Nuclear weapons are the most destructive
weapons ever developed. The right to possess
these weapons is an issue of serious contention in
the international community. Non-proliferation
treaties exist within the United Nations, and
between countries, such as between the United States and Russia. The most comprehensive, the
1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
consists of a pledge by current nuclear weapon
states to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and
achieve nuclear disarmament in return for non-
nuclear weapon states not developing such weapons. While some countries and institutions are
eager to see a reduction in nuclear weapon
stockpiles, others are eagerly seeking to obtain
them. North Korea recently developed their first
functional nuclear weapon, and Iran is often
accused of attempting to develop their own. Such countries have met with international
condemnation. So far, despite the NPT, those who
were recognized as nuclear powers have not
upheld there side of the bargain and disarmed. This
has led to the question of whether other countries
should also have a right to nuclear armament. Those that are trying to prevent these regimes
gaining nuclear weapons counter that despite slow
progress the NPT still applies. They are worried that
weapons developed by less wealthy states are
more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists, either
through a lack of secure facilities or through being sold.
POINT 1 -- All countries have a right to defend themselves.
with nuclear weapons, even when they lack
the capacity in conventional weapons
The nation-state is the fundamental building
block of the international system, and is
recognized as such in all international
treaties and organizations. States are
recognized as having the right to defend
themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often
states lack the capacity to defend themselves
with conventional weapons. This is
particularly true of poor and small states.
Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to
foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a
nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in
terms of ability to do harm to one another.[1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even
invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable
to effectively cow it, since the small state will
have the power to grievously wound, or
even destroy, the would-be invader with a
few well-placed nuclear missiles.[2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in
2008 would likely never have occurred, as
Russia would have thought twice when
considering the potential loss of several of its
cities it would need to exchange for a small
piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize
states irrespective of size, allowing them to
more effectively defend themselves.
Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear
weapons in the vent of existential threat.
This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all
other states, survival is the order of the day,
and using nuclear weapons aggressively
would spell its certain destruction. Countries
will behave rationally with regard to the use
of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation.
Weapons in the hands of more people will
thus not result in the greater risk of their use.
POINT 2 -- Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-
setting power on the international stage.

The issues discussed in international forums
are largely set by nuclear powers. The
permanent membership of the United
Nations Security Council, for example, is
composed only of nuclear powers, the same
states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess
nuclear weapons, they redress the
imbalance with regard to international clout,
at least to the extent to which military
capacity shapes states’ interactions with each
other.[1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the
historical anachronism of the post-World War
II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain
their position of dominance in the wake of
the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their
position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and
trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It
is only right, in terms of fairness that states
not allow themselves the ability to possess
certain arms while denying that right to
others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of
building large conventional militaries, the
ability to defend themselves, relegating them
to an inferior status on the world stage.[2] To finally level the international playing field
and allow equal treatment to all members of
the congress of nations, states must have the
right to develop nuclear weapons.
POINT 3 -- Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international
conflicts and force compromise.
Nuclear weapons create stability, described
in the doctrine of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear
weapons have no incentive to engage in
open military conflict with one another; all
recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war.[1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply
becomes too costly. This serves to defuse
conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the
outbreak of war. For example, the conflict
between India and Pakistan was defused by
the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear
weapons, they fought three wars that
claimed millions of lives. Relations between
the two states, while still far from cordial,
have never descended into open war. The
defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet
there has never been a war between two
nuclear powers. When states have nuclear
weapons they cannot fight, making the
world a more peaceful place...