The Right to Have Nuclear Weapons?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every country does have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy). The fear is that countries may use this as a guise for weapons development. This is what the Bush Administration has been concerned about in the Iran example.

More fundamentally, if (as also noted further above) powerful countries, such as the US itself, are pursuing nuclear weapons options (defying various nuclear non proliferation treaties in the process), this raises arguments that many have made in the past, such as:
Surely others have a right to develop nuclear weapons as well?
Why should only a few powerful countries have them?
Won’t they use their position to pressure or bully other countries to their interests?

North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, for example (and possibly Iran, depending on how things progress) would seem to directly or indirectly support these questions for their own interests.

The right to nuclear weapons will be an attractive argument for those who feel threatened by the current world powers, or for those with more ambition. Furthermore, the world’s foremost nuclear powers appear unwilling to provide sufficient help. Some, such as the US, appear to reverse and actually develop more weapons, citing reasons such as fear and mistrust of others.

In that context, it would be hard to argue against other countries also demanding such terrible weapons. The US may even find it will have to accept that others will want nuclear weapons too, as they will recycle these same concerns, often back towards the US, adding the charge of hypocrisy if the US opposes them.

Perhaps in the ideal sense most citizens in the world would like to see all countries give up their nuclear weapons, but in the world of real-politik, that would seem suicidal. The arms race fear seems hard to avoid.

For countries such as the US that wish to dissuade others from pursuing nuclear weapons development, a negotiated approach that is also backed by real commitments where powerful countries live up to their parts of nuclear non proliferation treaties would go a long way towards achieving a more agreeable and peaceful future. But to achieve this requires an almost colossal shift in foreign policy and requires such a level of friendship and trust between countries currently opposed to each other, that it is hard to see if this can ever happen.

Ironically then, the need for international “stability” will be used as an argument both for the reduction in nuclear weapons, and for their proliferation.