What do recent events tell us about the risks and rewards of sticking to nuclear treaties?
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances, yet was later invaded by Russia. Iran, long suspected of harbouring nuclear ambitions, has (so far) stayed within the rules of international agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but has faced years of sanctions, political isolation and military strikes by Israel. Meanwhile, North Korea broke every rule, built nuclear weapons – now few are willing to confront it directly.
When countries that follow the rules seem to end up worse off than those that don’t, what reason is there for any state to sign or trust nuclear disarmament agreements? And how could the global system be rebuilt so that disarmament actually leads to greater security? What do recent events tell us about the pros and cons of following nuclear agreements? Can we eliminate nuclear weapons – or should they be be eliminated at all?
More
80 years on: Hiroshima, Geneva and the global struggle to ban the bomb
Sorry, but i think that nuclear treaties are meaningless, when countries like Israel can simply ignore them and get away with it.
@Rafiq Tschannen
Long before you started obsessing about Israel, far more rogue and dangerous countries got the bomb, such as Pakistant and North Korea. How come you don't have a problem with them getting away with ignoring nuclear treaties
Well, the best example is Israel and Iran. Israel just ignores all treaties and is still respected and Iran tries to accommodate the treaties and is haunted. If I was Iran I would just say 'I will talk to you about a treaty the day after you have achieved the same deal with Israel'.
Join the conversation!