In this blog post, we examine whether the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is actually protecting humanity from nuclear threats or, on the contrary, encouraging nuclear development.
From ancient times to the present, many scholars have strived to understand nature and make life more convenient. From the dawn of agriculture, the invention of paper and gunpowder, to the steam engine and information technology, humanity has undergone numerous dramatic transformations. As a result, people in modern society appear to be enjoying the most prosperous lives in history. Some argue, based on this history of progress, that technological advancement drives society forward. Indeed, given how society has transformed and lifestyles have changed due to the development of information and communication technology, this argument appears valid. However, just as there are two sides to every coin, technological progress also has unintended consequences. Therefore, regarding the claim that technological advancement drives society forward, one might conversely question whether society is capable of fully coping with such technological development. To find an answer to this question, if we examine the history of “nuclear weapons”—which have the power to determine humanity’s fate—and the “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” designed to control them, we are left with serious doubts as to whether humans can properly control technology.
On August 14, 1945, an airplane took flight into the clear, blue skies above Hiroshima. On board was a bomb named “Little Boy.” Dropped onto the city center, it claimed the lives of 150,000 citizens in an instant, accompanied by a deafening roar. All of humanity was horrified by the fact that a single bomb had caused such immense destruction, and World War II came to an end. However, while nations felt fear at the power of the atomic bomb—which was on a completely different level from existing weapons—they also accelerated their efforts to develop their own atomic bombs. Meanwhile, even the United States, the first country to develop the bomb, was deeply concerned that other nations might develop their own atomic bombs, and this led to the eventual formation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The process of concluding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was far from smooth. This was due to the complex intertwining of fierce rivalries over national interests and the logic of the Cold War. As the first country to develop the bomb, the United States sought by any means to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union, standing on the opposite side, felt the same way. However, the situation was different for the Third World. Regardless of Cold War logic, countries such as India, Pakistan, and Israel were secretly developing nuclear weapons to gain the upper hand in regional conflicts, and in many nations, there was strong opposition to even restricting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. While the Soviet Union had strictly controlled the development of nuclear weapons by its allies, the United States failed to adequately control its own allies and argued that it needed to transfer nuclear technology to certain countries to encircle the Soviet Union. Amid this tug-of-war between nations, the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) looked bleak; however, as news of successful nuclear development in the Third World continued to emerge, a consensus formed between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the passage of a UN resolution urging the conclusion of the treaty, the NPT was signed in 1968. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their development, and requires signatories to undergo regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Currently, 189 countries have joined the treaty.
Now, some 40 years after the treaty’s establishment, and in contrast to the turbulent process of its conclusion, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty appears to be faithfully fulfilling its mission. In fact, no country has used nuclear weapons for offensive purposes since 1945. However, doubts arise regarding the effectiveness of human efforts to ensure safety from nuclear weapons—including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—in three key respects. These are the NPT’s inequality, its lack of enforceability, and the political nature of nuclear weapons.
Since the NPT’s inception, the objectives of major powers such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom to maintain an advantage over non-nuclear states have been strongly reflected in the treaty, leading it to tacitly condone the possession of nuclear weapons by existing nuclear-armed states. This has spurred non-nuclear states—particularly those in hostile relations with major nuclear powers, such as North Korea and Iran, as well as those in confrontational situations with neighboring countries, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel—to pursue nuclear weapons development out of a sense of resentment. In fact, India and Pakistan, which were in a state of hostility, competitively pursued nuclear weapons development, while Israel developed nuclear weapons to ensure its survival in the Middle East. Furthermore, Third World countries sought to acquire nuclear weapons to achieve self-reliance amid the standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union. This occurred because existing nuclear-weapon states were unwilling to relinquish their vested interests. Although the treaty includes a provision requiring signatory states to engage in good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, there was virtually no chance that nuclear-armed states would adhere to this provision during the Cold War of the mid-to-late 20th century. Although the Cold War structure has since collapsed and global tensions have eased, the major powers still possess thousands of nuclear weapons. Existing nuclear-armed states are unwilling to give up their nuclear weapons because their mere existence allows them to save massive amounts on military spending and to exert a deterrent against other nations. This also causes other nations to feel a constant security threat, prompting them to pursue nuclear development—North Korea being a prime example. While it would be easy if everyone gave up their nuclear weapons, since they never do, the inequality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty paradoxically encourages nuclear development.
Next, there are doubts regarding the treaty’s enforceability. Over the past two decades, North Korea—which poses the greatest security threat to South Korea—has conducted multiple nuclear tests. Economically isolated and lacking the resources to maintain conventional forces, North Korea has strived since the 1960s to develop nuclear weapons as a definitive asymmetric capability. As a result, it has conducted several nuclear tests since the 2000s. Despite sanctions from the international community and warnings from China, its ally, North Korea has persistently carried out nuclear tests. Although countries around the world have imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea and strengthened inspections, such as ship searches, it is reported that North Korea is planning another nuclear test. This reality demonstrates that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty cannot enforce its provisions against a closed-off state like North Korea. In fact, North Korea deliberately evaded inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until 1993, triggering the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Even then, because the IAEA lacked the authority to conduct compulsory inspections, it failed to detect North Korea’s nuclear development. The same was true for Iran. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) did not grant the authority to impose direct sanctions, the United States led the United Nations Security Council in imposing financial sanctions. Nevertheless, Iran continued its nuclear development for several more years before recently entering negotiations with the G7 nations and taking steps to halt its nuclear program. Given that this issue dragged on for about a decade, it raises the question of whether the world can truly be safe from nuclear threats if such a prolonged period is required in the event of a sudden crisis.
Finally, there is the political dimension of nuclear weapons. Possessing nuclear weapons makes a country less likely to be attacked and poses a significant threat to adversaries, making them a crucial tool for foreign policy bargaining. Domestically, they allow for substantial reductions in military spending, making them a tool for domestic politics as well. As mentioned earlier, North Korea uses nuclear weapons as a key foreign policy tool, and this serves as a significant factor for the United States and other major stakeholders in Northeast Asia. The same was true for Iran. The United States has consistently taken a hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear development, particularly because Iran is located in the Middle East—a geopolitically critical region—where the development of nuclear weapons poses a significant risk to regional stability. Additionally, given Iran’s anti-American stance and substantial economic scale, it would be difficult to control its nuclear development in the future. Meanwhile, with the advent of the Bush administration in the 2000s, the United States disregarded existing nuclear agreements and pursued the strengthening of its nuclear arsenal to reduce defense costs. This naturally provoked Russia, a former adversary, leading to Russia’s withdrawal from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Consequently, international tensions escalated. Currently, with the transition to the Obama administration, the United States is pursuing efforts to create a “nuclear-free world,” but nuclear policy stances can change at any time with a shift in administration. From this perspective, it is clearly evident that even international treaties are powerless in the face of the conflicting interests among major powers.
Overall, under the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime, there are no direct means to prevent individual nations from developing nuclear weapons; nations must rely solely on external bodies such as the United Nations Security Council. However, within the tripolar system of the United States, Russia, and China, it is unlikely that any of these powers will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons first; in fact, the reality is that they may even tacitly tolerate secret nuclear development as long as it serves to check their rivals. Furthermore, as seen in the case of the Bush administration, the fact that the NPT falters and fails to respond effectively when crises arise due to conflicts of interest among major powers raises serious doubts about the very purpose of the treaty. If humanity’s ultimate goal regarding nuclear weapons is their complete elimination worldwide, it will be difficult to achieve that goal with a treaty as weakly binding as the current one. Given that major powers have previously expressed reluctance toward the demands for nuclear disarmament raised by Third World countries, creating a world without nuclear weapons feels even more difficult. In a world where nuclear weapons—created for war—have instead generated human fear and come to dominate humanity, I hope for a day when humans can fully “control” nuclear weapons. Even if that path feels distant at present.
