Nuclear Proliferation: Threats to the Nonproliferation Regime
Escalating Nuclear Arsenal Deployment in Response to Changing Global Political Landscape
Past eight decades have witnessed the use of nuclear energy for warfare, yet the world miraculously averted nuclear Armageddon. And surprisingly the world achieved a surprising nuclear stability. However, the nuclear technology has spread to many countries with only a few deciding to weaponize it. The nonproliferation regime, a collection of rules, norms, and institutions, managed to discourage the nuclear proliferation, albeit marginally and imperfectly. But in today's rapid geopolitical shifts, the durability of this delicate equilibrium comes under question.
In the 60s, President John F. Kennedy anticipated 25 countries armed with nuclear weapons by the 70s. Yet today, only nine countries possess them, due to measures taken to hamper proliferation. Emblematic agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were forged in the 60s, where countries that already had nuclear arms were recognized, and others pledged to forego such ambitions. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been dispatching inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure its civilian use. The US Administration under Jimmy Carter gave top priority to stopping proliferation, establishing the Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose members agreed to restrain the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology.
Yet, the nonproliferation regime faces formidable challenges, even causing IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi concern for its future. Most visible is Iran's enrichment of uranium above 60%, far beyond what is necessary for civilian reactors. Grossi estimated that Iran could develop a bomb in a matter of months, not years, and if it does, Saudi Arabia hints at following suit and withdrawing from the NPT. Israel and the US are threatening force to curb Iran, even as the US and Iran engage in fresh negotiations on limiting Iran's nuclear program.
Beyond this regional crisis in the Middle East looms a global threat to the nonproliferation regime. Following World War II, countries like Germany and Japan forsook their nuclear ambitions because of their ties with the US. The credibility of US nuclear deterrence was enough to render them secure, and the same held true for many other states, both in NATO and in East Asia. But now, weakened US alliances may erode the US's extended deterrence, prompting other countries to reconsider whether they need their own nuclear weapons. They are fully aware that Ukraine gave up Soviet-era nuclear weapons on its land, only to be invaded by Russia which had ensured Ukraine's territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
An accommodating view holds that we should not be overly concerned, as proliferation might bring positive effects on global politics. Just as nuclear weapons kept a check in US-Soviet relations, they argue, so would nuclear weapons stabilize regional power balances today. But this argument assumes conditions favorable to such an outcome, which is far from the reality in many regions, where nuclear weapon acquisition may instead increase vulnerability and insecurity. A local nuclear strike, even a 'tactical' one, would be a severe breach of an eight-decade-long global taboo.
Moreover, the role of non-state actors cannot be overlooked. Despite the low possibility of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device, the mere prospect creates challenges. The existence of weapons-usable materials that can be stolen or sold on the black market indicates that the threat posed by nonstate groups is not solely dependent on their technological capacity. Superpowers are not immune either. The widespread dissemination of nuclear capabilities could disrupt the global strategic balance and the prospects for a peaceful and just world order in the future.
Ultimately, the challenges facing the nonproliferation regime have profound implications for global security. The expiration of key disarmament treaties and the weakening of alliances threaten to undermine the foundations of the nonproliferation regime. The ongoing crisis in the Middle East, particularly Iran's nuclear ambitions, further complicates the situation. The 2026 NPT Review Conference aims to address these challenges, with potential outcomes including a consensus report and the development of new confidence-building measures. To ensure the survival of the nonproliferation regime, it is essential to maintain US alliances, curb nuclear proliferation, and avoid a destabilizing nuclear arms race.
- The prolonged geopolitical shifts, as evidenced by the ongoing crisis in the Middle East over Iran's nuclear enrichment, pose threats to the durability of the nonproliferation regime established decades ago.
- In light of the potential withdrawal of Saudi Arabia from the NPT if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, general news outlets may sent headlines reflecting the war-and-conflicts ramifications of such a development.
- Crime-and-justice concerns persist, as the existence of weapons-usable materials that can be stolen or sold on the black market highlights the role of non-state actors in nuclear proliferation threats.
- To maintain global security and nurture a peaceful and just world order, diplomats and policymakers must prioritize the survival of the nonproliferation regime by ensuring the expiration of key disarmament treaties is not exploited, US alliances are maintained, and nuclear proliferation is curbed, preventing a destabilizing nuclear arms race.
