THE international community observed 80th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki last week.
Organizations like International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) have sustained the anti-nuclear weapons activism but have failed to put nuclear genie back in the bottle. Significant increase in nuclear weapons in the states’ defence policies, entailing mega investment in modernisation of nuclear arsenals, has been continuously censured by nuclear abolitionists without any tangible consequence.
Since the first nuclear weapon test, the Trinity test, conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico, the nuclear abolitionists have been struggling to sensitise the people about the disastrous destruction of the atomic weapon deployment and lobbying for the denuclearisation to save the world from nuclear catastrophe. They publicise, “nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They violate international law, cause severe environmental damage, undermine national and global security, and divert vast public resources away from meeting human needs. They must be eliminated urgently.” Despite their powerful message, they have failed to prevent the vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons in international politics.
The trends in the current international strategic environment are unfavourable for nuclear arms control, disarmament, and abolition. Moscow and Washington have exited from the bilateral arms control treaties—the 1972 ABM Treaty and the 1987 INF Treaty. Although they are members of the New START Treaty, the Treaty was suspended in February 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and will expire in February 2026. The Chinese, Russians, and Americans seem unprepared to negotiate a trilateral nuclear arms control treaty.
The ongoing nuclear arms race between the great powers directly influences the latent nuclear weapon states and regional nuclear armed states’ nuclear policies. The latent nuclear weapon states are unwilling to compromise on their nuclear programs. The disturbing issue is the probability of a few latent nuclear-weapon states’ withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A latent nuclear-weapon state’s exit from the NPT will further derail the credibility of the Treaty. It will unleash horizontal proliferation in the volatile regions, particularly in the Middle East.
Israel’s and the US aggression against Iran in June 2025 has exposed the limits of the invaders to alter Tehran’s nuclear policy. The military aggression has strengthened the Iranians’ resolve to acquire nuclear weapons. Moreover, Tehran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency as a party to the NPT has further derailed. The Ukrainians are questioning the wisdom of their leaders to sign the 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Understanding, due to which Kyiv had relinquished its nuclear arsenal inherited from the collapse of former Soviet Union. They believe that if Ukraine had not surrendered its nuclear arsenal, it would have been able to deter the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion in 2022.
Even countries that were persuasive proponents of global nuclear disarmament, such as South Korea, Japan and Germany have shown interest in nuclear weapons. Germany has completely transformed its nuclear policy. Many strategic analysts opine that for credible deterrence, sooner or later, Germany can develop its indigenous nuclear weapons.
In September 2021, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the AUKUS alliance. The UK and US agreed to supply Australia with underwater nuclear platforms (submarines) and enriched uranium. While the AUKUS deal has different interpretations for its beneficiaries, it does violate Articles I and II of the NPT. The implementation of this deal could encourage Australia’s neighbours to consider similar options for acquiring nuclear-propelled submarines and their fuel from nuclear-weapon states, thereby escalating the risk of nuclear proliferation.
Like other nuclear-armed states, India and Pakistan are investing in the advancement of their nuclear arsenals. The four-day skirmish between India and Pakistan serves as a stark reminder of the potential for the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict between these two nuclear-armed states. During the skirmish, both sides attacked each other’s mainland with missiles and air strikes, deploying new-generation military technologies and weapons, including drones and cyber technology, to target each other’s military assets. The fact that nuclear deployment was not ruled out, as evidenced by Prime Minister Modi’s mention of nuclear weapons in his speech, underscores the imminent danger.
In conclusion, the increasing acceptance of nuclear weapons as a deterrent by global leaders exacerbates the dilemma faced by nuclear abolitionists and dampens the hope of a nuclear-free world. This underscores the pressing concern of nuclear proliferation for analysts. As more countries join the nuclear club, the risk of a nuclear conflict, whether accidental or inadvertent, looms larger.
—The writer is Prof at the School of Politics and IR, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
