VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES,

VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

PSDA SUBMISSION

INTERNATIONAL LAW

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

DR. ABHISHEK TRIVEDI, SHORYA GUPTA, 18117703521

FACULTY- INTERNATIONAL LAW SHATAKSHI AGARWAL., 18517703521

ANISHA CHAUHAN, 37417703521

TRISHLA GARG, 16117703521

AKSHITA VAISHNAV, 20317703521

 INTRODUCTION

(by Shatakshi Agarwal)

A nuclear weapon is an explosive device whose destructive force results from either nuclear
fission chain reactions or combined nuclear fission and fusion reactions. Nuclear weapons
whose explosive force results exclusively from fission reactions are commonly referred to as
atomic bombs, while those that derive much or most of their energy in nuclear fusion reactions
are termed thermonuclear weapons (or hydrogen bombs).

In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is turned into a
supercritical mass, producing explosive yields ranging from the equivalent of around one to
five hundred kilotons of TNT. The detonation of any nuclear weapon is accompanied by a blast
of radiation. Fission also produces radioactive debris, more commonly known as fallout. A
thermonuclear weapon uses the heat generated by a fission bomb to compress and ignite a
nuclear fusion stage. Thermonuclear weapons typically have a far higher explosive yield than
fission weapons, in the range of megatons rather than kilotons.

HISTORY OF USE AND TESTING

The fear that the Nazis could develop nuclear weapons prompted United States (US) President
Theodore Roosevelt to establish the Manhattan Project in 1941. The world’s first detonation of
a nuclear weapon, the result of the Project’s work, occurred just before 5.30am on 16 July 1945
at a site in New Mexico. The first nuclear weapon attack occurred on 6 August 1945 over the
city of Hiroshima in Japan. ‘Little Boy’, as the bomb was named, exploded 580 metres above
the ground, rendering an explosive yield of some 16 kilotons of TNT. No one knows exactly
how many tens of thousands of people were killed in the attack. Three days later the US
detonated ‘Fat Man’, a plutonium bomb with a larger 20-kiloton yield, 610 metres above a
suburb of Nagasaki, killing some 74,000 people. The second state after the US to test a nuclear
bomb successfully was Russia, which in 1949 detonated an atomic bomb, made with plutonium
as its nuclear material. ‘Greenhouse George’, a US test fire in Nevada in May 1951, was the
first fusion nuclear weapon to be detonated.4 The largest nuclear explosion ever is believed to
be Russian in origin: its explosive yield amounted to 50 megatons. The largest US nuclear
detonation, equivalent to 15 megatons, occurred on Bikini Atoll in May 1954. Other nuclear
weapon states are India, Israel, and Pakistan as well as the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea (DPR Korea) which conducted an underground test of a low-yield nuclear device in
October 2006.

The concept of nuclear nonproliferation was coined in a formal way at the beginning of the
1960s, though the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, would be the text that would consolidate it. After the bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, humanity was conscious of the danger of these weapons,
and nuclear proliferation turned into one of the main problems of the Cold War period; their
control and the implementation of strategies to limit them have become a priority since then.

PRESENT STATUS

The end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger. Nowadays, the nuclear question is still
of great relevance. The nuclear problems in the 21st century’s international society are wide
and varied and include states that withdrew the NPT (North Korea), states that fail to comply
with it (Iran), states that have not yet ratified it (Israel, India, Pakistan), and non-state actors
(such as terrorist groups), which are more and more interested in the wide destructive power
of nuclear weapons. The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons of 7
July 2017 was a significant step, but the low number of state accessions shows that nuclear
weapons are still a relevant threat.

Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the world’s
combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level: nine countries possessed
roughly 12,100 warheads as of early-2024. Combined, the United States and Russia now
possess approximately 88 percent of the world’s total inventory of nuclear weapons, and 84
percent of the stockpiled warheads available for use by the military. Currently, no other nuclear-
armed state sees a need for more than a few hundred nuclear weapons for national security,
although many of these states are increasing their nuclear stockpiles. In contrast to the overall
inventory of nuclear weapons, the number of warheads in global military stockpiles – which
comprises warheads assigned to operational forces – is increasing once again. The United
States is still reducing its nuclear stockpile slowly. France and Israel have relatively stable
inventories. But China, India, North Korea, Pakistan and the United Kingdom, as well as
possibly Russia, are all thought to be increasing their stockpiles.
INDIA- India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, which prompted Pakistan to develop its
own nuclear program and, when India conducted a second series of nuclear tests in 1998,
Pakistan followed with a series of tests of its own. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first
nuclear test.

India possesses nuclear weapons and previously developed chemical weapons. Although India
has not released any official statements about the size of its nuclear arsenal, recent estimates
suggest that India has 170 nuclear weapons. India is a member of three multilateral expot
control regimes — the Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and
Australia Group. India is also a subscribing state to the Hague Code of Conduct. India has
signed neither the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty nor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, considering both to be flawed and discriminatory. India maintains a "no first use"
nuclear policy and has developed a nuclear triad capability as a part of its "Minimum Credible
Deterrence" doctrine.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
(By Anisha Chauhan)

It is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear

technology and information to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-
Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without
nuclear weapons, as governments fear that more countries with nuclear weapons will increase
the possibility of nuclear warfare (up to and including the so-called countervalue targeting of
civilians with nuclear weapons), de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe
upon the national sovereignty of nation states.

Four countries besides the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States have acquired, or are
presumed to have acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. None
of these four are a party to the NPT, although North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, then
withdrew in 2003 and conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. One critique of the NPT is that
the treaty is discriminatory in the sense that only those countries that tested nuclear weapons
before 1968 are recognized as nuclear weapon states while all other states are treated as non-
nuclear-weapon states who can only join the treaty if they forswear nuclear weapons.
During World War II the prospect of a nuclear-armed Nazi Germany led the United States to
intensify its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. The U.S. program, known as the Manhattan
Project, produced the first atomic bomb in July 1945. Only three weeks after the first test of an
atomic bomb in the U.S. state of New Mexico, a uranium-based atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima, Japan; a second, plutonium-based bomb was dropped on Nagasaki three days later.
The United States remained the sole nuclear power until 1949, when the Soviet Union tested
its first atomic bomb, code-named First Lightning, in a remote area of Kazakhstan. Klaus
Fuchs, a German-born British physicist who was involved in the Manhattan Project, was later
convicted of passing secret information on the theory and design of atomic bombs to the Soviet
government. The intense competition of those two countries during the Cold War led them to
develop the more-powerful thermonuclear bomb (also known as the hydrogen bomb, or H-
bomb) and to enlarge their stocks of nuclear weapons. At the height of this competition, the
United States and the Soviet Union together possessed many thousands of nuclear warheads,
enough to eradicate all life on Earth many times over.1

India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, which prompted Pakistan to develop its own
nuclear program and, when India conducted a second series of nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistan
followed with a series of tests of its own. In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test

1. Why do states pursue nuclear weapons? 2

Introduction

Since the invention and first use of nuclear weapons in 1945, predictions on the proliferation
of these weapons have traditionally been overestimating. Despite all gloomy forecasts, only
nine states nowadays are considered to possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia,
China, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Although more
states have operated nuclear weapons programmes at some point in the past 65 years – some
experts argue that in total 39 states once engaged in nuclear weapons activities – most of them
sooner or later gave up their ambition to acquire these weapons. Especially since the second
half of the 1980s the number of states with nuclear weapons-related activities has become
relatively low. Taking into account the historical trends, it looks like political and academic
forecasts even nowadays tend to be overemphasizing the risks of further proliferation of nuclear

1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nuclear-proliferation
2
https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2018-
Motivations_to_Acquire_or_Forgo_Nuclear_Weapons%20_August_2016.pdf
weapons in the near future, for example by predicting nuclear domino effects if new nuclear
weapons powers would arise and cause other states to develop nuclear weapons as well. The
difficulties in forecasting nuclear weapons proliferation can be explained by one key factor: it
is still unclear among academics and policymakers why exactly states start nuclear weapons
programmes or refrain from them. What makes nuclear weapons attractive or unattractive to
the leadership of any state? True, many theories exist. The problem with all existing theories
on motivations for states to acquire or not to acquire nuclear weapons is that supporting
evidence may be found, but opposing evidence as well. When studying nuclear weapons (non-
)proliferation, one could consider any state in the world as an individual case, each with its
own international and domestic circumstances, and with all the changes herein during history.
It is, therefore, not surprising that specific explanations of nuclear behaviour are repeatedly
considered inadequate because they fail to account for all cases – currently more than 190
states.

Without understanding what are the motivations of states to aim for or refrain from acquiring
nuclear weapons, it is not only complicated to forecast nuclear proliferation dynamics, but even
more important: it becomes difficult to develop policies aimed at influencing these dynamics
– there is a risk of treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. This will not be achieved
by developing a new theory, but by increasing the insights in the large amount of existing
theories on nuclear proliferation motivations. For this purpose the many theories developed in
the past decades will be grouped into four overarching groups. This analysis could be helpful
to future researchers and policy makers who got lost in the current richness in theories and their
critics.

2. International cooperation3

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

At present, 189 countries are States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, more commonly known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. These
include the five Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) recognized by the NPT: the People's Republic
of China, France, Russian Federation, the UK, and the United States.

Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since

3
Nuclear Weapon Archive
 3. Vertical and Horizontal Proliferation
Issues with Non-Proliferation Treaty4

NNWS criticizes the treaty to be discriminatory as it focuses on preventing only horizontal

proliferation while there is no limit for vertical proliferation.

NNWS groupings demand that the NWS should renounce their arsenals and further production
in return for the commitment of NNWS not to produce them.

Vertical and horizontal nuclear proliferation are two concepts used to describe different aspects
of the spread and advancement of nuclear weapons capabilities among nations.

Vertical proliferation can be defined as the advancement or modernization of a nation-state’s

nuclear arsenal, whereas horizontal proliferation is the direct or indirect transfer of technologies
from one nation-state to another, which ultimately leads to the more advanced development
and proliferation of nuclear weapons.5

1. Vertical Proliferation: This refers to the increase in the quantity and quality of nuclear
weapons within a single country's arsenal. Vertical proliferation occurs when a nation
that already possesses nuclear weapons expands its arsenal by developing more
sophisticated
2. weapons, increasing its stockpile, or enhancing the delivery systems (such as missiles
or bombers) for those weapons. This is often driven by a desire to improve deterrence
capabilities, maintain strategic parity with rivals, or pursue geopolitical objectives.

2. Horizontal Proliferation: In contrast, horizontal proliferation involves the spread of nuclear

weapons capabilities to additional states beyond the original nuclear powers. This can occur
through several means, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons or technology from
existing nuclear powers, clandestine development programs, or the transfer of technology by
rogue states or non-state actors. Horizontal proliferation raises concerns about the potential for
nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of unstable regimes or terrorist organizations, as well as
the risk of nuclear conflict between new nuclear-armed states.

4
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/non-proliferation-
5
https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/NMHB2020rev/docs/NMHB2020rev_Ch11.pdf#:~:text=Vertical%.
Both vertical and horizontal proliferation pose significant challenges to international security
and efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Measures such as arms control
agreements, non-proliferation treaties, diplomatic engagement, and sanctions are often
employed to mitigate these risks and prevent further proliferation.

THE NON- PROLIFERATION TREATY

(By Shorya Gupta)

OVERVIEW

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stands as a landmark international agreement

aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Its history reflects the complex geopolitical
dynamics of the Cold War era and the global efforts to manage the risks posed by nuclear
proliferation.

ORIGIN OF THE TREATY

The backdrop against which the NPT emerged was one of heightened tensions between
the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As both superpowers amassed
vast nuclear arsenals, concerns grew about the potential spread of nuclear weapons to other
nations. By that time, the world had already witnessed the catastrophic effects of nuclear
weapons when they were first used by US in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Thus, concerns
grew regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons

EARLY INITIATIVES

Before the NPT, there were various initiatives to address nuclear proliferation. One
notable effort was the Atoms for Peace program proposed by U.S. President Dwight D.
Eisenhower in 1953 to the eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly. This
program aimed to promote the peaceful use of atomic energy while preventing the spread of
nuclear weapons. His proposal resulted in 1957 in the establishment of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was charged with the dual responsibility of promotion
and control of nuclear technology.6

The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), also known as the Limited Test Ban
Treaty (LTBT), prohibits nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and
underwater. The treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963 by the United States, the
United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, and went into effect on October 10, 1963. The Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty banned nuclear-weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and
underwater but permitted underground testing and required no control posts, no on-site
inspection, and no international supervisory body. It did not reduce nuclear stockpiles, halt the
production of nuclear weapons, or restrict their use in time of war.

This treaty laid the groundwork for non proliferation effects.

THE NPT

In 1965, the Geneva disarmament conference began consideration of a draft nuclear

nonproliferation treaty. 7The conference completed its negotiations in 1968, and on July 1,
1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature.

NPT is an international agreement designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,

promote cooperation between states on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and advance nuclear
disarmament. The NPT was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and the treaty went into force
in 1970. 191 countries are now a party to the NPT. South Sudan, India, Pakistan, and Israel
have never joined the NPT. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985, but withdrew in 2003.
The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of
disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty,
including the five nuclear-weapon States.8 More countries have ratified the NPT than any other
arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance. The
treaty’s term was originally 25 years, but it was extended indefinitely at a review conference
in 1995. The NPT article 9 distinguishes between nuclear-weapons states (NWS) and non-

6
https://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/pdf/background%20info.pdf
7
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/141503.pdf
8
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
nuclear-weapons states (NNWS). Nuclear Weapons States are the five states that possessed
nuclear weapons when the treaty was signed in 1968: the United States, the Soviet Union, the
United Kingdom, France, and China and the others as NNWS.

THREE PILLARS

The NPT’s grand bargain rests on three pillars: nonproliferation, the peaceful use of
nuclear energy, and disarmament. The treaty contains 11 Articles

NON PROLIFERATION

1. Article I:
a. Prohibits nuclear-weapon states from transferring nuclear weapons or
assisting others in acquiring them.
b. Ensures nuclear-weapon states do not encourage non-nuclear-weapon
states to develop nuclear weapons.
2. Article II:
a. Requires non-nuclear-weapon states not to acquire or manufacture
nuclear weapons.
b. Non-nuclear-weapon states must not seek or receive assistance in
developing nuclear weapons.
3. Article III:
a. Mandates all parties to establish safeguards agreements with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
b. Aims to verify that nuclear activities within a state are for peaceful
purposes and prevent diversion for weaponization.
PEACEFUL USE

4. Article IV:
a. acknowledges the right of all Parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes and
b. to benefit from international cooperation in this area, in conformity with their
nonproliferation obligations. Article IV also encourages such cooperation.
DISARMAMENT
 5. Article V:

a. of the NPT, The Treaty does not affect the right of state parties to develop,
produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, provided such activities
are in conformity with Articles I and II.
b. All state parties undertake to facilitate, and have a right to participate, in the
exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information
for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

INSTANCES WHERE STATES ADHERED TO NPT

● South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons program and adhered to the NPT as a non-
nuclear-weapon state.
● When the break-up of the Soviet Union left nuclear weapons in several of its successor
states, all transferred these weapons to Russia and adhered to the NPT as non-nuclear-
weapon states.

VERIFICATION AND MONITORING

The IAEA monitors the compliance of non-nuclear-weapons states. It assesses civilian

nuclear programs and verifies that NNWS are not developing nuclear weapons. In order to
perform this function, the IAEA establishes Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements with
NNWS. NNWS may also implement the Additional Protocol, armscontrolcenter.org which
gives the IAEA supplementary legal authority to verify a state’s safeguards obligation by
expanding the organization’s rights to access information and sites to fill in gaps of information
reported via safeguards agreements. All five NWS also have signed Additional Protocol
agreements with the IAEA. Every 5 years, Parties to the NPT gather for a review conference
to evaluate proliferation concerns and what progress has been made towards eventual global
disarmament

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONPROLIFERATION OBLIGATIONS

One of the key challenges to the Treaty continues to be noncompliance with

nonproliferation obligations by a few NPT non-nuclear-weapon states. The overwhelming
majority of NPT Parties do comply with their nonproliferation obligations, but continuing
compliance challenges make clear the need for the international community to remain vigilant
about compliance, to strengthen continually the Treaty’s implementation and the
nonproliferation regime, and to continue to pursue international efforts to bring non-compliant
states back into compliance.

Iran: For many years, Iran has conducted unreported nuclear activities, including enrichment.
In 2005, the IAEA found Iran in noncompliance pursuant to Article XII.C. of the Agency’s
Statute because of its failure to comply with its NPT-mandated safeguards agreement. Since
2005, the UN Security Council has passed five resolutions, three of which are legally binding,
calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activities and heavy water-related projects and
imposing sanctions on Iran for its lack of compliance.

North Korea: After years of noncompliance with its NPT safeguards obligations, in January
2003, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT. In September 2005, in
the Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear
weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA
safeguards. North Korea has not honored its commitments and currently faces sanctions under
two UN Security Council Resolutions for its announced nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. The
full implementation of the Joint Statement remains the core objective of the Six Party Talks.

INDIA’S STAND ON NPT

India is one of the only five countries that either did not sign the NPT or signed but
withdrew, thus becoming part of a list that includes Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and South
Sudan.

India always considered the NPT as discriminatory and had refused to sign it. India has opposed
the international treaties aimed at non-proliferation since they were selectively applicable to
the non-nuclear powers and legitimised the monopoly of the five nuclear weapons powers.

CRITICISMS
 System of Nuclear ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’ NNWS criticizes the treaty to be
discriminatory as it focuses on preventing only horizontal proliferation while there is no limit
for vertical proliferation. th 1/4 In this context, NNWS groupings demand that the NWS should
renounce their arsenals and further production in return for commitment of NNWS not to
produce them. Apart from it, other reasons for tussle between NWS and NNWS. NNWS held
that Articles I & II of the treaty (prohibition of possessing nuclear weapons) did not prohibit
nuclear weapons on allied territory of NWS. For example, NATO countries for the US.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

The 2015 NPT conference failed to adopt a consensus final document. Many countries
were dissatisfied with this outcome and sought to shift efforts to advance the disarmament
agenda to an open-ended working group (OEWG) on nuclear disarmament within the United
Nations General Assembly

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is an international treaty

that aims to prohibit the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use,
and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance and encouragement to the prohibited
activities. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on July 7, 2017, with 122
states voting in favor, one against (Netherlands), and one abstention (Singapore).9 The treaty
opened for signature on September 20, 2017.

The TPNW entered into force on January 22, 2021, after it received the necessary 50
ratifications. However, notable nuclear-armed states, such as the United States, Russia, China,
the United Kingdom, and France, have not signed the treaty. These states argue that the treaty
ignores the security realities that have led them to possess nuclear weapons and question its
effectiveness in achieving nuclear disarmament.

INDIA’S STAND ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

● India has said that it attaches substantial importance to seeing a world without nuclear
weapons. It is committed to nuclear disarmament.

9
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/
 ● However, India did not participate in these negotiations for the TPNW.
● India also clarified that it would not become a party to the treaty.
● The reason behind this non-participation is that India does not believe the TPNW adds
any value to customary international law, nor does it set any new guidelines or
principles.
● However, India’s commitment to nuclear disarmament is validated by a working paper
titled “Nuclear Disarmament”, which India has submitted to the UN General Assembly
and the Conference on Disarmament.
● India released this statement on 22 January 2021. 10

ARMS CONTROL MEASURES

(By Trishla Garg)

1. What are the arm control measures used by the countries ?

Countries utilize a variety of arms control measures to manage and regulate the
possession, proliferation, and use of conventional weapons, including firearms,
missiles, and other military equipment. These measures aim to enhance international
security, reduce the risk of conflict, and promote disarmament.

The UN’s founders hoped that the maintenance of international peace and security
would lead to the control and eventual reduction of weapons. Therefore the Charter
empowers the General Assembly to consider principles for arms
control and disarmament and to make recommendations to member states and the
Security Council. The Charter also gives the Security Council the responsibility to
formulate plans for arms control and disarmament. Although the goal of arms control
and disarmament has proved elusive, the UN has facilitated the negotiation of several
multilateral arms control treaties.11

10
https://www.mea.gov.in/press-
releases.htm?dtl/33409/Indias+view+on+the+Treaty+on+the+Prohibition+of+Nuclear+Weapons
Britannica, United Nations - Arms Control and Disarmament, https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-
11

Nations/Arms-control-and-disarmament, 20 July, 2019

 Because of the enormous destructive power realized with the development and use of
the atomic bomb during World War II, the General Assembly in 1946 created
the Atomic Energy Commission to assist in the urgent consideration of the control
of atomic energy and in the reduction of atomic weapons. The United States promoted
the Baruch Plan, which proposed the elimination of existing stockpiles of atomic bombs
only after a system of international control was established and prohibited veto power
in the Security Council on the commission’s decisions. The Soviet Union, proposing
the Gromyko Plan, wanted to ensure the destruction of stockpiles before agreeing to an
international supervisory scheme and wanted to retain Security Council veto power
over the commission. The conflicting positions of the two superpowers prevented
agreement on the international control of atomic weapons and energy.

2. All about NATO and its allies:

• NATO actively contributes to effective and verifiable arms control, disarmament and
non-proliferation efforts through its policies, activities and the efforts of Allied
countries. NATO itself is not party to any treaty, but it supports and facilitates dialogue
among Allies, partners and other countries to implement their international obligations.
• NATO Allies are parties to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty,
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear- Weapons (NPT), the Chemical
Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention and other treaties and
agreements that promote arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.
• NATO cooperates with the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), other
regional organisations and multilateral initiatives to address the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
• Nuclear weapons committed to NATO’s defence have been reduced by more than 90
per cent since the height of the Cold War.12
• NATO will remain a nuclear alliance as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world,
at a level consistent with its deterrence and defence posture, based on an appropriate
mix of nuclear, conventional and missile defence capabilities, complemented by space
and cyber capabilities.

12
Amnesty International, Control Arms: The Movement to Rein in the Global Arms Trade,
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act300032003en.pdf, 25 June 2020
 • NATO Allies also assist partner countries in the destruction of surplus stocks of mines,
arms and munitions. In addition, former military personnel receive retraining assistance
through defence reform Trust Fund projects.
• The 2022 Strategic Concept, endorsed at the NATO Summit in Madrid, reinforced a
critical link between NATO’s deterrence and defence efforts and Arms Control,
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, two policy instruments that complement and
support Allied security. 13

There are some common arms control measures employed by the countries:

3. International Treaties and Agreements: Countries negotiate and ratify international

treaties and agreements to establish legal frameworks for arms control. These
agreements can cover various types of weapons, including nuclear, chemical,
biological, and conventional arms. Examples include:

- Arms Trade Treaty (ATT): Regulates the international trade in conventional weapons
to prevent illicit arms transfers and reduce the risk of human rights abuses and armed
conflict.
- Convention on certain conventional weapons (CCW): Addresses the humanitarian
impact of certain types of conventional weapons, such as landmines, cluster munitions,
and incendiary weapons.
- Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): Bans the development, production,
stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and requires the destruction of existing
chemical weapon stockpiles.14

4. Export Control: Countries implement export control regimes to regulate the export of
weapons, military equipment, and dual-use technologies to other countries. Export
controls help prevent the proliferation of arms and technologies that could contribute
to regional instability or conflict. Export control regimes may include licensing
requirements, end-user verification procedures, and adherence to international arms
embargoes and sanctions.

13
NATO - Arms Control and Disarmament, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48895.htm, 15 May 2018
14
Foreign Policy and Security policy, Arms control and disbarment, Arms control and disarmament - Ministry
for Foreign Affairs (um.fi), 27 January 2020
 5. Arms Limitations and Reduction Agreements: Countries engage in bilateral or
multilateral agreements to limit or reduce the size and capabilities of their armed forces
and conventional weapons arsenals. These agreements may involve numerical limits on
military personnel, equipment, or specific types of weapons systems. Examples include
strategic arms reduction treaties (START) and conventional arms control agreements in
Europe.

6. Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs): Countries exchange

information, engage in dialogue, and undertake cooperative activities to build trust and
reduce tensions related to military activities. TCBMs can include notifications of
military exercises, visits and inspections of military facilities, and exchanges of military
personnel and information.

7. Verification and Monitoring Mechanisms: Verification measures are used to ensure

compliance with arms control agreements and provide transparency regarding military
activities and capabilities. Verification mechanisms may include on-site inspections,
data exchanges, satellite imagery analysis, and remote monitoring technologies.

8. Disarmament and Demilitarization Programs: Countries may implement

disarmament and demilitarization programs to reduce the availability and use of
weapons within their territories. These programs may involve weapons buyback
initiatives, disarmament agreements with armed groups, and efforts to destroy surplus
or obsolete weapons and ammunition.

9. Regional Security Initiatives: Countries in specific regions may establish regional

security organizations or initiatives to address common security challenges and
promote arms control and confidence-building measures. Examples include the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).15

15
Arms control, Arms control and World Order, Full article: Arms Control and World Order (tandfonline.com),
12 April, 2021
 10. Civil society Engagement and Public Awareness: Civil society organizations,
advocacy groups, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role
in raising public awareness about the consequences of arms proliferation and
advocating for arms control measures. Public pressure and activism can influence
government policies and support disarmament efforts. 16

11. Nuclear -Weapon-Free-Zones (NWFZ): NWFZs contribute to regional stability by

prohibiting the development, testing, or deployment of nuclear weapons within
designated areas. These zones are established through treaties or declarations and often
involve confidence-building measures and cooperative security arrangements among
neighbouring states. However, ensuring compliance and addressing security concerns
within NWFZs remains a challenge, particularly in regions marked by geopolitical
tensions.

12. Regional and Bilateral Dialogues: Regional and bilateral dialogues provide
opportunities for countries to address specific security concerns and build trust through
confidence-building measures. These dialogues facilitate cooperation on nuclear risk
reduction initiatives, crisis communication channels, and arms control agreements
tailored to regional dynamics. However, deep-seated distrust and historical grievances
can impede progress in some cases.

13. Public Awareness and Civil Society Engagement: Civil society organizations play a
crucial role in advocating for nuclear disarmament and raising public awareness about
the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Grassroots activism, public
education campaigns, and advocacy efforts can influence government policies and
priorities, fostering a broader understanding of the risks associated with nuclear
proliferation.

IMPACT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Arms Control , The Traditional Agenda of Arms Control Measures, Full article: Arms Control and World
16

Order (tandfonline.com), 10 November 2022

 (By Akshita Vaishnav)

1. INCREASED RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR

As more countries acquire nuclear weapons, the risk of a nuclear war increases the potential
for miscalculations, accidents, or unauthorized launches all increase as weapons and the
countries that possess them increases.

2.ECONOMIC IMPACT

The development and maintenance of nuclear weapons can be costly, diverting resources away
from other important areas such as education, health care, and infrastructure.

3. NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT EFFORTS CAN BE HINDERED

The more countries that possess nuclear weapons, the more difficult it and enforce non-
proliferation and disarmament agreements.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The environmental impact of nuclear weapons encompasses a range of devastating

consequences, including:

• Radioactive Contamination: Nuclear explosions release radioactive particles into the

atmosphere, soil, and water, contaminating the environment. This radiation persists for
years, causing long-term health risks to humans, animals, and plants.
• Ecosystem Destruction: The immediate blast and heat from nuclear detonations destroy
habitats and ecosystems, leading to the loss of biodiversity and disruption of natural
processes. Radioactive fallout can further harm wildlife populations and disrupt food
chains.
• Climate Disruption: Large-scale nuclear conflicts can trigger "nuclear winter," where
smoke and debris from detonations block sunlight, leading to a significant drop in
temperatures worldwide. This disruption can cause widespread agricultural failure,
famine, and ecological collapse.
• Water and Soil Contamination: Nuclear testing and accidents release radioactive
material into water bodies and soil, contaminating drinking water sources and
agricultural land. This contamination persists for generations, posing health risks to
populations that rely on these resources.
 • Long-term Health Effects: Exposure to radiation from nuclear weapons testing or
accidents can lead to an increased risk of cancer, genetic mutations, and other health
issues for both humans and wildlife. These effects can persist for decades or even
centuries, impacting future generations.

Overall, the environmental impact of nuclear weapons is profound and long-lasting, posing
significant risks to ecosystems, biodiversity, and human health. Efforts to prevent nuclear
proliferation and promote disarmament are crucial for mitigating these environmental threats
and safeguarding the planet for future generations.

The Chernobyl disaster of 1986, a catastrophic nuclear accident, unfolded in Ukraine, then part
of the Soviet Union. The explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant released radioactive
material into the environment, contaminating land, water, and air. This rendered vast areas,
including the nearby city of Pripyat, uninhabitable. The fallout from Chernobyl caused
mutations in plant and animal life and led to long-term health issues in humans, such as
increased cancer rates and genetic mutations.

5. PROLIFERATION CAN LEAD TO REGIONAL ARMS RACE

When one country acquires nuclear weapons, other neighbouring countries may feel compelled
to do the same, leading to a regional arms race. Proliferation can lead to increased international
tension and instability

India's nuclear tests in 1998, codenamed "Operation Shakti," prompted Pakistan to conduct its
own nuclear tests, codenamed "Chagai-I" and "Chagai-II," escalating regional tensions and
heightening the risk of nuclear conflict. This tit-for-tat nuclear escalation intensified the
longstanding Kashmir conflict and underscored the imperative for diplomatic efforts to prevent
nuclear escalation in South Asia.

6. HUMANITARIAN EFFECTS

Short-term effects
A single nuclear weapon can destroy a city and kill most of its people. Several nuclear
explosions over modern cities would kill tens of millions of people. Casualties from a major
nuclear war between the US and Russia would reach hundreds of millions.

It takes around 10 seconds for the fireball from a nuclear explosion to reach its maximum size.
A nuclear explosion releases vast amounts of energy in the form of blast, heat and radiation.
An enormous shockwave reaches speeds of many hundreds of kilometres an hour. The blast
kills people close to ground zero, and causes lung injuries, ear damage and internal bleeding
further away. People sustain injuries from collapsing buildings and flying objects. Thermal
radiation is so intense that almost everything close to ground zero is vaporized. The extreme
heat causes severe burns and ignites fires over a large area, which coalesce into a giant
firestorm. Even people in underground shelters face likely death due to a lack of oxygen and
carbon monoxide poisoning.

Long- term effects

In the long-term, nuclear weapons produce ionizing radiation, which kills or sickens those
exposed, contaminates the environment, and has long-term health consequences, including
cancer and genetic damage. Their widespread use in atmospheric testing has caused grave long-
term consequences. Physicians project that some 2.4 million people worldwide will eventually
die from cancers due to atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980.
The use of less than one percent of the nuclear weapons in the world could disrupt the global
climate and threaten as many as two billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine in the
long-term. The detonation of thousands of nuclear weapons could result in a nuclear winter,
which would destroy our fragile ecosystem.

Physicians and first responders would be unable to work in devastated, radioactively

contaminated areas. Even a single nuclear detonation in a modern city would strain existing
disaster relief resources to the breaking point; a nuclear war would overwhelm any relief
system we could build in advance. Displaced populations from a nuclear war will produce a
refugee crisis that is orders of magnitude larger than any we have ever experienced.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, with the bombs "Little
Boy" and "Fat Man" respectively, resulted in catastrophic loss of life and widespread
destruction. The intense radiation released by the atomic bombs caused immediate fatalities,
with an estimated 70,000 people killed instantly in Hiroshima and approximately 40,000 in
Nagasaki. However, the impact extended far beyond the initial detonations, leading to long-
term health effects and genetic mutations among survivors.

The radiation exposure from the bombings caused genetic mutations in survivors who were
exposed to high levels of radiation. These mutations altered the DNA of individuals, leading to
a range of health problems, including birth defects, developmental disabilities, and increased
rates of cancer among their descendants. Studies conducted in the aftermath of the bombings
found evidence of increased rates of genetic abnormalities and hereditary diseases among the
children and grandchildren of survivors.

These genetic mutations underscore the enduring legacy of nuclear weapons on human health
and well-being, highlighting the intergenerational transmission of radiation-induced health
risks. They serve as a somber reminder of the catastrophic human toll of nuclear warfare and
the urgent need for global efforts to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

7. IMPACT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION ON GLOBAL SECURITY DYNAMICS

The impact of nuclear proliferation on global security dynamics is a complex and multifaceted
issue that warrants careful consideration of both its positive and negative implications. One of
the primary arguments in favor of nuclear proliferation is rooted in the concept of deterrence,
notably exemplified by the Cold War era doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
MAD posited that the possession of nuclear arsenals by opposing superpowers, such as the
United States and the Soviet Union, acted as a deterrent against direct conflict, as both nations
understood the devastating consequences of engaging in a nuclear war. This deterrence factor
contributed to a period of relative stability and strategic restraint, known as the "long peace,"
wherein major global conflicts were averted. The absence of direct confrontation between
nuclear-armed states during the Cold War underscores the perceived efficacy of nuclear
deterrence in maintaining international security.
However, the deterrence provided by nuclear weapons is not without its limitations and
potential risks. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states or non-state actors
introduces new dynamics that can destabilize regions and escalate tensions. One notable
example is North Korea's nuclear program, which has emerged as a significant challenge to
regional and global security. Despite international efforts to curb its nuclear ambitions, North
Korea has persisted in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, conducting numerous missile tests and
engaging in provocative rhetoric. The regime's possession of nuclear capabilities has
heightened tensions in East Asia, leading to increased militarization and uncertainty regarding
the stability of the Korean Peninsula.

Moreover, the prospect of nuclear terrorism presents a grave threat to international security,
transcending traditional notions of deterrence. Non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations,
may seek to acquire nuclear weapons or materials to carry out devastating attacks against their
adversaries. The potential for a nuclear terrorist attack poses a unique challenge, as traditional
deterrence mechanisms are ineffective against non-state actors who may not be susceptible to
the same calculations of risk and retaliation as state actors.

The Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan in 1999 serves as a pertinent case study
illustrating the risks associated with conventional conflicts between nuclear-armed adversaries.
The conflict, which erupted in the mountainous region of Kargil in the Indian-administered
state of Jammu and Kashmir, underscored the dangers of brinkmanship and the potential for
escalation to the nuclear level. The presence of nuclear weapons added a layer of complexity
to the conflict, raising concerns about the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two
nuclear-armed neighbors. While the conflict ultimately remained limited in scope and intensity,
it highlighted the imperative of robust communication channels and crisis management
mechanisms between nuclear-armed states to prevent inadvertent escalation and mitigate the
risks of nuclear conflict.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while nuclear proliferation may offer a deterrent against direct conflict in certain
contexts, its negative ramifications pose significant challenges to global security. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states or non-state actors heightens the risk of
regional instability, increases the likelihood of nuclear terrorism, and complicates efforts to
manage and resolve conflicts between nuclear-armed adversaries. Addressing these challenges
requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses diplomatic engagement, non-
proliferation efforts, and confidence-building measures aimed at reducing the risks associated
with nuclear proliferation and safeguarding global security in an increasingly complex and
interconnected world.