Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear proliferation trends worldwide vary from an utter refusal of any nuclear efforts by the state to an intense armament program which can include up to thousands of nukes. There is no set standard which states follow when considering a nuclear program. Some states have chosen to remain non-nuclear while others chose to proliferate, oftentimes against rational reasoning. This paper will examine the drivers and obstacles for why different states have different approaches towards nuclear proliferation.

Collectively, there are six rationalizations as to why states might proliferate. It is noteworthy to mention that at no point do all these justifications apply to one state simultaneously, and that there is no minimum amount of them that would guarantee a state-sponsored nuclear program. The same reasons can be also used to understand non-proliferation.

In Bomb Scare, Cirincione identifies five main factors that can either expedite nuclear proliferation or bring it to an end altogether. The concepts which influence states’ pursuit of a nuclear program are; Technology, domestic imperatives, national security, economics, and prestige. I will explain how each and every driver can also be a hindering factor for the attainment of a nuclear arsenal.

 When a state has acquired sufficient technological advancement, it will push forward with a nuclear program so that that advancement would not be brought to a halt. Simultaneously, the lack of such technological knowhow is a difficult barrier to overcome and is usually preventative of nuclear development. Politically and domestically, dynamics between political parties as well as military leadership might lead to the commencement of nuclear research while the opposite is true in the case of vehement local opposition to nuclear policy. The security scope is one of the most commonly recognized ones; states develop nuclear weapons in order to prepare for future conflict and ward off hostile states. Similarly, some states would circumvent the need for nukes lest they instigate stronger responses from their neighbors. Good economic standing does not encourage states to proliferate, but a weak economy can prevent a state from constructing costly enrichment facilities. Finally, the international image of a state plays a defining role in that state’s policy and approach towards nuclear armament. A state might develop a nuclear arsenal in order to establish itself as a regional power while another would be completely opposed to nukes in order to maintain neutrality and a peaceful stance internationally.

The final justification is presented by Kurt Campbell who identifies it to be “a change in the direction of U.S. and Foreign and security policy”[1]. This is a perfectly valid argument but needs to be extended to include other major powers. The Russian nuclear umbrella for example, though unofficial, provides protection for different nations (e.g. Belarus) on this basis. The best example still is the United States, its foreign policy and how an alteration in the latter would influence another state’s decision to proliferate. A state from which the cover of a nuclear umbrella has been denied might consider developing its own nuclear program. On that note, states would also consider forgoing a nuclear arsenal if they are included within a nuclear umbrella. The same logic applies to the formation of Nuclear Free Zones where states mutually agree to ensure the development of nuclear weapons does not take place.