Possession of nuclear weapons

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. 

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 ... 

Nuclear weapons provide a deterrent in a very specific sense they are the ultimate risk that an aggressor has to take into account. He cannot assume that NATO will refrain from initiating nuclear warfare if the Alliance s conventional defences are being overrun. He knows that nuclear war once embarked upon will make victory in any meaningful sense unachievable. At a more basic level, the possession of nuclear weapons may deter an opponent from launching a nuclear attack on the grounds that to do so would be to invite his own destruction. 

This study arose out of my own sense of frustration as an official in the Ministry of Defence, working on chemical disarmament. Whether or not one agrees with it, the rationale for the possession of nuclear weapons is relatively straightforward the issues raised by chemical warfare seemed more complex, often contradictory. The ground on which policy was being made shifted, depending on the imperative of the moment. 

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. 

Iraq argued that each nation had the right to retain the weapons necessary for its own defence, including weapons of mass destruction, in the light of the threat it faced. The Israeli nuclear capability was cited by a number of Arab states as justification for the possession of chemical weapons. Non-aligned countries pointed also to the superpowers retention of substantial chemical warfare capabilities, and to the slow progress in achieving nuclear disarmament. 

INDIA. India has a well-developed nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) and ballistic missile defense establishment. It is currently destroying a chemical weapon (CW) stockpile in accordance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC). India has conducted at least six tests of nuclear weapons and was estimated to possess 50 nuclear warheads as of 2006. India is not a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). See also ATOMS FOR PEACE SMILING BUDDHA. 

North Korea has also been implicated in the work of the so-called A. Q. Khan network, which may have aided the country s acquisition of nuclear weapon technology and knowledge. In 2005 North Korea publicly stated that it possessed nuclear weapons. It is estimated to have between 5 and 10 nuclear warheads. On 9 October 2006, North Korea exploded a nuclear device. Seismic and other monitors confirmed the... 

In July 1953, the USSR created the Ministry of Medium Machine Building, and in 1954 this rather innocuous-sounding ministry assumed overall responsibility for research, development, and production of nuclear weapons. By the time the USSR was dissolved in December 1991, it possessed a stockpile of many thousands of these weapons. Four newly formed states were identified as having these weapons on their soil Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. To ensure the security and facilitate the destruction of these weapons, all four states received international assistance, such as that provided by the United States under the CTR Program. As of 2006, only Russia continues to possess such weapons. 5 eea/so ARZAMAS-16 FUCHS, KLAUS EMIL JULIUS SAKHAROV, ANDREI DMITRIYEVICH. 

UNITED KINGDOM (UK). The United Kingdom developed nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons. Of these, only chemical weapons (CW) were ever used in combat. Britain no longer has a stockpile of any biological weapons (BW) or CW, but it does possess a nuclear weapon stockpile, estimated to be in excess of 200. 

The accelerating proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in other countries around the world is probably of gravest concern. The more countries that possess such weapons— even if acquired for deterrent purposes—the greater the likelihood that such weapons will be used.1(p2)... 

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. 

---