Composition | Nuclear Proliferation Treaty

Since nuclear weapons stopped being controlled by only one country, the risk of them spreading to other nations has become a serious threat to world peace. Now, any government that can afford it—though it would cost an enormous amount of money—can have their own collection of atomic weapons because the manufacturing process is known. The fear of a nuclear war with China acting aggressively is like a horrifying nightmare for humanity. It's difficult to even imagine what would happen if these weapons spread further in the future.

Even at present, the dangers are very serious. The areas where these weapons are made and tested already pose a significant risk to the surrounding areas. When an atomic bomb is detonated for testing purposes, it contaminates the air around it, but we don't know the full extent of this contamination. If a real war were to break out, it could potentially be the end of humankind. It would be like the Frankenstein monster doing its worst. With big nations like the USA, USSR, and China mistrusting and sometimes openly hostile towards each other, anything could happen at any time. Nobody can look at this possibility calmly. This growing realization of potential danger led the nuclear powers, except China, to create plans to address the situation.

This movement originated from the Geneva disarmament conference. The major powers were not ready for a comprehensive disarmament plan. They could only think of ways to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. With this goal in mind, they drafted a treaty that requires nuclear powers to refrain from expanding their nuclear arsenal, and the countries signing the treaty pledged not to manufacture atomic weapons. These are the main provisions, but the question remains: how much will they contribute to achieving the desired outcome?

The treaty has been signed by the USA, USSR, and Great Britain. France has refused to sign it, although they have stated their intention to follow its principles. India has also declined to sign it. Their objection is that the treaty wrongly differentiates between nuclear and non-nuclear nations, which is morally and politically dangerous. It will not prevent a nuclear war. The promise to protect non-nuclear nations in case of a nuclear attack puts them in a permanently inferior position. This is morally unjust and politically unsound. The only way to address the situation is to completely eliminate nuclear warheads. The fact that other developing nations in Asia and Africa are following India's lead significantly weakens the power of the treaty.

It is hard to imagine a complete ban on nuclear weapons. Firstly, if China remains outside the group of nations and refuses to participate in any joint effort, there would be no incentive to ban these weapons. Whatever is done must have China's approval. Secondly, the drafting of a treaty should not be an arrangement among a select few privileged nations, but should be based on voluntary consensus. A solution that is binding should come from a source in which every nation has confidence. It cannot be imposed by a dominant power. However, for the sake of humanity and to prevent the use of this terrible weapon of destruction, something needs to be done, and it is in everyone's best interest to make that action as widely agreed upon as possible.