Feasibility And Lessons Learnt From Past For Achieving Nuclear Disarmament

Background on Nuclear Disarmament

Nuclear disarmament has become the focus of attention of intellectual communities and the political power groups across the globe since the first nuclear explosion at WWII was successfully done by United States of America. Though USA launched the massive destruction weapon after US president Truman came to the conclusion that there is no other alternative available at the time to bring WWII to an end. There are varying controversies and opinions existing on matters like why allies selected Japan rather than Germany for bomb attack, possibilities of racist driving forces for making Japan as target. In any case the massive destruction capacity of atomic explosion is evident to the mankind from the devastation experienced from twin bombings on Hiroshima and Naga Saki in 1945. As high as 1,35,000 causalities reported in Hiroshima and about 64,000 causalities reported in Nagasaki during that the atomic explosion times. From then, there is global outcry from different sections of the world to stop nuclear race and to abandon the nuclear weapons. The tension and the intense pressure experienced by United States and USSR during the cold war are known to the world during that time. The fear and mutual untrust between the superpowers of that time resulted in arm race. By 1952, United States tested the first hydrogen bomb. By 1950, the nuclear weapon pressure from USSR, made it to develop the secret defence strategy NSC-68, which almost quadrupled the defence budget of the country. Though there is no witness recorded of any nuclear attack since the WWII, unlike the times of the world war, the nuclear bomb potential has grown at present. There are several countries in the world having the potential to bomb the nuclear weapons. About nine countries in the world, USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are reported to contain about 16,300 nuclear weapons. There were several treaties put before under the international organizational frameworks and by mutual understandings, with the operation of which USA and Russia have disarmed several nuclear weapons from the cold war times however still at present  more than 90% of the current nuclear weapons are in the inventory of these two countries(Feiveson,2014). Under the treaty of reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms both the countries reduced their nuclear inventory in the yester years. Now considering the seriousness and unique danger associated with the nuclear weapons, partial reduction of inventory is not a comprehensive solution to the objectives of the global countries. 100% mitigation of the nuclear weapons is needed and the following part of the report presents more detailed and critical discussion of the possibility of the nuclear disarmament and the feasibility of the nuclear disarmament. Specific focus will be there on the lessons learnt from the past and application of the experiences to the contemporary situations to facilitate more harmonious future to the mankind(Bunn,2015). 

International Agreements on Nuclear Disarmament

Nuclear disarmament postulates directives to totally forbid the manufacture and purchase of the nuclear weapons.  Further the idea insists that the nuclear power countries need to eradicate and reduce the usage of the nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation of the nuclear weapons treaty (NPT) is a milestone in the international security and it is signed on July 1^st 1968. Unanimously the treaty is accepted by all the five nations in the Security Council and it is also accepted by about 59 countries unconditionally(Rublee,2017). Then the five stars of the country (The nuclear weapon possessed countries) proposed and accepted the treaty and is the first success in establishing a framework to mitigate the nuclear weapons and to constrain the spread of the nuclear weapons across the world. Bothe the spread of the weapons as well as the technology of making nuclear weapons are quite dangerous to allow for spread and the members of the security council countries rightly taken a responsible initiative to propose the NPT and enabled several international countries  to become part of the enforcement of the reduction procedures in the globe(Morgenthau,2018,P.89). Well when there is no existence for any measure or tool to limit the spread the nuclear weapons or more precisely for nuclear disarmament, it is worth to consider the initiatives of the powerful countries of the world to consider the same. Majority of the global countries if not total world, expecting now an everlasting global harmony, stability and security(Zehner,2016). There is no hesitation to say that the arms race is disturbing the serenity of the world and there is need for the total nuclear disarmament in the world. Essentially the emphasis of the concept needs to be imparted voluntarily on the global countries and the first priority need to be there on the voluntary disarmament as it is most powerful strategy, embargo need to be the next preference. Since materialization of enforcement using the voluntary strategies are more powerful than those with use of power as well as other barriers like trade(Kuhn,2017). 

Though there is no record of any other country except United States of America using the nuclear weapon, several countries both the nuclear powered and non-nuclear powered countries recognized the ill –effects of the nuclear rat race and they have indicated their approval for nuclear non-proliferation(Keller,2016). The first partial test ban treaty (PTBT) is prepared in 1963 and since then ban of the nuclear weapons under the water has become empowered.  North Korea, Israel in collaboration with South Africa are the few countries joined in the nuclear rat race due to several reasons.  In these circumstances, Comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT) is proposed and adopted in 1996(Burroughs,2016). It has actually banned the usage of nuclear weapons by all the countries. The comprehensive test ban treaty totally bans the nuclear explosions on the planet for any type of the testing either for the sake of military or even for the sake of civilian operations(Hynek,2015). The total test ban of nuclear explosion has rightly put pressure on several global countries. Vulnerability of supporting the terrorist countries and losing their neutral stand towards Nuclear test ban treaty is infact practically materialized and the drive for the same is augmented by this strategy. CTBT is signed by 182 countries of the world and is ratified by about 153 global nations. It is infact a glimpse of the potential to put an end to the nuclear race. A new hope for nuclear disarmament has arised from the approval of CTBT. There are few disturbances and the breach of the policies and adjustments as well in the aftermath of CTBT, specifically in the context of IAEA inspections. Few instances of deviations reported from North Korea as well as from Israel in terms of breach of the articles as well as in terms of deceiving by hiding the critical information related to the nuclear resources and processing capabilities(Nielson,2014,P.15). USA negotiated with North Korea to abandon its nuclear reactors in exchange for agreeing the same made North Korea to take up the alternative energy resources from United States of America. However the understanding lasted only till 1994, where North Korea came out of the IAEA and tested missile attack in Japan waters. Also by 2003, North Korea came out of NPT totally(Thakur,2017,P.90). US launched six way talks in 2005 were failure and the North Korea came out of the understanding and commitment to NPT and infact announced that it will going forward for nuclear testing by 2006. Though the tests of 2005 are not confirmed whether the nuclear tests or not, at present North Korea is definitely possession of nuclear powers by North Korea is proven beyond doubt and the exact statistics of nuclear weapons the country possessing at present is also known to the global community at present. Iran informed in 2010 itself that it is nuclear capable and it has already enriched uranium by about 20% and they can do so for 80% as well. However the Iran leadership reiterated that they will use the power only for the sake of peaceful purposes. In any case, considering the wide diversity and difference in conditions and the opinions of the global nations and also considering the wide spread of the global terrorism, it can be said that the PTBT and CTBT have successfully contributed to the limitation and regulation of the nuclear weapon spread on the globe and it is an indication of the potential of the unity and commitment of the global nations to put an end to the nuclear crisis(Kaufman,2014). The undertakings and the volumous positive response to the measures from the global nations and the aftermath all provide a positive picture and reiterate the potential and the possibility of the nuclear disarmament in the country(Ruzicka,2015,P.31). 

Past Lessons for Nuclear Disarmament

Nuclear deterrence and the disastrous retaliation argument is the argument by several of the nuclear powered countries. They insist that the nuclear power possession provides them a more convenient political framework to negotiate security as well as to negotiate better concessions from the countries like United States of America and other superpowers of the world. DPRK(North Korea) is a good example country which iterated several times that the possession of the nuclear weapons for them is a necessity and demonstrated the usage of nuclear weapons as a political tool to control the relations with USA, Japan, South Korea. Nuclear deterrence and the power from the strong retaliation is the incentive accepted by Israel for making its bold move towards nuclear power. Well though these are only few countries moved a step towards nuclear power on the global framework there is also consistent threat of selling the nuclear weapons to the other countries. With the same fear that Korea can sell nuclear weapons to the other countries or terrorist organizations, China prevented the imposition of the harsh enforcement as well as the application of the force to control the nuclear interventions of North Korea(Nielson,2014). In 1975, Israel is believed to offer the sale of its nuclear weapons to South Africa. There is no open acceptance of the issue by Israel, however still it is possible that it may happen in the future that the Israel or any other nuclear powered country can sell the nuclear weapons to a third country(Pollack,2017). However still considering the minimum spread of the open sale of the nuclear weapons and very minimum spread of the technology, it can be said that the policies of the security councils and the efforts of the members of the security council are actually working out to generate a global conscious towards limiting the nuclear weapons and to control the spread of the nuclear devastation technology. Several Middle Eastern countries already backing the NPT and supporting the Security Council to limit the activities of Israel and put an end to the nuclear fear spread in the Middle Eastern region. 

Conclusion:

It is an   accepted and open fact that the efforts of the Security Council are quite impressive and leaving whether they are adequate or not, essentially have controlled the nuclear weapon usage since WWII. However still the nuclear technology cannot be owned by any single country in the world and it can be disseminated from one to other. Considering the seriousness of the problem and varying arguments and the opinions about the menace like nuclear deterrence, multiple solutions to the problem need to be employed and solutions needed to be tailored by case to case basis. Such approach will essential provide a comprehensive nuclear disarmament and it will make it feasible as well to bestow the serenity and harmony in the global platform. Some of the possible dimensions of the solutions include the following, for example when Iran and Israel conflicts and the conditions are considered, it is possible that the peace can be established in the region by promoting the financial sanctions and by limiting the financial resources in case of the breach. Agreements based on this stick and carrot strategies are mostly viable in most of the cases, however still there are also instances of North Korea breaching several agreements before. The fear of strict corrections and loss of sanctions has not deterred the country’s passion for the weapons. There is no alternative except to go for diplomatic strategies to bring back North Korea on to peace talks and for NPT.  However this is quite difficult and need to be executed with tact considering the current leadership and the conditions of the country. Friendly countries of North Korea like china who happened to be still members of Security Council(wit,2015) and obstructing the usage of force on Korea has to play an intelligent and moderate role in controlling the North Korea for further succumbing to the usage of the nuclear weapons(Gauthier,2016,P.96).  Nuclear Disarmament is definitely possible and all the nations of the world can collectively execute the programme(Berger,2015,P.30). There is no other option except to move forward collaboratively and with unified spirit to abolish the nuclear warfare. World countries already envisioned that if a nuclear war broke out there is nothing like winners and losers, every country in the world will be equally suffered and mankind totally has to feel regret for their lack of foresight. As such there is nothing like unsolved problem possible, and whatever may be the complexities associated, a detailed and comprehensive strategies will work for the total nuclear disarmament. Yes it is feasible and possible, but what is needed is much more intelligent and matured strategies which combines intellect, political, economic and other modes of force and power control to make the world free of nuclear weapons. 

References

Berger, A., 2015. I. North Korea in the Global Arms Market. Whitehall Papers, 84(1), pp.12-34.

Bunn, M.G., 2015. Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Non proliferation (Book Review).

Burroughs, J., 2016. Legal aspects of general and complete disarmament. United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) Occasional Papers, pp.15-25.

Feiveson, H.A., Glaser, A., Mian, Z. and Von Hippel, F., 2014. Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gauthier, B.K., 2016. North Korea–US Relations under Kim Jong Il: The Quest for Normalization?, written by Ramon Pacheco Pardo. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 23(1), pp.94-96.

Hynek, N. and Smetana, M. eds., 2015. Global Nuclear Disarmament: Strategic, Political, and Regional Perspectives. Routledge.

Keller, U., 2016. Achieving Security Through Nuclear Disarmament? The Middle East as a Test Case (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St. Gallen).

Kaufman, S., 2014. Getting to Zero: The Path to Nuclear Disarmament.

Kühn, U., 2017. Introduction: Nuclear disarmament and arms control for the next decade.

Morgenthau, H.J., 2018. The fallacy of thinking conventionally about nuclear weapons. In Arms Control and Disarmament(pp. 79-89). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Nielsen, J. and Hanson, M., 2014. Nuclear disarmament? Not yet. Open Security.

Nielsen, J., 2014. The humanitarian initiative on disarmament and the 2015 NPT review process. In New Perspectives on Global Nuclear Order: Inaugural Conference of the BISA Global Nuclear Order Working Group 2013 (pp. 13-17). British International Studies Association (BISA).

Pollack, J.D., 2017. No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. Routledge

Rublee, M.R., 2017. India-Pakistan nuclear diplomacy: constructivism and the prospects for nuclear arms control and disarmament in South Asia.

Ruzicka, J. and Wheeler, N.J., 2015. 3 Trust building in nuclear disarmament. Global Nuclear Disarmament: Strategic, Political, and Regional Perspectives, p.31.

Thakur, R., 2017. The Nuclear Ban Treaty: Recasting a Normative Framework for Disarmament. The Washington Quarterly, 40(4), pp.71-95.

Wit, J.S. and Ahn, S.Y., 2015. North Korea’s Nuclear Futures: Technology and Strategy. US-Korea Institute at SAIS.

Zehner, R., 2016. Mutually Assured Survival: A Constructivist Analysis of Transnational Cultural Interactions and Their Influence on Nuclear Disarmament Initiatives.