None possess any other comparable means of assuring their survival. Each of the nine nuclear-armed states relies upon its arsenal to protect itself against existential threats. Following this line of thought, nuclear weapons have also given North Korea extraordinary leverage in negotiations over its future. Proponents maintain that nuclear weapons have prevented a third world war, broken the cycle of wars between India and Pakistan, ensured the survival of the state of Israel, and stopped threats by the US against China. 5 Indeed, the fact that there has not been a nuclear war since 1945, or any form of nuclear terrorism, seems miraculous. 4 This development may seem promising, but the remaining arsenals held by the nine nuclear-armed states continue to place human survival at peril. Since then, these stockpiles have declined significantly to an estimated 13,890 weapons. The world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons peaked at approximately 70,300 weapons in 1986. 2 All are obliged to participate in good faith negotiations, but as the 50th anniversary draws closer, no negotiations have been announced or appear imminent. Among the undertakings specified in the NPT, signatories agree to, “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race … and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” 1įive of the nine currently nuclear-armed states are parties to the NPT: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In May 2020, it will have been 50 years since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force. In August 2020, 75 years will have elapsed since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the closing days of World War II. In 2020, anniversaries will be marked for two key events in the history of nuclear weapons. This approach involves managing the risks associated with nuclear arsenals and aiming for synchronized arms reductions among adversaries. In this letter, I will propose a course of action to avert that outcome. Daniel Ellsberg’s book and Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s review both emphasize the likelihood of nuclear catastrophe.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |