Peace & NonviolenceThe Nuclear Threat Today |
The threat of nuclear weapons has been a fact of life on earth since the second half of the 20th century. The size of nuclear arsenals worldwide peaked at more than 35,000 ware heads in the 1980s and remains at approximately 27,000 ware heads today, including strategic and tactical weapons. The sophistication of the science and the political dependence on the doctrine of deterrence, the threat of "mutually assured destruction" as a strategy for security have both increased steadily since 1945. In the year, the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: World War II ended and the Cold War began. Today the Cold War has officially ended, through its doctrines still shape international politics. Relationship among countries, regional conflicts, and even some local conflicts continue to reflect the Cold War struggle, in which allegiances were forged through conventional military aid and promises of protection under the nuclear umbrella of one superpower or the other. The tendency to resort to violence has not lessened in the first years of the 21st century, as exemplified by the war against Iraq and ongoing conflicts in Africa and parts of Asia. The capacity for violence, however, has increased exponentially in the form of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials, continues military preparation and training for the use of nuclear weapons, and state policies that rely on nuclear deterrence for the indefinite future. The nature of the nuclear threat today has many elements.
From Nuclear Non-Proliferation to Nuclear AbolitionThe current international security regime relies on the Non-proliferation Treaty to contain the threat of nuclear disarmament. The NPT originated in 1968, came into force in 1970, and has kept proliferation generally contained across states 9horizontal proliferation), although within some states arsenals have grown dramatically (vertical proliferation). The NPT recognized a "nuclear weapon state" as one that had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device prior to 1st January 1967. According to this definition, only weapon states. These five states are also the five permanent members of the Security Council the UN body authorized to identify threats to international peace and to enforce and maintain peace. In other words, the states with the most military power also have the most authority under the current international legal system. The NPT regime includes the procedures and bodies that enforce it, such as the international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has extensive experience with the technology and mechanisms necessary for nuclear disarmament ant its verification and recent development serve to strengthen safeguards by improving the type of information gathered and the quality of analysis applied to it. However the dual nature of the mission of the IAEA-preventing diversion of nuclear material to weapons purposes while promoting nuclear energy weakens its effectiveness as an agency for the enforcement of non-proliferation. Moreover, the military facilities of the nuclear weapon states are not covered by safeguards on a voluntary basis. In contrast, the non-nuclear weapon states are expected to submit to full scope safeguards system perpetuates the discriminatory nature of the NPT. The cracks in the NPT regime have become increasingly obvious. The DPRK Libya, and Iraq are known to have pursued nuclear weapons technology in recent years, and the DPRK has joined the ranks of the nuclear weapon states. India and Pakistan, who have refused to sign the NPT, both tested nuclear weapons in 1998, publicly rejecting the NPT regime. Israel is estimated to have up to 200 nuclear weapons. The material and skill to develop nuclear weapons are becoming increasingly difficult weaken further unless an international efforts is made to halt and reverse current trends. Nuclear proliferation will remain a risk as long as any states claim the right to possess nuclear weapons. A Varity of efforts across states, industries, institutions, and non-governmental channels is necessary if there is to be reversal of nuclear proliferation and the possibility of nuclear abolition. For this reason, IPPNW has taken a range of different approaches to address the nuclear threat under the rubric of the international Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), including research and education, physician dialogues with decision makers, and grassroots action. Source: Peace Now, January 2008 |