Super-power monopoly of advanced nuclear warfare technology

Nature

The super-power monopoly of advanced nuclear warfare technology refers to the exclusive control and possession of sophisticated nuclear weapons and delivery systems by a few dominant nations. This concentration of power poses significant global security risks, including the potential for coercion, arms races, and geopolitical instability. It undermines international non-proliferation efforts, exacerbates inequalities among states, and limits the ability of the global community to collectively manage nuclear threats. The monopoly also increases the danger of catastrophic conflict, as technological advantages may embolden superpowers to adopt aggressive postures, further destabilizing international peace and security.

Background

The super-power monopoly of advanced nuclear warfare technology emerged as a global concern during the Cold War, when the USA and USSR’s exclusive arsenals underscored the risks of concentrated destructive capability. International anxiety intensified with the advent of thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems, prompting debates at the United Nations and the Non-Proliferation Treaty negotiations. Over time, the issue’s significance deepened as technological advances widened the gap between nuclear states and the rest of the world.

Incidence

A small number of superpowers continue to dominate the development, possession, and deployment of advanced nuclear warfare technology, maintaining exclusive control over next-generation nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. This concentration of capability exacerbates global security imbalances, fuels arms races, and limits the ability of international bodies to enforce non-proliferation or disarmament measures. The resulting power asymmetry perpetuates geopolitical tensions and undermines collective security efforts worldwide.
In 2023, the United States and Russia both tested new hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles, reinforcing their technological lead and prompting concerns among other nations about the widening gap in nuclear warfare capabilities.

Claim

Although the number of nations possessing nuclear weapons is growing, not all countries have the sophisticated delivery systems to deploy these weapons defensively or offensively. ICBMs and long-range bombers, themselves protected by on-board tactical nuclear missiles and massive squadrons of fighter planes, and by radar-jamming and other electronic counter-measures, are only in the aggressive repertoire of the superpowers. The recent expectation that nuclear armed satellites will soon appear indicates the intent of world domination by each of these two giants.

Counter-claim

Approximately 130 States have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, acknowledging the the possession of nuclear weapons is not required for their own security. The security of many third world countries is grave and the task of enhancing regional security in many areas of the world is of evident importance but it is difficult to see how the spread of nuclear weapons would advance such security.

A number of states not a party of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty justify their rejection of the Treaty by the argument that it is discriminatory in nature. Given the existence of nuclear weapons, the only non-discriminatory solution would be that of allowing any nation that desires nuclear weapons to have them – a highly destabilizing solution. It is of significance that those countries taking a particularly negative stand on deterrence and the possession of nuclear weapons wish to maintain the nuclear option for themselves. Nuclear weapons in the hands of governments led by fanatics is even more frightening a thought than now exists with nuclear weapons mainly in the hands of the USA and the USSR. Although there is always an impending threat of nuclear war, this threat is, to some degree, diminished by the limited number of countries currently capable of nuclear attack.