Introduction
Nuclearisation has in reality become a significant political matter in the world for the past ten years. This has concurrently been marked by the nuclearisation of North Korea, United States, South Asia, Iran, India, Libya and many other states.
North Korea’s interest in nuclear weapons capacity has long aggravated heated arguments between policy makers and researchers. Such arguments are mostly about the reasons for engagement and repeated dissatisfaction in attempts to confer to Korean denuclearization.
These debates widely reveal divergent opinions of the North Korean government and its sustainability as an independent political, financial and martial system.
They also reflect the likely consequences of prolonged nuclear development in this secluded and highly eccentric state (Sidney, 2007). Efforts to hold back North Korea’s interest in nuclear weapons is among the topmost running and least victorious sagas in global security.
It is however highly unfortunate that North Korea keeps on deceiving the international community through its open attitudes and mischief. This is in contrast to the advancement in international nuclear disbarment and non- proliferation.
The subject of North Korean nuclearisation has been deteriorating over time. This essay will assess North Korea’s venerable quest for nuclear weapons and its potential insinuations for national security. It will establish whether North Korea is a responsible nuclear weapon state in comparison with other states.
Discussion
North Korea is not a responsible nuclear weapons state. Its irresponsibility is seen especially when US and Russia, which are the largest nuclear powers globally put their signature on the New Start Treaty promising to lower the number of planned nuclear warheads.
Consequently, the Nuclear Security Summit met to build up a shared agreement on the gravity of the menace of nuclear terrorism. North Korea’s irresponsibility in this case is seen when it continues working against international laws and requirements while at the same time declining to abandon its nuclear drives.
Not only did it not take part in these encouraging developments but also acted as a key impediment to the global community’s efforts to create a world that is nuclear weapons free.
North Korea’s irresponsibility as a nuclear weapons state is also seen when it goes against the individual rights of people. It is one of the countries whose people are mistreated by denying the citizens rights to choose their own ways of living.
Although North Korea claims that their nuclear weapons are not instruments for assaulting and threatening others, they use them to offset aggression and attacks from the other countries. For instance, North Korea states that their nuclear deterrents can in no way be abandoned and should further be made stronger.
United States further asserts that it would at no point recognize North Korea as a nuclear weapon country. It argues that North Korea present path is a “dead end “. It has developed nuclear weapons for its own benefits, safeguarding its sovereignty and existence rights.
The irresponsibility of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state has further been confirmed. It is irresponsible and ethically repugnant for any nation to produce and own weapons for arbitrarily killing billions of people.
For instance, on March 2010, North Koreas torpedo led to the sinking of the ROK naval craft Cheonan. This assailment claimed 46 blameless lives (Nathan & Daniel, 2009).
India is the most responsible nuclear weapons state compared to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and other nuclear weapons. It has taken significant efforts to establish the export legislations for nuclear weapons.
This has been taken as unexpected progress to lessen war threats in these country something North Korea has not even thought of. North Korea keeps proclaiming that it would make reliable efforts for denuclearization which has so far remained doubtful among other states.
Conclusion
The Possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea has augmented the stakes in disagreements. It has also threatened victims on an incredible scale. North Korea should thus discard its nuclear weapons programme and pursue the example of other countries such as India and Libya.
The present trends in worldwide politics towards conflicts and wars must be abandoned in preference for dialogue and conformity with international law.
Engaging in dialogue just for the sake is North Korea’s long preferred approach for holding up denuclerisation.This must not be contemplated any longer. North Korea must demonstrate honesty of its words by taking actual and irreversible steps towards denuclearization.
The Korean government is however taking some approaches to minimize the use of nuclear weapons. These approaches include a no nuclear North Korea, two track approach and the approach of grand bargain.
The two track approach emphasizes that North Korea should not be simply rewarded for going back to dialogue after performing provocative deeds. It first needs to demonstrate a strong commitment to denuclearization and take tangible steps regarding that end (Alagappa, 2009).
In the grand bargain approach, The North Korean government is seeking a broad and elemental resolution to the North Korean nuclear weapon matter.
This aims to take in all the steps associated with North Koreas irrevocable denuclearization. It is therefore clear that while the accountability for nuclear security lies with individual states, international attempts are required to sustain national standards at an acceptable level.
References
Alagappa, M. (2009). The long shadow: nuclear weapons and security in 21st century. DC: US Press.
Nathan, E.B & Daniel, J. (2009). Combating weapons of mass destruction: the future of international nonproliferation policy. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Sidney, D.D. (2007). Nuclear weapons, scientists, and the post-Cold War challenge. NY: World Scientific Press.