When the nuclear bomb was created,
war took on a new meaning entirely, with multiple States having
access to a power large enough to create total destruction.
This immense shift in the meaning of war led to the creation of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which "obligates the
five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian
Federation, United Kingdom, France,
and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive
devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Non-nuclear-weapon
States Parties pledge not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons
or
nuclear explosives. They are required also to accept safeguards
to detect
diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as
power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive
devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards
agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party
and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)"
The treaty is based upon the mutual agreement and goal of all States
participating (the only ones known to have achieved nuclear weapons
capability), so member or non-member States wanting to develop Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMDs) secretly, or out of hostile rebellion, have
been
the subject
of a great amount of controversy. There has been much dispute in the
international arena as to what the proper means of action would be in
such circumstances.
There has also been much dispute over whether the NPT is really the right
way to
treat the WMD problem between nations, raising such concerns as why some
states should have the right to posess WMDs over others, and what is
the determening
factor for that right? Or, in the case of conflict, is it the indisputable
duty of nations posessing WMDs to protect nations without nuclear capability?
Another
problem States face pertaining to the threat of nuclear weapons
is the possibility of WMDs getting into the hands of a terrorist
force.
This would eliminate any method of negotiation or use of International
Law to intervene. Negotiation with a terrorist force is not
only
futile
(since the goal of most terrorists is not to negotiate, but to
strike fear into a nation by creating the image of instability
within the
framework), but also dangerous to the legitimacy of the nation.
The possibility of WMDs getting into the hands of a terrorist force
could have disasterous effects.
For
more information pertaining to the problem States face with the creation
of WMDs:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/npt68.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/npt1.html
