Nuclear proliferation threatens unstable world order
In the Spirit of the Season: 12 Issues Shaping 2024 and Beyond
The Washington Examiner has identified 12 crucial issues that will shape the future, going beyond the year 2024. These in-depth examinations cover a wide range of topics, including the ongoing battle between the Biden family’s business deals and Republican Oversight, the emergence of a “new world order,” and the contentious fights over redistricting and new election maps. In Part Four, we delve into the topic of the “new world order.”
The Growing Threat of Nuclear Proliferation
President Joe Biden and other Western leaders are facing a daunting challenge as the spread of nuclear weapons becomes increasingly concerning. Current and former Western officials fear that a multitude of threats will drive more governments to seek nuclear capabilities, potentially upending the world as we know it.
“Nuclear proliferation is now much, much more dangerous than it has been since 1945,” said Janis Kazocins, former national security adviser to the president of Latvia. “It’s much more likely, on a larger scale, and is one of the three or four existential threats to humanity, which our children and grandchildren will have to face during this century.”
The security pressures leading to this ominous forecast have been building for three decades, with rogue states like North Korea relying on their nuclear weapons arsenal to deter foreign intervention. However, 2024 could be the year when the strategic argument for nuclear proliferation outweighs the diplomatic costs, even if democracies committed to the international ban on acquiring nuclear weapons continue to resist policy changes.
“People have seen what happened to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes,” said Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL). “People saw what happened to Iraq, people saw what happened to Libya, they see the threat that South Korea is under, completely reliant on the U.S for their deterrent. So I think you’re gonna continue to see — sadly, scarily — you’re gonna see proliferation.”
For decades, U.S. leaders have managed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons by assuring less powerful allies that they can find security under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. However, recent events, such as Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, have weakened this assurance.
“Yes, but I would just make the point that we sent that signal around the world in 2014,” Waltz said, referring to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. “Not now with this debate, where we’re saying, ‘Well, wait a minute: We stopped the sucking chest wound, you know, we kept the patient alive, but now we need to have a real debate on what kind of what the long term wellness plan is.’”
Russia’s actions in Ukraine have been facilitated by its cooperation with Iran and North Korea, two regimes that have the potential to ignite nuclear crises on their own. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has been actively developing long-range missiles and nuclear capabilities, posing a threat not only to the region but also to the United States.
“North Korea continues to perfect its long-range missile and nuclear capabilities in ways that are antithetical not only to the region but to the United States as well,” said Kurt Campbell, the lead White House official for the Indo-Pacific. “I am worried that North Korea in the current environment has decided that they are no longer interested in diplomacy with the United States. And that means that we are going to have to focus even more on deterrence.”
The fate of Ukraine plays a crucial role in determining South Korea’s potential interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. If Ukraine fails to resist Russian aggression, it could become a point of contention and influence South Korea’s decision.
“I think the fate of Ukraine is really going to be the deciding factor here,” a Pentagon strategist said. “If Ukraine goes south, that really will become a real point of contention.”
While the possession of nuclear weapons by a U.S. ally may seem like a favorable outcome, it also means more countries with the ability to destroy the world. This could divert resources away from conventional defense and have significant implications for global security.
“For example, Japan is increasing its defense budget to 2% of its GDP,” Waltz explained. “But if they’re going to spend the vast majority of that on developing a nuclear triad from scratch, then there’s an opportunity cost of having real capabilities in the western Pacific, where the U.S. has struggled from a logistics standpoint.”
Efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East face severe challenges as well. The Biden administration’s interest in a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, underpinned by a security guarantee and military assistance, has been disrupted by recent conflicts and tensions in the region.
“They’re holding the Hezbollah ace card [because] they’re continuing to march towards weaponization and testing a nuclear device,” Waltz said. “So if that happens, then we have a full-blown nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Nobody in the Middle East believes we’re going to [risk] a full-blown nuclear conflagration [to protect] a city in the Gulf.”
There is no definitive way to predict when a nuclear crisis might emerge, but the components of such a crisis are becoming increasingly apparent. As officials and observers ponder the future, they wonder what event will serve as a catalyst, signaling the dawn of a new era in the nuclear age.
“Now, if you add to all of this, the fact that, of the countries we’re talking about which possess nuclear weapons, some are very unstable … we have serious problems,” Kazocins warned. “We’re starting to lose our grip on nuclear proliferation. And that’s really, really dangerous.”
As the world grapples with the challenges of nuclear proliferation, the future remains uncertain. The decisions made in the coming years will have far-reaching consequences for global security and the well-being of future generations.
What are the potential consequences of the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal on regional stability and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East?
Security and stability.
The rise of nuclear proliferation also raises questions about the effectiveness of existing non-proliferation treaties and agreements. The international community has long relied on these agreements to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to maintain a delicate balance of power. However, the changing geopolitical landscape and the failure of some states to adhere to these agreements have eroded confidence in their efficacy.
The potential for nuclear proliferation is further exacerbated by emerging regional conflicts and tensions. The Middle East, for example, is a volatile region with multiple ongoing conflicts and rivalries. The Iran nuclear deal, which aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has faced challenges and uncertainty following the withdrawal of the United States. This has increased concerns about Iran’s intentions and the potential for other Middle Eastern countries to pursue nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence.
In addition to regional conflicts, technological advancements also contribute to the growing threat of nuclear proliferation. The development of smaller, more portable nuclear devices and the increasing accessibility of nuclear materials pose significant challenges to traditional non-proliferation efforts. Moreover, cyber threats and the potential for state-sponsored or non-state actors to gain control over nuclear facilities raise concerns about the security of existing nuclear arsenals.
Addressing the growing threat of nuclear proliferation requires a comprehensive and coordinated approach. It requires diplomatic efforts to strengthen existing non-proliferation treaties and agreements, including mechanisms for verification and enforcement. It also necessitates robust engagement with countries that may be considering pursuing nuclear weapons, addressing their security concerns, and exploring alternative means of deterrence.
Furthermore, efforts to address nuclear proliferation should not be limited to non-proliferation measures alone. Promoting regional stability, resolving conflicts, and addressing the underlying drivers of nuclear proliferation, such as political instability and economic inequality, are also crucial components of a comprehensive strategy.
As we move beyond 2024, the threat of nuclear proliferation looms large and presents a significant challenge for global security. It is imperative that world leaders and policymakers recognize the urgency of this issue and take decisive action to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. Failure to do so could have dire consequences for international peace and stability, with far-reaching implications for the future of our world.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
