Nuclear weapons possession

Indeed, when new countries like the U K. France or China became nuclear powers, countries which were already members of the club were strongly opposed, but now it is quite well accepted that possession of nuclear weapons by those countries did not provoke a catastrophe. Some even consider that the existence of nuclear weapons in different camps was a stabilizing factor during the Cold War and prevented a major conflict during the past half-century. Why, then, the possession by India should not stabilize the relation between India and China, and by Pakistan the relation between Pakistan and India, preventing major conflicts in these zones At least the question may be asked. In the same way, the possession by Israel of nuclear weapons, in the opinion of some, has stabilized the situation in the Middle East. In any case, when a country has decided that it is worth while to make the effort and take the risks of developing nuclear weapons, it seems that after some initial outcry, the world accepts it without major retaliation That shows some kind of hypocrisy in the initial claim of a fundamental evil connected with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The real issue is probably to avoid the acquisition of nuclear weapons by unstable, not very democratic countries. May be Pakistan is in that category clearly the West would not like Libya or Iran and Iraq to possess such weapons. A real, major issue is full nuclear disarmament, but this is another story. 

For the next 40 years, the United States, with its allies, and the former Soviet Union, with its allies, raced to build more nuclear weapons. Each side produced tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. The end of the cold war and the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s led to a significant decrease in the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world however, the U.S. and Russia still possess many thousands of nuclear weapons. 

Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Tlateloko) 1968 29 countries (24 in force) obligates Latin American parties not to acquire or possess nuclear weapons, nor permit the storage or deployment of nuclear weapons on their territories by other countries. 

Thus in the first months of 1940 it was already clear to two intelligent observers that nuclear weapons would be weapons of mass destruction against which the only apparent defense would be the deterrent effect of mutual possession. 

The disarmament policy conducted at present by states possessing nuclear weapons after the cold war has both positive aspects that are aimed at promoting peace on the Earth, as well as a number of security problems that are common to mankind on the whole. Among these problems, the most complicated are the provision of highly reliable radiation safety for the personal and the population as well as environmental protection when dismantling nuclear weapons and disposal of the resulting fissile and radioactive wastes. 

Few pathogens possess the potential to kill on the scale of a nuclear weapon, but many... 

Today nuclear war is probably the most awesome threat facing civilization. Only two rather primitive fission-type atom bombs were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and bring World War II to an early end. The threat of nuclear war is increased by the fact that the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons is steadily increasing. 

The Nonproliferation Treaty and the international safeguards to support it failed, unfortunately, to stop new countries from getting possession of nuclear weapons. The effectiveness of political measures would be largely enhanced, if the processes of potential danger from the viewpoint of nuclear proliferation were phased out with development of the new nuclear technology. Such processes include the following ... 

The NPT is an interstate treaty aimed at creating tmst between states, and therefore, hopefully, at diminishing the desire of states to possess nuclear weapons. The International Safeguards System, administered by the IAEA, was designed in the first place to demonstrate that member states were doing what they declared they were doing, and thus to provide reassurance to other states. It was up to the states themselves to ensure that their employees were carrying out their instmctions. 

---