Nuclear weapons have been shaping global politics for over seven decades. Introducing itself with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear weapon has instilled fear and uncertainty for some states while providing a sense of security for others. It has also divided the world into two parts: Nuclear-weapon states (NWS) and Non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS), the haves and the have nots. It possesses the capability of sheer destruction, thereby, initiating talks regarding Nuclear arms control and Nuclear disarmament. The two terms are often used interchangeably. However, the two carry completely different meanings and cannot be interchanged. Nuclear arms control refers to the reduction of the number of nuclear weapons whereas, Nuclear disarmament – the complete elimination worldwide – has been the subject of political debate for decades. Will nuclear disarmament ever happen?
“The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.”
Specifically, Nuclear disarmament refers to the act of eliminating the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide. The end goal of nuclear disarmament is having a nuclear-free world. Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare, about 12,500 reportedly remain in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date. Former Secretary-General of United Nations (UN), Ban Ki-moon, at the 62nd Annual United Nations Department of Public Information Conference, in 2009, quoted that “The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” He has been an unwavering advocate for disarmament.
Since the UN’s inception in 1945, halting the production, proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons has been a fundamental objective. In fact, the very first resolution passed by the UN General Assembly on 24 January 1946 identified the goal of eliminating atomic weapons from national armaments. It paved the way for establishment of the UN Atomic Energy Commission.
The 3 pillars mentioned in NPT: nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear energy
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark which aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It was open for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. The NPT ultimately got an indefinite life extension in 1995. Currently, 191 countries are signatories of the treaty, making it one of the largest treaties in the world. The 3 pillars mentioned in NPT: nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear energy, is the cornerstone of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The changing world politics, mainly geopolitics with the world shifting towards multipolarity, disarmament seems to be a dream. The increasing competition among states is threatening its security, also criticizing the NPT, as five states claim a right to possess nuclear weapons, where nuclear weapons are illegal. This makes it a discriminatory treaty. Let’s not forget that India, Pakistan and Israel were not the signatories of the treaty, and still went for acquiring nuclear weapons. Whereas, signatories like North Korea, also withdrew and tested its capability in 2006. These states felt the urge to possess the weapon as more powerful rather than being under the nuclear umbrella of others.
The crux of nuclear deterrence plays a significant role in a state’s foreign and defense policies
The changing security dynamics gave rise to nuclear politics where states view possession of nuclear weapon as a form of deterrence. Viewing the case study of India and Pakistan, having a nuclear weapon is a must because of the value of nuclear deterrence that creates the perceived fear in the mind of potential adversaries. On the other hand, the contemporary power politics in the Middle East has failed the proposal of declaring Middle East a Nuclear-free zone. The crux of nuclear deterrence plays a significant role in a state’s foreign and defense policies. In fact, it is how all nuclear weapon states consider nuclear weapons to be the ultimate savior of their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thereby, the increasing association of nuclear weapons with the concept of deterrence has weakened the prospects of disarmament globally.
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used
Despite this, nuclear optimists are proud to declare that “two nuclear weapons states do not fight major wars”. This is the result of fear associated with nuclear weapons, contributing towards nuclear deterrence, commonly known as “nuclear peace”. Indeed, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used. Notably, the nuclear peace reduced the danger of war and sustained deterrence stability between Cold War powers. Additionally, the nuclear weapons induce nuclear peace in the conflict regions like countries such as India and Pakistan.
Nevertheless, the risk of military escalation to major wars that could include the use of nuclear weapons has not completely diminished. On September 26, 2024, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres said that “The world must deliver a clear and united message: the only way to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate nuclear weapons. However, on 3rd March 2025, Japan declared that it will not attend the UN Conference on the treaty banning nuclear weapons, noting security as the primary reason. Japan being the only victim of nuclear attack has refused to sign that particular treaty banning nuclear weapons, ringing alarms. Furthermore, they stated that they won’t attend the conference as attending it gives a wrong message of Japan supporting nuclear deterrence.
The dream of nuclear disarmament is hard to achieve in the contemporary world politics
Nonetheless, states considers nuclear weapons compulsory for security purpose, survival and existence. This dilemma increases the essence of nuclear weapons in the contemporary nuclear politics. Furthermore, there are no signs of nuclear disarmament between the nuclear weapons states, each makes a convincing argument for retaining nuclear weapons until their security concerns are fully addressed. Thereby, the dream of nuclear disarmament is hard to achieve in the contemporary world politics.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
