Submit :
News                      Photos                     Just In                     Debate Topic                     Latest News                    Articles                    Local News                    Blog Posts                     Pictures                    Reviews                    Recipes                    
Strengthening the non-proliferation regime
While proliferation and nuclear security are the real issues, 'Global Zero' is impractical proposal. The military might keep the private and hidden hands of markets alive. And the US should not opt for full elimination.

BARACK OBAMA in a recently concluded nuclear summit in Seoul has reiterated his offer to reduce the stock of nuclear weapons, ultimately reducing it to zero—the ‘Global Zero’. In real world there is no taker. Simply because America and the rest of the West is expanding globally and making real primary wealth all around there does not mean that all can reduce their strategic wealth. An asset can be replaced only by bigger asset.

There is a real danger of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands: in the hands of non-state actors and terrorists. Also, accountability of all fissile material is mandatory for nuclear safety. Proliferation and hyper-proliferation of nuclear weapons is a real issue and needs to be dealt with. With globalization and increased consciousness there can be increased tendencies among the nation-states, most notably among the Asian states, to try to build nuclear weapons. After all, all economic activities are based on nationalism and that may demand nuclear weapons, more so if a country is in conflict with others. There are five declared nuclear weapon states, the N5: the US, Russian Federation, China, France and UK and there are four unaccepted nuclear weapon states as per the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. The fifth one, Iran is trying hard to get one.

The argument is that no new state should try to build nuclear weapons; neither because of nationalism nor because of hysteria. The best thing is the civilian nuclear agreements, which try to convert the coercive powers of non-Western nuclear weapon states and possible defaulters of the NPT-regime and transfer sensitive technologies in order to stop them proliferating or building new weapon capabilities. It should be noted that all origin of nuclear activity in a non-White dominated state is due to some investment by White-dominated states. Now, the Western states should avoid looking for lucrative business opportunities if they fear that the same could lead to weaponization. The European states should be encouraged to refrain from any weapon making activities and instead should invest in missile defence system. One way to counter Russia’s threat to the European Union is to build and deploy a verifiable missile defence for France and the UK.

As far as those weapon states, which have not been accepted as nuclear weapon states in the NPT-regime are concerned they should be encouraged to resolve the disputes, like Kashmir dispute, the Middle East dispute and Korean Peninsula dispute. Once the dispute is resolved they should be encouraged to cap, freeze and partially roll back their weapon program and should keep only the residual force. Among the non-accepted weapon states India should have highest strength after the freeze and rollback, Pakistan at the most half that of India, Israel slightly more than Pakistan and the North Korea none. The West should not accept Iran’s nuclear weapons.

As far as eliminating nuclear weapons globally, it is not a practical idea as in this competitive world in the absence of alternative fuel and proper recycling and renewing technologies, the nation-states would compete for natural resources and the military might would decide which nation gets what. In this military might, the nuclear capability is an important factor. Moreover, after the alternate fuel is invented the copyright laws would completely change, favouring more the US-led West. Therefore, the non-Western states could have additional reasons to stay away from global de-nuclearization activities.

As far as the US is concerned it should never opt for complete elimination of the nuclear weapons as the military prowess of the Pentagon allow the trade activities to take place smoothly and also might help Americans dictate setting the price of the products and commodities. The private and hidden market hands are essential for fixing proper exchange rates and interest rates. The proper exchange and interest rates are required for reasoned economic activities and help the flow of capital and investment smooth. The elimination would increase the power of the states as the world would be more regulated one. The nuclear might is the fixed asset changing little with time and all the players use this strength to contribute to the economic, political and strategic activities. The end of nuclear weapons would erode the fixed wealth and there would be more level playing field in the world political arena. It would decrease the power of private hands and new treaties are required to deal with the post-nuclear weapon world. The US should never invest in the decline of market forces.

Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of In case you have a opposing view, please click here to share the same in the comments section.
Email Id
Verification Code
Email me on reply to my comment
Email me when other CJs comment on this article
Sign in to set your preference
merinews for RTI activists

Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.