language has not focused on self-defense but on “extermination”.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that nuclear weapons are for self-defense. Moreover, all self-defense activities have to be within the confines of the international law. The United States and Russia, two of the leading proliferators of nuclear weapons have realized the danger of possessing nuclear weapons (Grief, 2011). This is why both countries are in the process of deactivating their nuclear arsenals.
Another positive factor of limiting the development and purchasing of nuclear weapons is that it makes it possible to conduct humanitarian interventions. In the past, there have been several humanitarian interventions in cases of civil wars and genocides. If all countries were allowed to have nuclear weapons, it would be difficult to conduct interventions to halt genocide and civil wars.
Countries that have the ability to make such interventions would find it very expensive to do so. For example, if nuclear weapons were involved, the recent intervention in Libya would have been very expensive for the NATO forces (Walsh, 2011). The troops that were assisting the Libyan rebels would have incurred more costs in terms of human and financial capital. Interventions have restored peace in various parts of the world especially where the conflict was centered around a single tyrant or rebel group. If nuclear weapons were not limited, it would provide such rebels a lifeline without the possibility of an intervention.
There are very few advantages of having a free nuclear-weapons market. On the other hand, past experience shows that there is a need to limit the number of countries that develop or buy nuclear weapons. There has never been an all-nuclear war in the world yet. This can be partly attributed to the efforts by the United Nations and other stakeholders to limit the number of countries that have nuclear programs. It is imperative that the current situation remains as it is, when it comes to the development and purchasing of nuclear weapons. Invention of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern world and it is up to the human race to manage this tragedy.
References
Baker, P. (2010). Twists and turns on way to arms pact with Russia. Web.
Grief, N. (2011). Nuclear weapons: the legal status of use, threat and possession.
Scheffran, J. (2012). Climate change, nuclear risks and nuclear disarmament.
Walsh, J. (2011). Libya and the hypocrisy of humanitarian intervention.