This blog post examines whether the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is actually protecting humanity from nuclear threats or if it is instead stimulating nuclear development.
From ancient times to the present, many scholars have strived to understand nature and make life more convenient. From the dawn of agriculture, the discovery of paper and gunpowder, to the steam engine and information technology, humanity has undergone multiple dramatic transformations. As a result, people in modern society appear to enjoy the most prosperous lives since the dawn of civilization. Some argue, based on this history of progress, that technological advancement leads society. Indeed, the significant societal changes and altered lifestyles brought by the development of information and communications technology lend credibility to this claim. However, just as everything has two sides, technological progress also carries unintended consequences. Therefore, regarding the assertion that technological advancement leads society, one can conversely question whether society can sufficiently handle the development of technology. To find an answer to this question, examining the history of ‘nuclear weapons’—which can determine humanity’s fate—and the ‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’ designed to control them raises strong doubts about whether humans can adequately manage technology.
On August 14, 1945, an airplane soared into the clear blue skies above Hiroshima. It carried a bomb named ‘Little Boy’. Dropped on the city center, the bomb instantly claimed the lives of 150,000 citizens with a tremendous roar. The entire world was horrified by the immense destruction wrought by a single bomb, and World War II came to an end. However, while fearing the power of the atomic bomb—a weapon of a different dimension from existing arms—nations accelerated their own atomic bomb development. Meanwhile, even the United States, the first developer, was deeply concerned that other countries might develop atomic bombs, and this became the impetus for the subsequent formation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The process of concluding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was far from smooth. It was entangled in fierce conflicts of interest among nations and the complex logic of the Cold War era. As the first developer, the United States sought by any means to prevent other countries from possessing atomic bombs, and the Soviet Union, its adversary, was equally determined. However, the situation was different for the Third World. Separate from Cold War logic, nations like India, Pakistan, and Israel were secretly developing nuclear weapons to gain an advantage in regional conflicts. Furthermore, many countries strongly resisted even restrictions on peaceful nuclear use. While the Soviet Union had strictly controlled its allies’ nuclear weapons development, the United States failed to adequately control its own allies and argued that transferring nuclear-related technology to some nations was necessary to contain the Soviet Union. Amidst this fierce competition among nations, the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) looked bleak. However, as news of successful nuclear development in the Third World continued, a consensus formed between the United States and the Soviet Union. A UN resolution urging the treaty’s conclusion was passed, leading to the treaty’s signing in 1968. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the spread of nuclear weapons and their development, and requires signatories to undergo regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify peaceful nuclear use. Currently, 189 countries are party to this treaty.
Approximately 40 years after the treaty’s formation, unlike its tumultuous ratification process, the NPT appears to be fulfilling its mission. Indeed, no country has used nuclear weapons for offensive purposes since 1945. However, doubts arise regarding the effectiveness of human efforts to ensure safety from nuclear weapons, including the NPT, from three perspectives. These are the inequality of the NPT, its enforcement mechanisms, and the political nature of nuclear weapons.
From its inception, the NPT strongly reflected the major powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom—seeking to maintain their advantage over non-nuclear states. Consequently, it tacitly permits existing nuclear weapon states to retain their arsenals. This has stimulated countries without nuclear weapons—particularly those hostile to major nuclear powers like North Korea and Iran, and those in confrontational relationships with neighbors like India, Pakistan, and Israel—to pursue nuclear weapons development out of resentment. Indeed, India and Pakistan, locked in hostility, pursued nuclear weapons development competitively. Israel developed nuclear weapons to ensure its survival in the Middle East. Moreover, Third World nations pursued nuclear weapons to achieve self-reliance amid the standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union. This occurred because the existing nuclear powers were unwilling to relinquish their vested interests. While the treaty included provisions requiring signatories to engage sincerely in negotiations for nuclear disarmament, the likelihood of nuclear-armed states adhering to these provisions during the Cold War era of the mid-to-late 20th century was virtually nonexistent. Although time passed, the Cold War structure collapsed, and global tensions eased, the existing superpowers still possess thousands of nuclear weapons. Their mere existence allows for massive savings in military spending and provides a deterrent against other nations, making existing nuclear powers unwilling to give up their arsenals. This constant security threat to other countries often drives them to pursue nuclear development, with North Korea being a prime example. While universal abandonment would be simple, the fact that no one does so paradoxically fuels nuclear proliferation, highlighting the inequality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Next, there are questions about the treaty’s enforceability. Over the past two decades, North Korea, which poses the greatest security threat to South Korea, has conducted multiple nuclear tests. Economically isolated and lacking the resources to maintain conventional forces, North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons since the 1960s as a definitive asymmetric capability. Consequently, it conducted several nuclear tests in the 2000s. Despite international sanctions and warnings from its ally China, North Korea has persistently pushed ahead with nuclear tests. Countries worldwide have imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea and strengthened inspections, including ship searches, yet it is now reported to be planning another nuclear test. This reality demonstrates that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) cannot enforce its provisions against a closed-off state like North Korea. Indeed, North Korea deliberately evaded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections until 1993, triggering the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Even then, the IAEA lacked enforcement powers and failed to detect North Korea’s nuclear development. The situation with Iran was similar. Since the NPT itself lacks direct enforcement authority, the United States led efforts to impose financial sanctions through the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, Iran pursued nuclear development for several more years before recently entering negotiations with G7 nations and taking steps to abandon its nuclear program. This issue dragged on for about a decade. If such a prolonged period is required in the event of a sudden crisis, it raises serious doubts about whether the world can truly be safe from nuclear threats.
Finally, there is the political nature of nuclear weapons. Possessing nuclear weapons prevents reckless attacks and poses a significant threat to adversaries, making them a crucial tool for external political bargaining. Internally, they enable massive reductions in military spending, serving as a domestic political instrument. North Korea, as mentioned earlier, uses its nuclear program as a key external political tool, which is a significant factor for the United States and major stakeholders in Northeast Asia. Iran’s case was similar. The United States has particularly taken a leading, hardline stance against Iran’s nuclear development. This stems from Iran’s location in the geopolitically crucial Middle East, where nuclear weapons could severely undermine regional stability. Furthermore, Iran’s anti-American stance and substantial economic scale make controlling its future nuclear development difficult. Meanwhile, with the Bush administration taking office in the 2000s, the United States ignored existing nuclear agreements and pursued strengthening its nuclear arsenal to reduce defense spending burdens. This naturally provoked Russia, a former adversary, leading to Russia’s withdrawal from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This also heightened international tensions. Currently, under the Obama administration, the U.S. is pursuing efforts to create a “nuclear-free world.” However, nuclear policy priorities can shift with any change in administration. This clearly demonstrates that even international treaties can prove powerless in the face of competing interests among major powers.
In summary, under the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime, there are no direct means to prevent individual nations from developing nuclear weapons; reliance must fall solely on external forces like the UN Security Council. However, within the tripartite system of the United States, Russia, and China, none are likely to abandon nuclear weapons first. Instead, the reality is that they may tacitly tolerate secret nuclear development as long as it serves to counterbalance rivals. Furthermore, as seen in the case of the Bush administration, when crises arise due to conflicts of interest among major powers, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s inability to respond actively and its tendency to falter raises serious questions about the very purpose of the treaty’s existence. If humanity’s ultimate goal regarding nuclear weapons is their complete elimination worldwide, achieving this objective is difficult with a treaty possessing such weak binding power as the current one. Given that major powers have previously resisted disarmament demands raised by Third World nations, creating a world without nuclear weapons feels even more challenging. In a world where nuclear weapons, created for war, instead breed human fear and dominate humanity, we hope for a world where humans can fully ‘control’ nuclear weapons. Though that path feels distant for now.
