The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear proliferation is seen as a growing problem in the United States. Some people think that it is fine to ignore the proliferation while others want the solution that comes with the nonproliferation agreement. There is some debate between whether nuclear proliferation is a negative thing or if nuclear weapons can be used for peace. While nuclear proliferation is a negative thing there is people on the other side of the argument who say nuclear weapons are needed in order to find peace (Good Will Blogging). Nuclear proliferation can be solved by the nonproliferation agreement but there are more than one way to solve a problem.
The first thing that helps differentiate these two ideas is learning what proliferation is. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary proliferation or proliferate is rapid production, in other words an increase in something (Merriam-Webster). In this case it is nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Since proliferation is seen as rapid production nonproliferation is seen as stopping the rapid production of

most commonly nuclear arms (Merriam-Webster). The Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation or ISN manages a broad range of the United States nonproliferation policies and programs. The ISN is in place to manage the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and keep terrorists from acquiring them. Their main mission is to counter nuclear smuggling and combat nuclear terrorism (U.S. Department of State). This leads into the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and creating a way for nuclear technology to come to a halt.
In 1968 the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was signed by both major nuclear and non-nuclear powers. The treaty was used to stop the spread of nuclear technology. However it was unable to completely stop the proliferation (Office of the Historian). The treaty includes three main parts to it nonproliferation, disbarment, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under this treaty it states that places that signed who already have nuclear weapons cannot help or encourage any place that does not have access to nuclear weapons. It also states that there should be no manufacturing or acquiring of them (NTI Articles I, II, III). Disarmament is the second main part to the treaty and as stated in article VI that state parties need to get rid of some of their nuclear weapons while supervised by international control. Under the peaceful use part of the treaty article IV the state parties do have the ability to develop, produce, and use nuclear energy as long as it is for peaceful purposes (NTI).
Nuclear proliferation has its negatives but it also has some positives to it as well.

According to some scholars continuing nuclear proliferation could eventually have a stabilizing effect on international politics. This was said in a book called “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz”. One author said that it could eventually stabilize while the other author stated that it would be extremely dangerous to keep up with proliferation because there is a large chance that an accident will occur with a country that could not control the power of a nuclear weapon (Good Will Blogging). In this book both sides of the argument is partially seen. Proliferation is seen as a bad thing and that does have some truth behind it but there are other parts that make this a more elaborate debate of if places should just get rid of nuclear

weapons.
Nuclear nonproliferation is a solution for many of the found problems that come with nuclear weapons. The main thing that the treaty stopped the flow of nuclear weapons to other countries. This would be the best way to stop a country with border issues from getting nuclear weapons to use. If nuclear weapons were within a country with disputes over the border there would be an increase in the chance for nuclear war. The idea of nuclear war started over a border dispute made countries with nuclear capabilities hesitant from sharing the technology that came with it to developing nations. Even though the developing nations could have used the technology that came within the peace applications of nuclear technology.