Challenges to the global nuclear structure is an important issue in world politics. This article covers some aspect of it.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/s/photos/nuclear-bomb) |
The global nuclear structure still faces many challenges. It is these predictions that inspire the international community to come together and confront the occasional blurred predictions. This article attempts to predict the future global nuclear structure through the current trend.
The question of how the global nuclear structure will survive and function is as old as nuclear. In 1963, Robert McNamara, then Secretary of Defense of the United States, met with President John F. Kennedy. Gave Kennedy a written letter regarding the nuclear situation at the time. In it, he says that four countries, namely the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France, have declared themselves nuclear powers. In addition, four more countries will declare themselves as nuclear powers on their own. These four countries are China, Israel, India, Sweden. According to McNamara's calculations, by 1973, a total of 12 countries would have nuclear weapons.
Similar vague predictions have been made on many occasions in history. Fortunately, none of these predictions have come true, and this is due to the support and careful efforts of the international community towards the nuclear disarmament and arms control agenda.
However, the global nuclear structure still faces many challenges. However, it is these predictions that motivate the international community to come together and confront the occasional blurred predictions.
The international community seems to be divided over whether solutions to the North Korean problem and possible disarmament agreements with Pyongyang (the North Korean capital) should be aimed at complete disarmament.
Given the ongoing testing of nuclear equipment and missile systems, it can be said without a doubt that North Korea is the biggest challenge facing the nuclear structure. The international community seems to be divided over the solution to the North Korean problem and whether the goal of possible agreements with Pyongyang (the North Korean capital) should be complete disarmament.
Given the efforts made by Kim Jong-un's government to build conventional and expensive nuclear weapons on its own, it does not appear that Pyongyang will recognize full disarmament, without significant concessions, and without the possibility of unification of the Korean Peninsula under Kim Jong-un's leadership. Of course, this will have significant geopolitical consequences. At the last level, an agreement has to be reached without disarmament, otherwise the global nuclear structure will be permanently destroyed. On the one hand, the possibility of a parallel proliferation of nuclear weapons seems 'remote', but on the other hand, there are indications that Japan is considering nuclear disarmament.
While the global nuclear structure is facing the daunting challenge of North Korea, it is equally important to consider other challenges. For example, the threat to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) approved by Iran and the P5 + 1 negotiations in 2015; As well as the failed US-Russia arms control agreement; The aggressive sanctification of the strategic deployment of nuclear weapons for war; Technological advances in distribution systems, such as hypersonic vehicles that will lead to a new wave of arms competition around the world; And the long-neglected global nuclear disarmament agenda.
Challenges to the future of the JCPOA This is a very significant threat to nuclear disarmament. US President Donald Trump tried to make an additional deal. The agreement would cover Iran's long-range missile program, strengthen JCPOA's verification measures, and extend the terms of the agreement indefinitely by repealing the 'Sunset' clause. Even with this additional agreement, the situation is unlikely to improve. In the case of Iran, in principle, they have the technology to enrich nuclear technology, so the state will be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. This is another challenge to nuclear disarmament.
The existing system, mainly the US negotiations with the Soviet Union during and after the Cold War, has now come to a standstill.
Over the past decade, the arms control agenda has suffered many setbacks. Negotiations in the existing system have now come to a standstill. This mainly includes the negotiations that the United States held with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and later with Russia. There was a new wave of modernization of nuclear warheads in various circles led by the US. The possibility of negotiating a new weapons control system is becoming more and more rare due to the rapid progress currently being made in the modern weapons distribution system.
This structure is further weakened by the disintegration of the world over the Third Agenda for Nuclear Disarmament. The non-proliferation and non-proliferation nations involved in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) sought to develop a new mechanism to address the issue on the agenda. Not much progress has been made on this. So far, however, they have ignored the insecurity created by superpowers and weak powers due to instability in the world system, and this has led to a significant increase in the importance of nuclear defense.
The global nuclear structure is facing challenges on three key issues: nuclear proliferation, arms control, and disarmament. The existing system is incapable of coping with these challenges and moreover sometimes the system itself stands as a challenge. Unfortunately, there are as many transformative states in the international system today as there are countries in the world. As long as this system prefers to remain in circulation, the international community will not be able to come together consistently on the issues we have discussed and build a new system.
Post a Comment