From the Waltz and Sagan’s article about nuclear proliferation, I can arguably change my opinion that nuclear proliferation is not a bad thing. Based on the events happening in the world such as the North Korea nuclear crisis, not all nations follow the nonproliferation treaty despite signing the treaty that requires member nations to adhere to. If an aggressive government possess nuclear weapons, they can blackmail or intimidate their non-nuclear neighbors. The neighboring countries would, in turn, respond by building their own nuclear weapons in order to deter them further triggering a nuclear arms race similar to East Asia.
Despite having such threats, the world has stable countries which have democratic and constant status quo power that do not threaten nuclear peace but instead promote security in the region against their enemies. Just like America’s nonproliferation laws on gun control policies having little effect in averting criminals from acquiring weapons, this system also has the same effects as they cannot prevent unsavory states from obtaining nuclear weapons. Instead, this treaty disarms stable nations making them vulnerable while countries such as Iran and North Korea create security threats as they struggle to gain nuclear powers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It should be noted that not all forms of nuclear proliferation are bad. The nonproliferation policy should opt for uniform treatment instead of selectivity and discrimination. However, they should concentrate on making it difficult for unstable or aggressive regimes to acquire the fissile materials and technology needed to create these weapons by delaying such countries from having technologies. Additionally, they should also focus on how to prevent these unfriendly nations from transferring weapons to terrorist adversaries. These two measures may arguably be more effective than the counterproductive efforts to stop all forms of nuclear proliferation.
