Hazardous Potential: The Nuclear Dilemma

The problem of nuclear proliferation is quintessential a problem of potential, and North
America’s susceptibility to nuclear weaponry is primarily a manifestation of either the immediate application of the destructive potential of these devices or further diffusion of their potential. Hence it can be undoubtedly assumed that whether by usage or further proliferation only those nations which harbor nuclear capabilities may be regarded as a threat to this continent, and with only four nuclear states (Russia, France, the United Kingdoms, and the People’s Republic of China), two known nuclear powers (India and Pakistan), and three suspected nuclear states (Israel, North Korea, and Iran) outside of North America the quantity of potentially menacing states is providentially limited.

In regard to the first modus from which a threat may emanate (the utilization of nuclear weapons) only the nations of North Korea and Iran, which have historically expressed an anti-western sentiment, could be predicted as potential aggressors. However, the indeterminacy of the actual existence of Iranian or North Korean nuclear arms and, more notably, their undeniable lack of tested weapons renders these nations as more of a future threat than an immediate hazard. Additionally, with tolerable, perchance even favorable, relations between North America and the remaining nations which maintain nuclear capabilities, immediate peril from the exertion of nuclear munitions is not significant, or more precisely not as notable as other nuclear threats.

The weightiest threat therefore is not deployment of nuclear weapons but rather further proliferation by those countries that retain nuclear potential, and amidst that nuclear sect the nation most advantageous to nuclear proliferation is, debatably, Pakistan. It squats upon this apocalyptic throne for the fact that is one of only two nuclear nations which has not joined the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is thus potential among the most likely to leak its nuclear capacities. Additionally, a decreasing value of the Pakistani currency and a pythonic 2005 earthquake, causing in excess of five billion dollars (U.S.) in damage, have created economic woes in a nation where a third of the population already lives below the poverty line. Furthermore, an active territorial dispute with neighboring India over the Kashmir region and a previous history of violence between these two nations has bred the necessity of a well-financed military. Moreover, with know Taliban supporting tribes within the country itself, Pakistan which is unequivocally in want of money has a potential emptor already within the nation.

Nevertheless, even if Pakistan does not sell its nuclear potential, a nation such as this in heavy economic distress, plagued by natural disasters, ever vigilant of nuclear welding foes at its border, and troubled by terrorist-advocating factions, is according to Foreign Policy Magazine, “acutely vulnerable to internal conflict and social disintegration.” All told even if Pakistan holds no intention of using or implementing their nuclear weapons, the fact that any nuclear capacity is reserved by a nation that ranked as one of Foreign Policy’s top ten most unstable nations is indeed a nightmarish contemplation.