Nuclear Proliferation And Nonproliferation Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Nuclear proliferation—the spread of nuclear weapons around the world—represents one of the central challenges to contemporary international peace and security.

Definitions Of Nuclear Proliferation

The standard definition of nuclear proliferation was set by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. The NPT implicitly defines proliferation as the manufacture and explosion of a nuclear explosive device by any state (or, conceivably, by a nonstate actor) that had not done so beforehand. In short, proliferation occurs upon a state’s first nuclear test.

This standard definition has been challenged from a number of perspectives. First, it is often remarked that in addition to the problem of “horizontal” proliferation, there is also the problem of “vertical” proliferation—the accumulation of nuclear weapons stockpiles by the existing nuclear powers. This argument may be intellectually valid, but in common parlance, proliferation is used exclusively to mean horizontal proliferation, and other terms such as build-up or arms race are used to mean vertical proliferation.

Second, some contend that proliferation might be better conceived more as a continuous process than as a discrete outcome. The so-called proliferation ladder ranges from the acquisition of basic nuclear scientific and technical skills to the development of a bomb-manufacturing capacity and finally to actual bomb manufacture, testing, and deployment. There has been a concerted push to roll the proliferation “red line” back from the first nuclear explosion to the production of fissile material. These efforts remain controversial, however.

Causes Of Nuclear Proliferation

Broadly speaking, there are two competing explanatory camps for the phenomenon of nuclear proliferation: realism and idealism. The first, traditionally dominant realist camp takes the view that states are ultimately driven toward the bomb by the inescapable requirement of self-help in the anarchic international system. In short, in a dangerous world states must seek to arm themselves with the most dangerous weapons. But in contradiction to realist expectations, fewer than ten of the fifty or so states that are widely estimated to have the potential to have nuclear arsenals by now actually do have them. At present, the nuclear weapons states include the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and possibly North Korea. In addition, South Africa secretly held a few nuclear devices before destroying them at the end of the 1980s, and three post-Soviet successor states briefly inherited weapons at the start of the 1990s but quickly gave them up. Meanwhile there is no credible evidence that any terrorist group has ever been close to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The persistent small number of nuclear weapons states has caused resurgent interest in the alternative, idealist perspective on proliferation. Different idealist theories focus on different levels of analysis. International-level idealists stress the effects of international norms of nonproliferation and nuclear nonuse on depressing demand for the bomb, with the caveat that these norms cannot restrain so-called rogue regimes that reject international society. Meanwhile, domestic-level idealists note that many important societal constituencies oppose nuclear weapons. Finally, individual-level idealists argue that going nuclear is a revolutionary act in world politics, which only oppositional nationalist leaders may have the motivation and certitude necessary to carry off.

Effects Of Nuclear Proliferation

The vast majority of policy makers are convinced that proliferation is a source of world disorder, but academics are divided between nuclear proliferation optimists and pessimists. Proliferation optimists contend that mutual assured destruction prevented the cold war from descending into World War III. This experience suggests to them that a nuclear-armed world could actually be a more stable world. By contrast, proliferation pessimists argue that the nuclear stability of the cold war was more apparent than real, with numerous close calls due to miscalculation, misperception, organizational dysfunction, and sheer brutality. Moreover, they argue that whatever nuclear stability did exist during the cold war is likely to be unsustainable as the nuclear club expands—and will certainly break down if nonstate actors get the bomb.

Efforts Against Nuclear Proliferation

There are numerous international efforts to rein in nuclear proliferation. At the center of these efforts is the multilateral treaty instrument of the NPT. NPT membership is almost universal, with nearly 190 parties, even though membership can be costly to the non–nuclear weapon states. Under the NPT, non–nuclear weapon states are required to safeguard their nuclear facilities against military uses, subject to inspection and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA’s safeguards system was long criticized for being too lax, but it has tightened considerably over the years. Indeed, that tightening has caused a slowdown in the expansion of the global civilian nuclear energy market, which the NPT was supposed to protect. There are growing fears that treaty membership may become unattractive to non–nuclear weapon states if it does not help them to advance their civilian nuclear power ambitions.

In addition to the formal multilateral instruments of nonproliferation are the export control clubs, the Zangger Committee and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which include most of the main states engaged in international nuclear commerce. These clubs have also significantly tightened their rules over the years. Meanwhile, the important American initiative for “cooperative threat reduction,” and more recently joint “global partnership” efforts by the G8 states, have tackled the difficult problem of reinforcing post-Soviet states’ capacity to hang on to their nuclear materials and not seek income through dangerous technology exports.

In addition to supporting nonproliferation, the United States has also pioneered the development of counter proliferation efforts, which attempt to utilize the threat or actuality of military force to roll back nuclear weapons programs or at least to minimize their strategic value. Some aspects of U.S. counter proliferation policy have found widespread international support, notably the proliferation security initiative, which aims to interdict trade in nuclear and dual-use materials. Other aspects have been hotly contested, especially the deployment of ballistic missile defense systems and the Bush doctrine of preventive war against nascent nuclear weapons programs. Whether counter proliferation policy complements or detracts from nonproliferation policy remains an open question.

Bibliography:

Forsberg, Randall, et al. The Nonproliferation Primer: Preventing the Spread of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.
Hymans, Jacques E. C. The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The Nonproliferation Review. http://cns.miis.edu/npr.
Sagan, Scott D., and Kenneth Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. New York:W.W. Norton, 2003.

This example Nuclear Proliferation And Nonproliferation Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.