The to nuclear disarmament, and togeneral and complete

The reason behind the creation of NPT were concerns for the safety of a world in whichmany nuclear weapon states existed. Countries recognized that having greater numberNuclear countries would reduce security for all. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons by theUnited States of America in 1945, has made apparent that the development of nuclearcapabilities by countries could enable them to divert technology and materials for weaponspurposes. Thus, the problem of preventing such diversions became a central issue indiscussions on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.With this in mind, the principle of nuclear non-proliferation was addressed in negotiations asearly as 1957 and by 1968 final agreement had been reached on a Treaty that wouldprevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, enable cooperation for the peaceful use ofnuclear energy, and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.The NPT consists of three pillars:? Non-Proliferation? Nuclear-weapon states pledge to not transfer nuclear weapons or in any wayassist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear- weapon state in themanufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Non-nuclear- weapon statespledge to not acquire or exercise control over nuclear weapons and not toseek or receive assistance in the manufacture of such devices. Non nuclear-weapon states pledge to accept IAEA safeguards to verify that their nuclearactivities serve only peaceful purposes.? Disarmament? All Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measuresrelating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and togeneral and complete disarmament.? The right to peacefully use nuclear technology? All Parties are to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to benefitfrom international cooperation in this area, in conformity with theirnonproliferation obligations.While it was brought into existence with good thoughts and a bright future mind, it does haveits flaws.. The NPT defines a Nuclear Weapon state to be any country that has built andtested this technology before 1st January 1967 and grants these countries the right to playhost to an armada of nuclear weapons. While the second pillar does call for totaldisarmament, it failed to specify the date by which countries need to do so. This essentiallygives Nuclear weapon states the right to keep nuclear weapons in perpetuity, inadvertently,creating an imbalance of power in the world.This begs the question, Should the right to acquire and develop nuclear weapons be onlyreserved to Nuclear Weapon States.My main reasons why the right to acquire and develop nuclear weapon should not bereserved to Nuclear Weapon States:1) It creates an imbalance of power between countries that have them and those that don't.2) Saying that only states which created nuclear weapons before 1965 should be allowed tokeep them is completely arbitrary. It could just as well have been 1975 or 19903) It could possibly be argued that only stable governments should possess nuclearweapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists, but who are we to decidewhich country is stable?Starting with the first point, imbalance of power. It allows countries to influence foreignpolicies that may not be in its best interest. To start with an example, the reason diplomacyhas to this point had zero impact on China’s aggression in South China Sea is that thebalance of power in the region is steadily shifting in favor of China. They have no incentive tostop their assertion of sovereignty, or negotiate seriously over territorial disputes, as long asthey believe they can get their way, over time, by coercion. Coercion achieved through itssheer military might that have given it the edge in the region. Such is the power nuclearweapons grant a country, it allows them to go rogue without having to suffer anyconsequence. Another example could be China’s encroachment in to India in 1962,triggering a minor war between the two countries. A step that China took due to its nucleararsenalMoving on to my second point, it is completely arbitrary to allow countries before 1965.There is no reason as to why countries that possess nuclear weapons before 1965 shouldbe given extra privileges. Why can not the same right be extended to India which starteddeveloping its own nuclear weapons a decade since 1965. What makes India different thanthe U.S. or China or any of the Nuclear Weapon States.A trust argument could be made saying that many countries feel safer with the five nuclearweapon states possessing weapons of mass destruction, and hence signed the treaty. Howcan and should these countries blindly trust Nuclear weapon states with such great power,when one of the nuclear weapon states (U.S.) single handedly killed around 200,000 peopleand a another (China) is drunk on the power it gives. Can they be trusted with the sole rightto acquire and develop nuclear weapons. I say not.Moreover,Countries are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this rightalso allows them to possess Nuclear Weapons. Often countries lack the capacity to defendthemselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true for poor and/or smallcountries. For example, a country such as Britain can never match its military might with thatof China which has over 2,285,000 military personnel. With a nuclear deterrent, all statesbecome equal in terms of ability to harm to one another. If a big country attempts tointimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will not be very successful, since the smallcountry now has the power to destroy vital parts of the invader’s country with a few properlyutilised nuclear missiles. For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would havenever happened had Georgia possessed Nuclear Weapons.Russia would have had secondthoughts when considering the potential loss of it would have to face in exchange for a smallpiece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons level the playing field for all regardlessof it geography or military prowess…However, it could be argued that imbalance of power that the NPT is creating is important asit plays a vital role in maintaining peace and stability. Their argument could be that thereshould definitely not be a balance of power between the United States of America andcountries such as North Korea and Iran. If there was then countries such as the U.S. wouldbe able to militarily overpower nations that are destructive in nature such as Iran which isthreatening the existence of Israel or North Korea threatening the United States and SouthKorea. Due to current state of affairs, Iran would think twice before they tried anythingagainst Israel, as Israel and its allies could retaliate against Iran and cause just as muchdestruction as they had cause. Besides, it is not like any country can nuke another anytimethey want to. Usage of these weapons have severe repercussions on a global platform andthis is why countries such as North Korea are showing extreme reluctance to actually usethese weapons and so even if every country was allowed to possess nuclear weapons, thechances of them actually being used in a war is very limited. That can be refuted by sayingthat right now the imbalance of power is able to maintain peace and stability. However, nocountry would want to be suppressed for long, they will eventually revolt and try to seize thepower or atleast try to achieve a equilibrium, both of which will involve a war on global scale.However, there are plenty of good reasons as to why the right to acquire and developnuclear weapons should only be reserved to Nuclear Weapon States.1. The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terroristsincreases as more countries possess them2. The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikesfrom its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weaponsStarting with my first argument, There are lots of dangerous autocratic leaders, many ofwhom yearn for nuclear weapons not just for defending himself/herself, but also forintimidating their neighbours. Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons. Forexample, Iran has pursued a secret nuclear weapons program for years and by legalizingsuch research and development, the Iranians could have increased weapon production inboth volume and speed. The result of such an breakthrough could wreak havoc in the MiddleEast and would impose a severe threat to the existence of a number of states within theregion, particularly countries such as Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, fallinginto the hands of terrorists increases substantially when there are more nuclear weaponsand more nuclear weapons being created across the world. In addition, many countries inthe developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them due toreasons such as lack of technology, political instability, and corruption. Allowing thesecountries to hold nuclear weapons is the perfect recipe for a disaster.Secondly, The threat represented by potential nuclear powers may very well lead to pre-emptive attack by countries afraid of the new and upcoming Nuclear capable country..Therefore, until a country develops enough nuclear weapons that its neighbouring countriesbelieve that they cannot destroy all of them in one go, nuclear weapons increase the risk ofa bloody feud. For example, a country such as Israel will want to attack Iran before it canfully develop their nuclear weapons capability. Even in the past, The American military forcesconsidered destroying Soviet Russia’s nuclear capability before they gained the ability toretaliate with Nukes. In fact Major General Orvil Anderson of the United States Air force oncesaid that: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in aweek…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had savedcivilization.” Thus I have proved to you that allowing countries to develop their nucleararsenal will lead to full scale war before the weapons even become fully functional. Clearly, itis best for everyone if things remain as they are, otherwise we could end up having to dealwith multiple wars at the same time.That said, it can be argued that every country has a right to protect its borders from anythreat, might it be a another country or a terrorist group and by all means necessary and inextreme cases it might even mean the usage of nuclear weapons. This can be refuted bysaying that, agreed, all countries do have a need to defend themself. However, acquiringnuclear weapons now to do so, might only provoke more wars and destabilise global peacethat already exists.In my opinion, it is better to let all countries freely acquire and develop nuclear weapons.Agreed, when other countries start producing and developing their own nuclear arsenal, theirneighbours might retaliate, however, there are about 7 countries that currently possessnukes and about 180 that don’t. It is almost impossible for these 7 countries to revolt againstthe world without facing some grieve consequences. They might as well help the othercountries safeguard any nuclear weapons that they might develop and this successfullyovercomes all the problems that are cropping up if all the countries do acquire nuclear