Directions
Answer questions below in 1 full page on a second page reply to each student in 1 paragraph minimum 125 words for each student reply you can agree or disagree for each reply.
Answer this question:
Back in the 1980’s, an Indian diplomat said to me, “Why is it you think that world peace will be endangered if we have one bomb, when you have ten thousand but think that is not quite enough to secure the peace?”
This is a rather pointed way of describing the problem of the NPT’s distinction between Nuclear Weapon States and Non-nuclear Weapon States. Why has the NPT been such a successful treaty when it is so obviously arbitrary and unfair in this distinction?
Use these Readings and references
Required Reading(s) and Video(s)
Schelling, Thomas J., Arms and Influence. Chapter 7
Gavin, Francis J., Nuclear Statecraft, Chapter 4
Nuclear Tipping Point, Chapters 8 – 9
Bunn, G., Rhinelander, John B., “Looking Back: The NPT Then and Now,”
Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/lookingback
The NPT Snapshots – and Some Lessons and Implications for Rebuilding U.S. – Russian Cooperation
“Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water,” (PDF)
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm#treat
Text of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), (PDF)
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/
Nuclear Threat Initiative Tutorial, “Understanding the Text of the Treaty,” (PDF)
https://tutorials.nti.org/npt-tutorial/understanding-the-text-of-the-treaty/
Lesson 4 Summary
To use the diplomatic vernacular of the current time, the NPT was a series of “deals”. It was a deal first between the super powers; then between the U.S. and its allies; then between nuclear weapon states and those giving them up; and finally deal between the world community and those seeking membership in it. The class examined a number of the trade offs both nuclear and non-nuclear states had to make to get the NPT to work. One issue for further effort from the class would be to look more carefully at the Treaty text to internalize the balance of interests contained in it. Students were particularly astute and pointing out that the NWS face a particular obligation to deal with the security concerns of NNWS. Absent such attention, the pressures for NNWS to acquire nuclear weapons grow.
Student reply
Christian Lakoseljac
successful so far is due to the three elements that comprise the treaty as well as cooperation among great powers to adhere to the rules. “States without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, states with nuclear weapons will pursue disarmament, and all states can access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, under safeguards,” according to the NTI. These are active to deter states from nuclear proliferation for both NWS and NNWS. Additionally, in the situation of certain states which do not possess nuclear weapons such as Germany, they might be disadvantaged by the rules of the treaty.
In ‘The Nuclear Tipping Point’ it refers to Germany’s fear of its own national security given that they would not have an arsenal to defend themselves, and furthermore, they would have to rely on allied states and NATO to intervene and protect the country. This is especially unfair because Germany in this scenario would have to trust other countries with its national security while wondering if the US or allied nations would use their own nuclear weapons to come to their defense. This is a problematic area within the treaty which showed in the Carte Blanche exercise.
However, in the case of Germany, not possessing nuclear weapons could very much be to their advantage. As I mentioned earlier this reliance could be dicey territory but on the flip side of that, remaining without nuclear weapons could be to its advantage. Having powerful allies ready to utilize their nuclear abilities in its defense could be a useful strategy.
Additionally, these NNWS will decide to remain in agreement with proliferation based on if they possess strong allies with powerful nuclear deterrence
. Gavin addressed several important historic situations from the Johnson administration when pushing for global nuclear proliferation. It caused many dilemmas as the US wanted to prevent the use of nuclear weapons while maintaining the strongest arsenal of nuclear weapons. To avoid this contradiction the Gilpatric committee had to extensively create a new proliferation policy to cover all potential roadblocks and encourage countries and governments to believe in the policy without being blatantly weighed in favor of the United States interests. Overall, creating effective policy gave rise to a successful treaty by the conscious efforts of the US policymakers.
Shane Livingstone
At first glance the NPT may appear unfair to some nations as the treaty prohibits most nations from developing nuclear weapons while allowing a few nations to have them. Although this may seem unfair, the readings this week explain why it has been succesful in its purpose of nuclear nonproliferation. Gavin details a scenario in which India’s proliferation of nuclear weapons, in response to China’s nuclear weapons, would set off a chain reaction of countries developing nuclear weapons. Without an alliance with the U.S. or the Soviet Union, India would feel the need to develop its own nuclear weapons to defend itself.
This would cause countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Australia, South Korea, and Taiwan to at least consider acquiring their own nuclear weapons in the interest of their own national security (Gavin, 2012 P.79). Ultimately, India and Pakistan decided not to join the NPT and developed nuclear weapons but the existence of the NPT discouraged other countries from proliferating in response. The NPT provided these non nuclear nations with assurances that they would be protected by nuclear nations if necessary.
Even though non nuclear states may not be permitted to possess their own nuclear weapons, being a party to the NPT has given them assurances that their nuclear proliferation is unnecessary. Without the NPT in place, many nations (especially those without strong alliances to world powers) may feel the obligation to respond to the nuclear proliferation of other countries in their region with nuclear weapons of their own. This would result in an essentially uncontrollable spread of nuclear weapons and a less stable planet.
Reference:
Gavin, F. J. (2012). Nuclear statecraft : History and strategy in America’s atomic age. ProQuest Ebook
Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com (Links to an external site.)
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
