1

Table of Contents
Preface.2
Summary of Research Methods...4
Background..5
Expert...8
Role of Control.14
Logic of Evil.....17
Case Studies..20 - 28
China.20
India...23
North Korea...26
International Organizations29
Canadian Connections32
Solutions.35
Works Cited39
Appendix.....43
Bibliography44

Preface
It is frightening to think that So long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, so will the
temptation to threaten others with overwhelming military force (Nuclear Weapons Quotes)
Although there is some amount of truth in this statement, it is important to recognize the falsities.
While the United Nations can agree that Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on
earth (UNODA), people cannot assume that the harbouring of a weapon will lead to the ultimate
destruction of mankind. Rather, the extent a country may go to just to acquire something with the
capability of destroying the world is the remarkable part of it. The intention of this report is to
explore the pursuit by many nations to obtain nuclear weapons. Through this it will be clear to
see that this quest leads to the corruption of government, the overall lack of safety in the world,
and the drain of resources within the global community.
Throughout history the thought of power and control has led to fall of so many countries.
Places like Somalia, North Korea and Sudan are examples of governments turning on their own
citizens to benefit the people in higher positions. The common factor among these types of
countries is that the political officials are living in great amounts of wealth. One thing that
contributes to the corruption of government is the illicit nuclear trade, Iran provided the White
House with a list of prisoners it wanted released... that helped open the door to nuclear
negotiations (Albright & Stricker, 2015). Iran is a country that is desperately trying to get a hold
of nuclear weapons, with the reputation they have as a country it is not surprising what they are
willing to do. The country worked with the United States, and used an invitation for friendly
relations to their benefit. Instead of taking responsibility for their citizens mistakes, they invited
corruption into their country by trading human lives for weapons. Corruption not only slows
economic growth but fuels political instability (Khodrovosky, 2010). Society desperately needs
to progress but it is common to see developing countries with citizens living well below the
poverty line continue to get more poor. Instances like this are due to the inequality in government
systems; which often results in money being used in the wrong way. It is important to remember
that the future depends on how honest and strong foreign leaders will be (Khodrovosky, 2010).
Safety is highly valued amongst all people; sometimes certain populations like people in
North America do not realize how much safety they have. In comparison, people who lived in
Afghanistan during the 1990s were living in constant fear everyday from the Taliban and until

now they probably still do to some extent. Together nine countries posses more than 15 000
nuclear weapons (Nuclear Arsenals). One nuclear weapon alone has the power to completely
devastate a small country. Since there are almost 200 countries, we have enough weapons to drop
roughly 75 on each country. This will completely erase any form of human life, and it is all
because each country feels the need to be more powerful than another. The safety of the entire
world is in jeopardy because the people in power are so desperately seeking an influence on the
world even though it would be out of their own fear. A nuclear weapon has not been used in war
since 1945, the tests of these weapons however, are continuously ongoing. In 1954 the US
detonated a hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, contaminating residents of Rongelap and Utirik
(Nuclear Weapons Timeline). The United States takes advantage of the power they have and tests
a weapon that they know will cause harm on an island with inhabitants. The population is not the
important matter but the audacity of a human being to risk human lives for such an unethical
purpose. In the process of gaining this nuclear technology many lives are at stake.
For more than half a century the nuclear weapons programmes divert public funds from
health care, education, disaster relief and other vital services (Arguments for Nuclear
Abolition). The so called need for these weapons is removing importance from the many social
programs that could be improving a country. Resources are being drained all in an effort to
obtain nuclear weapons and soon this will be to the detriment of these countries. In 2010, the
world spent over ninety-one billion dollars on nuclear weapons. This amount of money easily
could have been used to decrease poverty or give children a better education. In years to come
the spending amount will only increase and the margin that separates the need for social
programs and the amount of nuclear weapons will also increase. Consequently the amount of
money used on nuclear weapons is draining the funds that are needed in other areas.
Through the search for nuclear weapons the corruption of government, the lack of global
safety and the draining of resources is inevitable. It is important to remember that even though
nuclear weapons hold the capability of destroying the world, the countries that are seeking them
go through extreme lengths just to obtain these weapons. The amount of control a weapon of
mass destruction has on one country let alone the world is incredibly frightening.

Summary of Research Methods

This paper is based around nuclear weapons, these weapons started to become globally
relevant in the 1950s. For this reason, the research used is fairly current compared the long span
of history the world provides. Most of the information is from online databases like Ebsco and
Proquest. Through these websites articles and scholary books were found that spoke about the
link between corruption and nuclear weapons. What made the information valid from these
published works was the repetition of the information throughout other articles from sites like
The Guardian, Huffington Post and Foreign Affairs which is a subscription site that provides
information on countries that date backs to the early 1900s. The information given usually has
some relevancy to politics and is written by political analysts. In addition to this, international
organizations had trustworthy information including places like UNODA and ISIS-Online.

Background
Nuclear weapons are a part of a new age of technology in the world. The first nuclear
weapon was used in the Second World War to bomb the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Since then, the world has been in a race to obtain nuclear technology and gather the
most weapons. The Manhattan Project was created during the 1940s, it used over 2 billion
dollars and employed 120 000 Americans to develop the first atomic bomb (Binder, 2016). This
project was the first of its kind and was very secretive; it was paramount that during the war the
Axis powers did not know what was being discussed between the physicists. After the first bomb
was tested in New Mexico, the nuclear arms race had officially begun (Binder, 2016).
After the Axis powers had been defeated, it was evident that in order to be an influential
country in the world, nuclear weapons would have to be acquired. At the same time the United
Nations General Assembly called for complete elimination of all nuclear weapons (Nuclear
Weapons Timeline). Contrary to the beliefs of the UN, one nation after another tested their
nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapon in Kazakhstan, becoming the
second nation to do so.
Following this pattern, the United Kingdom did the same in Australia and France tested
in the Sahara Desert (Non Proliferation Treaty). The Cold War era began and it had Americans
fearing an impending bomb attack by the Soviets at any moment. In 1963, The Limited Test-Ban
Treaty was created due to the health hazards that follow the excessive testing of nuclear
weapons. Some countries withheld from signing because they wanted the ability to create their
own nuclear arsenal. (The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
By 1964 China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States were five
countries who possessed nuclear weapons (Nuclear Weapons Abolition). In 1968, the Non
Proliferation Treaty was signed to help decrease the amount of weapons being acquired and
prevents any more from being created (Binder, 2016). The Non-Proliferation treaty was signed
by 130 countries with China and France deciding not to join (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).
The ultimate goal of this treaty was to prevent a nuclear war from erupting within the world.
Countries were however, allowed to access peaceful nuclear technology which would become a

controversial topic; the definition of peaceful nuclear technology varies among countries. When
India detonated a bomb as part of an underground nuclear test, the world was aware they had
nuclear power, even though the country claimed it was a peaceful test (Nuclear Weapons
Timeline, n.d).
There were some countries with and without nuclear weapons who did not sign the treaty.
South Africa decided to sign the treaty by 1991 due to the fear the black minority opposition
would find their small stock pile and use it against the government (The Development and
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, n.d). Nations such as Israel, Pakistan, and India all were
speculated of holding nuclear weapons but they had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Then an Israeli nuclear technician illegally disclosed evidence that proved the nation to indeed be
a nuclear state. With photographs of the bomb factory, it was clear that Israel had at least 100
warheads and bombs (The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). At this time,
North Korea was also looking towards backing out of the treaty.
The term Rogue States was used by the American government to describe a country that
threatens world peace. This was later used again by President Bush as the Axis of Evil, he used
this to describe the nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea after the 9/11 attacks (Rogue State).
The North Korean government announced that it has successfully completed a nuclear test in
2006 (Nuclear Weapons Timeline). The test conducted was a long range missile, letting it fly
over Japan before it was supposed to detonate in the Pacific Ocean. Although a few minutes into
the flight it detonated in the sky. Many countries scrutinized North Korea for this action and
some even saw it as a provocation to war (North Korea test-fires Several Missiles, n.d).
Since then many coalitions have been formed in order to stop to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons. ICAN in Vienna was created to completely abolish nuclear weapons, and the
Norwegian government held a conference to examine and discuss the humanitarian impacts of
nuclear weapons. All of this was done in an attempt to stop the different types of proliferation of
nuclear weapons (Sidel & Levy, 2007) :
1. The development of the capability for producing or acquiring nuclear weapons by
countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons (horizontal proliferation).

2. The increase of weapon stockpiles by countries that currently have nuclear weapons, the
improvement of technical sophistication or reliability of these weapons, and the
development of new weapons, such as mini-nukes or battlefield nuclear weapons
(vertical proliferation).
3.

The acquisition of nuclear weapons or the materials and knowledge by individuals

or nonstate entities, often termed terrorists, to produce nuclear weapons (another form of
horizontal proliferation).

Expert
Robert Litwak has been a major part of the nuclear weapon non proliferation community.
Currently he serves as the Vice President for Scholars and Director of International Security
Studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington (Robert S.
Litwak). The Wilson Centre devotes its time to get the most valuable information to the general
public. This is all in an effort to have world issues front and centre for the public, an important
part of democracy
Mr. Litwak served on the National Security Council as the Director for non-proliferation
during the Clinton administration. This administration was responsible for passing the Iran NonProliferation Act. This authorizes punitive action to be taken against individuals known to be
supplying weapons of mass destruction to Iran (Rice).
The books Outlier States: American Strategies to Contain, Engage, or Change
Regimes; Regime Change: U.S. Strategy through the Prism of 9/11; and Rogue States and U.S.
Foreign Policy: Containment after the Cold War are all written by Robert Litwak (Robert S.
Litwak). They speak about Americas involvement with nuclear weapons and how they deal with
the proliferation of other weapons. Throughout these books he is critical of how many countries
use nuclear weapons and speaks of the fears of proliferation.
Robert Litwak has his own analysis on the nuclear weapon situation going on in the
world right now he states in (Insight on Nuclear Technology):
Despite nightmare predictions (John Kennedy's speech to the UN General Assembly in
1962) of a world of 20 or 30 nuclear weapon states, the number of nuclear states (the
original 5, the 3 outside the treaty, and North Korea) is relatively low. And some states
(e.g., South Africa) that had weapons programs terminated them. That is testimony to the
fact that most states do not believe that they need nuclear weapons to meet their security
challenges. The U.S. nuclear "umbrella", notably, provides assurance to U.S. allies in
Europe and Asia.

The paradox of nuclear weapons is that these horrifically destructive weapons have made war
unthinkable between the world's major powers. This is in sharp contrast to the first half of the
20th century in which two non-nuclear World Wars were fought with tens of millions of deaths.
Today, as President Obama said, in his important 2009 speech in Prague, the danger is less major
war between nuclear states than that a single nuclear weapon will fall into the hands of a terrorist
group.

10

Interview with James Acton

James M. Acton is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program and senior associate
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A physicist by training, Acton
specializes in deterrence, disarmament, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy. Actons
publications span the field of nuclear policy. He is the author of two Adelphi
books, Deterrence During Disarmament: Deep Nuclear Reductions and International
Security and Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (with George Perkovich). He wrote, with
Mark Hibbs, Why Fukushima Was Preventable, a groundbreaking study into the
accidents root causes. His analysis on proliferation threats, including Iran and North
Korea, has been widely disseminated by major journals, newspapers, and websites. I was
lucky enough to have a phone interview with Mr. Acton and ask him questions I had
about corruption and nuclear weapons (James M. Acton).
Question 1) What would you say is your greatest accomplishment in your research?
I would say, the piece of work Im most proud of has to do with non nuclear weapons. I
did a couple of pieces about the U.S developing these very fast very long range non
nuclear weapons. Its a program called conventional prompt global strike they are
launched by rockets and they glide in atmosphere at extremely high speeds, though
Russia and China are looking to arm them with nuclear weapons. The report I wrote is
called silver bullet its the one Im most proud of. It was one of the first works in that field
I feel as if it broke the most ground.
Question 2) What similarities have you found amongst all countries with nuclear
weapons?
I would highlight a couple of similarities; firstly all countries with nuclear weapons seem
to be very paranoid about those weapons being destroyed. During the cold war the US
was very worried about Soviet Union attacking nuclear weapons vice versa. India and
Pakistan are also worried about one another destroying the weapons. All countries for
much of the time not necessarily always worry about their nuclear weapons being pre-

11

emptively being destroyed. I think all countries with nuclear weapons tend to struggle to
give up weapons. I think disbarment has to be multi lateral. I mean there are many real
strategic barriers to getting to zero. For all countries with nuclear weapons, there is a
degree to which they enforce it. The more countries have them the more they want them
and those are reasons of power internationally and because domestically you get these
internal constituencies which once they have nuclear weapon s they want more. These
are similar barriers that I would highlight.
Question 3) Do you think it will take nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
terrorists to realize the danger of them?
Well I think firstly the good news is that its very very unlikely for terrorists to get their
hands on a full nuclear weapon. I think its more likely for them to get their hands on the
material that builds up a nuclear weapon. They could try to build a very crude one
themselves. If there were an event of nuclear terrorism I dont think we know how its
likely to affect state views about their nuclear weapons. On the one hand you could see
states saying actually these weapons are more of a liability than a benefit and we
should make progress towards disarmament or maybe give them up completely. On the
other hand I mean imagine if we found out that another state had given nuclear material
to terrorists. The nuclear weapons might be seen as being important to punish other
states who gave away nuclear material to terrorists. I hope it doesnt take a catastrophe
for states to improve their nuclear policies but if terrorists were to use nuclear weapons
or if the states were to use nuclear weapons. I think what happened or how that use
happened would affect the state policies after wards. I dont think we can predict in
advance what would happen.
Question 4) Do you think it will ever be possible to have a nuclear free world?
The way that I look at it is that there are three strategic difficulties with giving up nuclear
weapons, earlier I was talking about more psychological problems or domestic problems.
Firstly you would have to verify, you would have to have the prohibition against nukes
you have to be able to tell with high confidence whether someone is cheating. Secondly
you have to be able to do something about it. Its no good just knowing that someone else

12

is cheating if you cant stop them in good time. So enforcement is our second challenge.
The third challenge is many states in the world today use nuclear weapons because they
are conventionally weak; its not just to deter nuclear attacks. The Russians say its
conventionally weak next to NATO. So Russia needs nukes to compensate because its
conventionally weak. Pakistan says exactly the same thing about India. You also have to
address this problem at the fact there are conventional imbalances in the world. Now if
you could do all that. I think to a world without nuclear weapons. I just dont think we
can overcome those challenges. What I would say is that we can get a long way to zero.
We couldnt get to zero but we could get very close to it.
Question 5) Do you think people can live with nuclear energy rather than nuclear weapons?
Well I think most states already think about nuclear power more than nuclear weapons,
only nine states have nuclear weapons and I think its about 40 states that have nuclear
power reactors. So I think over the long run nuclear power is ready to spread. I am pro
nuclear power. Whether the spread of nuclear power leads to the spread of nuclear
weapons will depend on how well we as an international community are managing that.
Reactors themselves are not that proliferative, just having a nuclear power reactor does
not massively enhance your potential to develop nuclear weapons. Proliferation may
come in if you have enrichment technology which we use to make fuel for nuclear
reactors. Or we make processing technology that gives you the ability to separate
plutonium from the fuel thats being used in nuclear reactors. So if we could have the
spread of nuclear reactors without enrichment or reprocessing technology spreading. We
have a good chance of eliminating proliferation.
Question 6) Why do you think people go to such great extents to get nuclear
weapons?
Well, theres a famous article by a political scientist named Scott Sagan in which he says
there are three different reasons why states develop nuclear weapons, and in other states
they may have multiple reasons. The first is security because you believe you have a
security threat and you develop the nukes because you are worried about that. The
second one is power actually, because you believe it will make you a bigger or more

13

powerful country. The third reason is domestic politics, you do it because you want to be
seen by your own people as being strong and powerful. Those are the three motivations. I
think they are all present in every country but in some stronger than others. Those are the
three key reasons why states develop nuclear weapons.
Question 7) Could you give an example of a country going to extreme lengths to
receive nuclear technology?
Well I think North Korea is an extreme example. I mean North Korea has invested a huge
percent of its national resources in Nuclear Weapons. I cant give you a number but there
is no question, the ordinary people have really suffered because the regime is so intent on
developing nuclear weapons. Secondly at least some North Korean nuclear weapons
technology particularly the technology for making enriched uranium that technology
comes from the black market. A lot of it comes from Pakistan.
Question 8) Do you think countries sanctioning is a good way to end proliferation of
nuclear weapons?
Not by itself, sanctions only work if its part of a broader strategy. I think sanctioning did
help force Iran to negotiate. But if were not willing to negotiate with Iran and strike a
reasonable deal, we wouldnt have got a deal at the end of the day. Sanctions have to be
part of a broad strategy. They dont work much by themselves; I dont expect sanctions on
North Korea to stop anything.
9) Is it important for young people to learn about Nuclear Weapons?
I believe that humanity faces two existential threats. One being climate change and the
other is nuclear weapons. And combating those two threats is going to take decades to
do. Its incredibly important that young people get involved and get educated about these
threats.
Thank you for this interview I very much appreciate it and look forward to writing
about this topic.
Okay! Thanks for phoning and youre welcome I enjoyed it too.

14

Role of Control
Due to the quick spread of proliferation, many nations were able to acquire nuclear
weapons. Though the way that they are currently kept is unstable and can lead to the misuse of
these weapons. Weapons in general control a great portion of the world because of how they are
used and exploited in military action. Nuclear weapons have an even greater amount of control
because of how much power they hold. Currently there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the
world that are controlled by governments and in turn affect the actions of a government. When
discussing the role of control in the quest for nuclear weapons, we can divide it into three areas;
who has it, who needs it, and who should care? There are many people who have obtained a
more significant amount of power due to the fact that they have these weapons.
During the 1940s the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon
(Facts, Sheets & Briefs, 2014) this was all in effort to remain as the police state of the world
because they want the events in the world to fall under their own agenda. Currently, that is not
the case as there are eight nations that have all been able to obtain nuclear weapons. In the
stockpile of weapons today, Russia is estimated to have over 7000 in 2016 (Kristensen &
Norris). Although Russia has such a great amount of these weapons, they are elusive to just how
they go about controlling them. Their government provides almost no public information about
its nuclear weapons storage program (Rosen, 2014). Russia omits most information about their
program which contributes to the lack of control they have over their weapons. This may be
because of the unmanageable number they possess. In another case, North Korea is incapable of
proving to the world they are in control of their nuclear weapons. In other words, North Korea
has been able to smash bits of weapons-grade uranium together but that doesn't mean they
have a bomb they can use (Kristensen & Norris, 2014). Even though they have had three tests,
no public information has been released to validate any suspicions (Rosen, 2014). It seems that
North Korea is stringing the world along just for them to buy into the illusion of a powerful
country with weapons. In comparison to the 100 plus countries of the world, the few that have
nuclear weapons have shown not to be in control of these weapons due to the lack of public
awareness.
Even though the nine states that are known to possess nuclear weapons are
considerably less than the number of countries in the world, the amount of concern surrounding

15

nuclear weapons should not be diminished. These few countries are completing illicit actions in
order to appease the world stage while harboring weapons of mass destruction. There are some
people who care about this process and through this have an aspect of control over it. The United
Nations is working with other countries towards a Nuclear Free Zone (UNODA). This will
prevent it from getting into the hands of terrorists but ultimately, the UN will be able to have
control over all the weapons and their disarmament. The peace keeping efforts of the UN will
benefit the world as they try to eliminate nuclear weapons completely. Coalitions in the world
care about people controlling weapons because they want to be the group in charge.
What one person needs, another person wants, a need is something needed to survive, a
want is something people desire to have (Hawks, n.d). Society has shaped people to put their
wants in front of things that are needed for survival. Many of times people who are put in power
confuse the needs of their citizens with the wants in their minds. The reason given by countries
as to why they create nuclear weapons is for national security; coincidentally this was after the
Second World War had ended. At this point in history people were under a state of paranoia and
mans fear leads him to innovate in the way he defends against (and attacks) his enemies (The
Role of Nuclear Weapons in Global Security, n.d). Many leaders thought that because of the
bombs dropped on Japan, they too needed to have a nuclear weapon in their arsenal. Their fear
created a different avenue for them to defend themselves and eventually some countries realized
that they did not need nuclear weapons while others still continue to build up their stockpile.
Some countries may have an ultimatum due to the region they live, for example:
In the Arab world and beyond, there is growing impatience with the skewed nuclear
status quo. Egypt in particular has threatened to walk out of the NPT unless there is
progress towards creating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East (Borger, 2014).
Egypt is situated beside Israel and it has been speculated that the country carries nuclear
weapons; there is a great threat of being attacked if they are enemies in war. The nation of Egypt
may feel the need to pull out of a treaty that prevents them from creating nuclear weapons in
order to protect themselves in the way they see fit.
As mentioned in the interview with James Acton, there are certain conventional
imbalances in the world that allow for the creation of nuclear weapons. Countries are imbalanced

16

in their political structure of their country, this adds to the conventional imbalances. Certain
topics that most of Europe and America find traditional, like having democratic votes or
consulting other members of government before making a decision. An example is North Korea
who has a separate political ideology along with their structure. This ideology states that
anything needed to be done to protect the country can and will be done. In another part of the
world, before they carry out an action a list is checked off of possible negative outcomes and the
people who could be affected. Due to these two separate ideologies of how problems in the world
should be handled, disarmament is a very far-fetched in terms of a solution. There is also the
argument of conventionally weak countries deciding to make nuclear weapons. The debate
surrounds the definition of conventionally weak e.g. Russia vs. NATO and India vs. Pakistan. A
country who sees itself as weak compared to another organization needs control of the national
security. They compensate for this by creating nuclear weapons.
Overall, it is hard to control the corruption that happens when people try to obtain
nuclear weapons. Sometimes, countries are not in control of their own weapon programs and
appear scattered to the outside world. Other times, a peaceful control cannot seem to be
completely gained it because of the unwillingness of other countries to let go. However, leaders
let their own ideas of the current world situations influence their ideas to get weapons. Control is
something that is constantly being lost and won in the world.

17

Logic of Evil
Evil is known to mankind as profoundly immoral or malevolent, whether it is
displayed in thoughts, words or actions. This term is used lightly as not one person enjoys being
categorized as evil. The extreme one must go to in order to be classified as evil, is not a short
one. Although in some cases there has to be a necessary evil an act that seems to some so
heinous, but it is known that it must exist. The logic of evil justifies these malevolent or
immoral acts because they are needed for certain things to happen. In this section, the evil acts of
governments that seek out nuclear weapons will be justified.
The countries that currently hold weapons of mass destructions and the ones who
have recently dismantled their own, all have similarities. To society, the harboring of these
weapons seems like pointless evil because they are not being used. All of these countries have
similar explanations as to why they build these weapons. Scott Sagan (Why do States build
Nuclear Weapons, 1997) has created a theory as to why countries decide to build nuclear
weapons.
The security model according to which states build nuclear weapons to increase n
nnational security against foreign threats, especially nuclear threats; the domestic
policies model which envisions nuclear weapons as political tools used to advance
parochial domestic and bureaucratic interests; and the norms model under which
nuclear weapon decisions are made because weapons acquisition, or restraint in weapons
development, provides a more important normative of states modernity and identity.
These three models help to draw an archetype for nuclear weapon states; it also helps society
understand the reasoning behind the need for these weapons.
The thought that nuclear weapons provide security for a country is usually stemmed
from paranoia of a government. Nuclear weapons give Pakistan reassurance that it will never be
humiliated the way it was in 1971, when Indian forces decisively defeated Pakistan in a twofront war (Pillalamari, 2015). Pakistan believes that the building of nuclear weapons will
increase if not guarantee its success in war. Without these weapons other Islamic nations may try
to start a war and Pakistan will be rendered defenseless. The model of domestic policies uses
these weapons as tools to skewer the minds of citizens into agreeing with their views. Countries

18

claim to have nuclear weapons in order to show their power to their own citizens when there
seems to be a state of unrest. Recently, the North Korean leaders comments are part of an
established strategy that the isolated, communist regime has used in the past to counter criticism
and gain concessions from the international community (Paden, 2015). It is not new that the
world has issues with the way that North Korea treats its citizens and their domestic policy in
general. When they released a statement that they had a hydrogen bomb, this reminded the
people of North Korea that the government they live under is truly powerful and it also reminded
the rest of the world to take them seriously. The norms model states that nuclear weapons are
built to show the identity or the modernization of a country. If we see a country building many
weapons it shows how progressive the state is because they are able to enrich so much uranium.
These weapons are still tied very closely to elite views of what national power is(The Role of
Nuclear Weapons in Global Security). Power is measured in terms of what you have and what
you are able to control. Some countries that previously had nuclear weapons may have only
chosen to do this because it showed how capable they were. Ultimately, they fell into trap of
power and submitted their country to be controlled by weapons of mass destruction. This
instance was not intentionally only to increase the influence the certain country had on the world.
Another reason why the obtaining of nuclear weapons is justifiable is because of the
growth to the economy it provides. The enrichment of uranium provides many people with jobs;
it also opens new avenues for commodities to be sold like non nuclear weapons and nuclear
energy. Many political leaders are also championing the cause they believe investments in
nuclear arms must continue (Nuclear Weapons Spending). People who are in power believe in
endorsing nuclear weapons is an investment, this will eventually benefit them in some way. The
amount of money they are putting into their programs may not be going to a great cause but it is
ultimately something that will reap reward eventually, whether this is social, militarily or
economic. Nuclear weapons can also promote the development of advanced conventional
munitions leading to a scenario where the strategic workload is carried by a combination of
nuclear and nonnuclear forces (Younger, 2007). Due to the want of nuclear weapons by other
countries, people may be inclined to see different substitutions which include non nuclear
weapons. These may pull attention away from the mass amounts of nuclear weapons. Eventually
people may find a more efficient war weapon; this can also be seen as learning from your

19

mistakes. When people have the repercussions of idiotic decisions staring them in the face, they
can finally see a different alternative.
There are many reasons why people chose to continue harboring nuclear weapons
even though the effects of these weapons are known to be deadly. Many leaders give the
reasoning behind their nuclear weapon programs as national security, domestic policy, and
keeping the identity/modernity of a nation. The creation of nuclear weapons also creates jobs and
in turn boosts the economy. Hiring these very intelligent people will only cause them to be more
inquisitive and have ideas for new inventions. These new weapons or invention will ultimately
lead to more socially acceptable non nuclear weapons. In a sense, building weapons of mass
destruction will actually help to create a better society in some areas.

20

Case Studies
China
Chinas nuclear history has spanned over half a decade, from nuclear testing to
negotiations with other countries about the development of nuclear weapons. China is populated
with over one billion people (Economy of China) who are all governed by a communist regime.
They are the largest manufacturing economy in the world; one of the many things they
manufacture is nuclear weapons. There have been instances where the country has surprised the
world with their actions concerning weapons of mass destruction. Not only have there been
impacts on their own country but it affects the rest of the world as well. Their decision to join the
Non- proliferation treaty has not removed them from the nuclear weapons community; it only
gives them a new way to involve themselves.
The involvement of nuclear weapons started with the Cold War. Tensions between
communist Soviet Union and the United States forced certain countries to choose allies.
Naturally communist China sided with the Soviet Union. The Americans decided to use Nuclear
Blackmail (China) on the Chinese government in order to win a war. During the Korean War the
U.S.A continuously warned China not to continue fighting against them or they would have
nuclear weapons used against them. Now we know that the chances of America doing this were
slim to none, but in that time period no one knew how far the U.S would go with its nuclear
weapons. Seeing as they were one of few countries with these weapons. SinoSoviet relations
were formed later on in the fifties (China) this led to nuclear weapons being created by China
with assistance from the Soviet Union. The Chinese and Soviet government had something they
could both relate to, their great dislike for America. The blackmail by the United States led China
to believe they had a national security problem, one of the many reasons why nuclear weapons
are acquired in the first place. Soon they used the method of Third Line Construction (China) and
it allowed them to transform old facilities that were no longer in use into new working factories
that benefitted strategic interests. Their strategic interests at the time were obviously creating
nuclear weapons and soon nuclear facilities were created. For example, a gaseous diffusion
uranium enrichment facility at Heping, a plutonium production reactor and extraction facility
at Guangyuan, the Nuclear Fuel Component Plant at Yibin, and a nuclear weapon design facility
at Mianyang were then created. This led up to the first nuclear test in 1964.

21

While the advancement of nuclear technology in China was new, it affected many aspects
of Chinese life. This was in part due to the government of China being communist; they were
completely opposed to most if not all of the ideologies that were held by one of the biggest
countries, the United States of America. In order to have Chinese citizens not question the
sudden interest in nuclear weapons, there needed to be a method of social control .With that an
Anti-American Week was organized throughout China from June 21 to 27 (Hudson, Russia and
China: The Dilemmas of Power). The views and opinions of Chinas leaders greatly effects how
their society functions and they wanted the masses to be persuaded that outside their borders the
devilish American imperialists are waiting for the opportunity to invade and subdue their
country. The government wanted themselves glorified by the Chinese people. It was almost as if
their salvation depended on the speedy transformation of China into a vigilant armed camp
(Hudson, Russia and China: The Dilemmas of Power). The first tangible results of the Chinese
modernization program were seen; the deployment in the near future of the new, long-range DF31 missile, which was successfully tested in August 1999 (Manning, Montaperto, Roberts,
China: The Forgotten Nuclear Power). Since then China has made significant progress in their
journey to modernize their nuclear program.
China has interpreted the NPT as guaranteeing a members right to develop enrichment
for peaceful purposes under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards (Samore,
Nuclear Rights and Wrongs). Despite their disagreement on the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
there have been instances where China has shared information about these weapons with nonNPT countries. For instance in 1984 the government stated that We do not engage in nuclear
proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons but it was
revealed that they had shared a design for a nuclear weapon with Pakistan and enough uranium
to create two bombs (China's Non-Proliferation Words vs.China's Nuclear Proliferation Deeds ).
This demonstrates the unreliability of the Chinese government seeing as they go back on their
words. The proliferation of nuclear weapons puts the whole world in danger and the lack of
integrity from China concerning this topic is troubling. This is not a new concept, having
communist countries decide that the needs of their own country, which happen to be the selfish
wants of a leader; trump something like worldwide security. China would rather sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which allows them to continue holding their stockpile but
keeps them from testing anymore weapons. There is obvious concern about this decision because

22

this does not stop nuclear weapon use in war; allowing China to obtain nuclear weapons of their
own or from an ally (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, n.d).
To truly convince the world that it is no longer a supporter of nuclear weapon
proliferation, China must sign the NPT to demonstrate its complete dedication. Currently the
country is working very hard to move towards nuclear power rather than only stockpiling nuclear
weapons. Since the country of China is communist they easily control their citizens without them
knowing how little freedom they have. This is why they are normalized with the fact that China
has 260 warheads (see Appendix I) with a big enough army to defend itself from any enemies. In
the future China should not be left out of the group of countries being studied while looking at
nuclear weapons they are fully capable to become a key player. This is due to the fact that China
obviously has to consider its national security especially while being and enemy of the United
States. They have also proved to the world that they cannot be trusted with the task of non
proliferation.

India

23

India has not yet made it clear to the world its complete nuclear capabilities. They
conducted their first nuclear test in 1974, and have a flourishing and largely indigenous nuclear
power program (Nuclear Power in India, n.d). Though India has a sizable and growing nuclear
arsenal, it has not made an official claim as to its nuclear capabilities; although it is suspected
they have over 100 warheads (India). Their quest for nuclear weapons began around the same
time the country was searching for independence. The debate of weapon vs. power concerning
nuclear technology was created as well. With the capabilities India held, they had different
opinions as to how the nuclear technology should be used. They could power their country with
power plants or, harness uranium into a weapon of mass destruction. The outcome of this debate
had impacts on the country and the world also. The security in South Asia being compromised is
one of the many problems that arose because of Indias probable nuclear technology. Even after
over half a century of independence, the nations of South Asia are still in a cycle of poverty
(Moles, 2012). The country of Pakistan has significance to India when talking about nuclear
weapons. For instance in 2007 there was a chance of nuclear war between the two countries after
an attack on the Indian Parliament (Moles, 2012). The tense relations between India and Pakistan
are mainly due to nuclear weapons.
Indias involvement in nuclear weapons began during their pre-independence era, a small
group of scientists thought about investing resources in nuclear power. Although with the
capability to produce nuclear power they were also able to create nuclear weapons. In 1974 after
they gained independence the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru launched a nuclear program. The
countries interest in nuclear technology was now publicized and the citizens had separate
opinions. The debate of whether or not an explosive device should be made was now growing
stronger (India, n.d). Later that year they tested a small device but claimed it to be a peaceful
nuclear explosion. This opened doors to the ability of India concerning nuclear weapons.
Following this there seemed to be two sides the government was playing at, the Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi began to authorize weaponization of India's nuclear capability. Yet at the same
time, India continued to support efforts for nuclear disarmament (India, n.d). Many countries did
not approve of this and as a result, the United States placed sanctions upon India. Indias actions
were condemned by the world and deserved a response, or at least something to make them
consider the decisions they were making.

24

Due to the creation of nuclear weapons by India certain problems occurred which not
only affected their country but the world as well. As a result of five nuclear weapons tests India
had undergone serious sanctions from the United States. Tall five tests were conducted within a
three day span, an alarming rate for the world to see. The U.S being the police state felt as if if it
was necessary for repercussions to take place. Sanctions were then placed upon the country of
India. These financial sanctions led to the major financial withdrawal of other countries like
Denmark, Sweden and Canada who suspended or cancelled over 100 million dollars of nonhumanitarian aid alone (Carriere. M, Morrow. D, n.d). These sanctions left the second most
populated country in the world with 20 million less in foreign aid.
Pakistan is a country that borders India and they both have an outstanding history
concerning nuclear weapons. In Pakistans case, they tested their first nuclear weapon 14 years
after India did. In 1998, the unspoken nuclear arms race began between India and China while it
ended after less than a month. On May 11 and up until May 13, 1998, India conducted five
underground nuclear tests. After the first set of tests, India's Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee
immediately announced that India had detonated three underground nuclear devices at Pokhran
(India & Pakistan, 1998). These tests alone shocked the world because within a span of three
days, five nuclear weapons were detonated by a country that was thought to have virtually no
involvement with these weapons. On May 28 and 30, 1998, Pakistan followed suit, with an
alleged six tests of its own, one of which were claimed to be a 32 kiloton bomb. In the wake of
the tests, the U.N. Security Council demanded in an unanimous vote on June 5 that India and
Pakistan refrain from further nuclear tests, halt their weapon programs, and sign nuclear arms
control agreements unconditionally (India & Pakistan, 1998).This was followed by India signing
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Pakistan has yet to do so. In 2001, the India Parliament
building was under attack by Pakistani terrorists which led to a harsh standoff between the two
countries. Both Indian and Pakistani forces lined up along their borders with the chance of
nuclear war very probable (India & Pakistan). It is clear that nuclear weapons without even being
used in a violent way can cause the threat to the end of all human lives. India and Pakistan are
both countries who co exist beside each other and due to the threat of a nuclear weapon, they
could not do so little as to speak about the concern around the issue of terrorism. The mass
amount of trouble and paranoia certain countries go through (like India and Pakistan) is
obviously all due to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is clear to see that it wastes time which

25

could be directed to a more pressing global issue. Currently both India and Pakistan possess
large nuclear arsenals. And both aim them at the other (Moles, 2012) this is concerning when
discussing the safety of South Asia. It is not fair for the safety of South Asia to be dependent on
two nations who are blind to the trap of deceit they are in courtesy of nuclear weapons.
Indias involvement in nuclear weapons has not been put into the spotlight in Western
news nowadays. Although it is greatly important in South Asian news, two countries with nuclear
weapons border each other and have the weapons facing one another. India has been creating
their nuclear arsenal since pre independence from Britain. Currently they do not disclose to the
world how many nuclear weapons their stockpile holds. There is a limited amount that the world
knows about Indias full involvement with the nuclear community but it is important not to
forget their past capabilities.

North Korea

26

North Korea is governed as a one party totalitarian state, with the Juche ideology. Juche
translates to self reliance and is an application of Marxist-Leninist principles. This asserts that
every state has the right of self-determination in order to secure the happiness and prosperity of
its people as it best sees fit (Lee, 2003). There is a link between this ideology and North Koreas
quest for nuclear weapons. If creating a weapon of mass destruction seems the most logical way
to keep its citizens safe, their political ideology sees it as their right to create nuclear weapons.
The Juche ideology is much more like a hall pass for North Korea, anything they want goes
because the ideology of their country says so. After all, who are other nations to knock down the
national pride of another country? It is sad to say that their ideology is often compromised by the
craving for power by leaders throughout the country. The greatest threat to security of the people
of North Korea comes from the government of North Korea. The government is hiding many
things from its citizens and the amount of control the people are under is unbelievable. The
nations previous and current leaders disguise the need for nuclear weapons as a national security
effort but realistically, the lengths that they go to obtain nuclear weapons which is only to have a
powerful role in the world will lead to the detriment of the country.
A factor that contributed to North Koreas long struggle to obtain nuclear weapons was
the Korean War. As a result of the Second World War, two separate governments had been
formed in Korea; in the South the United States Army Military Government in Korea was in
control, while the Peoples Republic of Korea governed the North. Neither of the two
governments would recognize one as the accepted government of the entire country of Korea,
and a war ensued (Millet). In the course of the war, the U.S threatened North Korea with a
possible nuclear weapon attack by alluding to the great amount that was currently being
stockpiled. The war ended in 1953 with a divide in the Korean Peninsula, this formed South
Korea and North Korea (History.com Staff, 2009). North Korea was lead by a communist
regime and was trying to involve themselves in a nuclear weaponized world. Even in 1952
before they were completely divided from South Korea, the Atomic Energy Research
Institute and the Academy of Sciences was created (North Korea, 2016). The country of North
Korea knew about how powerful these weapons were and they wasted no time trying to obtain
them or at least learn the technology behind them. The effort at which they go to currently is not
surprising, especially after learning about how early their involvement in nuclear weapons was.
Even though the North Korean government was determined to get these weapons themselves, it

27

definitely would not be possible without help from other countries. In 1956 Pyongyang signed
the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in and so began
their attempt at creating nuclear weapons (North Korea, 2016). It is displayed here again in
North Koreas case the alliance between communist governments. They both have common
ground and much to the dismay of other countries, they help one another reach those goals. Due
to North Koreas self reliance policy, they did not have any more foreign assistance in their
nuclear weapons program, and along with the fall of the Soviet Union North Korea was back to
square one. When they realized that they could not complete this project on their own, they asked
for help from the Chinese who were allies in the Korean War. China refused to share plans for a
nuclear bomb with North Korea.
Presently, North Korea has not completed a successful nuclear weapons test. For over
half a century they have been tirelessly working to enrich Uranium in efforts to prove to its
power to the world or keep its people safe. They feel as if there is a threat to their countries
security and for this reason they make nuclear weapons. The truth is however, that with each test
they attempt and each announcement they make to propel their nuclear weapon campaign, it only
creates greater enemies for them. The irony behind the situation is that if North Korea decided to
just exist as another typical communist regime which democratic countries would have to keep a
close eye on, there would not be a sour taste in ones mouth after saying North Korea. Although
to rationalize it, that is the goal every communist country hopes to attain; add an amount of fear
or apprehension from not only its own people but the rest of the world. The extent at which
North Korea has gone to try and build its nuclear arsenal is ridiculous. North Korea was able to
produce them (nuclear weapons) only with assistance from other countries, and on the backs of
its own people, who starved (North Korea, 2016). In 1996 their leader Kim Jing-Il paid 3 million
dollars to Pakistan in order to receive nuclear technology. These 3 million dollars could have
gone to the citizens who live by subsistence farming and are unable to emerge from below the
poverty line. This proves that what North Korea is doing to keep its citizens safe is in fact not
helping at all because it puts the country into unnecessary debt.
There is also suspicion that North Korea may be using the black market to not only obtain
their nuclear weapons, but to sell weapons to other countries. They have certainly not been going
about this the legal way, in 2001 their missile sales came to a total of 560 million dollars (North

28

Korea, 2016). This was from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to suspected countries like
Libya and Syria. Their most recent nuclear test in January of 2016 was claimed by the North
Korean government to be a successful hydrogen bomb test. The test conducted by North Korea
was in direct violation of the UNs Security Council resolution, and many countries urge North
Korea to end their tests. The tests that they conduct bring people to realize the North Korea is
determined to have a properly functioning nuclear weapon and they want the whole world to
know. The use of media in North Koreas case is very smart, although it could be what ruins their
whole plan in the end.

International Organizations
It is important for our society to have people who advocate for world issues. In the case
of nuclear weapons, more and more people are looking towards disarmament to ensure global

29

safety. There are many obstacles to overcome to get the message across; some governments have
made strong barriers to evade the disarmament of their nuclear arsenal. Some organizations work
hand in hand with various governments while others prefer to work on a specific issue and have
a global impact. With nuclear weapons, most organizations are created to completely disarm all
nuclear weapons rather than the non- proliferation of them. This is because many people feel as
if harboring nuclear weapons can lead to the destruction of the world along with the lack of
peace and safety.
UNODA: United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
One prominent organization that advocates for the disarmament of nuclear weapons is the
UNODA. The UNODA (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs) is an IGO
(intergovernmental organization) this means that they work in agreement with other nations to
eventually create a global coalition. The UNODA was established in January 1998 as the
Department for Disarmament Affairs and it currently does not only focus on nuclear weapons but
rather all weapons of mass destruction. Their vision is to promote global norms of disarmament
and they believe that disarmament alone will not produce world peace. Yet they also maintain
that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, illicit arms trafficking and burgeoning
weapons stockpiles would advance both peace and development goals. It would accomplish this
by reducing the effects of wars, eliminating some key incentives to new conflicts, and liberating
resources to improve the lives of all the people and the natural environment in which they live
(Vision,n.d).
The Commission in the UNODA was created so that people could make
recommendations concerning the field of disarmament. They were responsible for the proposals
that established multi lateral treaties like the Non proliferation treaty as well as the
Comprehensive Ban Treaty. These types of treaties are helping to reduce categories of nuclear
weapons. The flaw within these treaties is that when a country decides not to sign for example
the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) they may make claims that state they do not support the
proliferation of weapons. The question remains why have they not signed the treaty? This is
most likely because sharing information about nuclear weapons to a country that does not have
the capability to produce a weapon alone can give them a great amount of leverage. Simply,
some countries chose not to sign the treaty because they do not want to lose power. This is an

30

unfortunate circumstance for the UNODA who devotes a lot of time to the disarmament of
weapons.
ICAN: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Another organization who supports the abolishing of nuclear weapons is ICAN
(International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, n.d). They are a
nongovernmental organization (NGO) which means that they do not work for any
government and neither do they work for profit. Their main goal is to mobilize people in
all countries to inspire, persuade and pressure their governments to initiate and support
negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons (Campaign Overview). They utilize
the power of the people and words rather than violent actions to meet their end goal
which is getting governments to sign a treaty that bans all nuclear weapons. They feel
that banning nuclear weapons is necessary because nuclear weapons are the only
weapons of mass destruction not yet prohibited by an international convention, even
though they have the greatest destructive capacity of all weapons (The Case for a Ban
Treaty, n.d). Currently they have successfully had 127 nations formally endorse their
Humanitarian pledge Stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons
(Humanitarian Pledge, n.d). This pledge commits nations to launch negotiations that will
ban nuclear weapons. The organization has been running for ten years and although
they have the commitment of countries there is not a huge step towards complete
abolishment. It will take a long time for complete abolishment to occur because there is
over 10 000 weapons of mass destruction in the world more than half of which are being
held by the U.S and Russia. There is not much control this organization has over the
different governments which can be a detriment to their campaign. If this NGO wants to
succeed then the complete co operation of different federal governments will be
needed, countries like North Korea and Russia must be willing to work together. This is
in benefit for the safety of the entire world.
A commonality between these two organizations is that they are both trying to
get support from other countries. Not only do they work with nuclear weapon states,
they are eager to reach all countries in the world to prevent any instance of nuclear

31

weapons being used by anymore countries. Rather than start with making an
international law against nuclear weapons, these organizations see the importance of
keeping a positive relationship with all countries. Once this task is complete, then the
international law can be implemented. The next step after this is seeing that this law is
abided by. Through the case studies it is clear that countries do not necessarily stay
within legal boundaries while trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Canadian Connections

32

During the time period when nuclear weapons were taking the world by storm and
every country was trying to obtain them, John. D Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada,
he stated that the Government believes in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons at the
independent disposal of national governments. The government of Canada was planning
arrangements now for arming the Canadian forces with defensive weapons using nuclear
warheads, such as the BOMARC anti-aircraft missile, which will be consistent with this
principle. The need for such weapons will arise only in defensive operations taken jointly with
the forces of the United States. Therefore the government proposed to obtain from the United
States, the nuclear warheads required at the time they are needed (Nuclear Weapons for Canadian
Forces, n.d).
This statement by the former Prime Minister is both troubling and reassuring for a
few reasons. The redeeming quality about the statement is that the leader of Canada was able to
fully publicize his intent towards nuclear weapons. Since there was no need to hide it from the
world, it means that the intention behind nuclear weapons was strictly what they claimed it to be.
They also do not want to work alone which would normally be a red flag for competition against
other nations. The downside of them wanting to work with a country is the specific country they
had interest in. Time and time again, the United States tries to involve itself in matters
concerning nuclear weapons. This is not only seen through history but throughout this research
paper. The involvement of the U.S in this case was to provide Canada with nuclear weapons and
then in a joint effort will partake in defensive operations if a problem ensues. The United States
is a black hole trying to suck everyone in and force them to think the same way for the greater
good. Although I can assure you the greater good is not always number one on Americas list of
importance.
At this time, Diefenbaker was still deciding if Canada should acquire nuclear
weapons since it was against the countrys foreign policy. There were pressures around him that
wanted the Prime Minister to agree with Americas plan. The Minister of National Defense tried
persuading him to have a joint program with the United States that includes the sharing of a
nuclear carrying missile. Diefenbaker was indecisive while trying to take control on the topic,
which most of Canada wanted an answer to. He lost the election n 1963 to Lester. B Pearson and
the Liberal party. The Liberals were in support of joining the United States and acquiring nuclear

33

weapons, unlike Diefenbaker they had a solid stance asnd plan of action which Canadians found
more able to trust in. In 1969 however, Canada signed the non-proliferation Treaty and the
nuclear missiles were phased out (Diefenbaker Canada Centre). The decision by the government
to do this was very intelligent; they saved themselves a lot of stress and unnecessary enemies.
Currently, Canada does not have any nuclear weapons but rather uses nuclear power to fuel their
country.
Canada has a huge role to play concerning nuclear weapons, one reason being is that
they are allies with the county who has the second biggest stockpile in the world; The United
States of America. Coincidentally, they also play the role of peacekeepers in the world stage
and especially towards other countries and have the potential to stop a nuclear threat. Most
people would believe that Canada has or had zero Intel on nuclear weapons and they make no
decisions concerning them. This is false as Canada supports NATOs nuclear strategy and
participates in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, the primary forum for Alliance nuclear
decision-making. Canada contributes personnel to, and helps pay the operating costs of, the
various NATO headquarters and planning staffs, including the NATO Nuclear Policy Directorate,
that are involved in planning for and, if necessary, carrying out nuclear operations (Robinson,
2002).
The role Canada plays concerning nuclear weapons though they may not carry any in
their own country, is an important one. They have input concerning the time a nuclear weapon
may be deployed. Canada also supports the use of nuclear weapons and the strategies behind a
possible future deployment of them. Even though Canada is not a nuclear weapons state,
meaning that they are not one of the nine countries who currently have a stockpile of nuclear
weapons. They have definitely found ways to remain relevant in the discussion of nuclear
weapons. After all why would one of the G20 countries be left out of a discussion that deals with
one of the most powerful weapons in the whole world? For that exact reason, the power that
comes with it. A powerful weapon needs a powerful country but could Canada, the caring,
compassionate better half of North America hold nuclear weapons? Most definitely all of their
time spent building such a positive image would be useless.
Another fact that people may not know is that Canada used to have American nuclear
weapons based in the country. Since then No nuclear weapons have been based in Canada since

34

1984, when US Genie air-to-air missiles were returned to the United States from their storage
sites at Canadian airbases (Robinson, 2002). This is less than fifty years ago and there was still
a pretty close link between Canada and Nuclear weapons. If this country can be easily persuaded
to help another cultivate its destructive nature, what would stop Canada from doing this to
themselves? There is only so far you can walk in the dark side before you eventually become a
part of it.
As the peacekeepers of the world Canada also co founded the Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Initiative (NPDI). It was founded by Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates in September 2010.T he
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) is a ministerial-level group of states within
the framework of the Nonproliferation Treaty focused on practical steps that will forward the
consensus outcomes of the 2010 NPT Review Conference (Glossary). Despite the ways Canada
used to involve itself in nuclear weapons which definitely did not help get rid of the problem,
they currently are maintaining a peacekeeper status within the world. Their many initiatives to
ban nuclear weapons and the condemning of certain actions by countries (for example North
Korea) is showing that not all countries have to go through total corruption once they realize the
power behind a nuclear weapon.
Canada involves itself with efforts that look for solutions to prevent proliferation of
nuclear weapons and in turn is ensuring global safety. There is no role for Canadian citizens to
play while preventing the corruption of Canada due to nuclear weapons for a number of reasons.
For one, Canada does not harbor any weapons and most likely will not be any time in the near
future. Also, the government will be making most of the decisions concerning nuclear weapons.
Although Canada is a democracy, all 30 million citizens cannot vote on whether or not nuclear
weapons should be used in Canadas military.

Solutions

35

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. This phrase should be
implemented while discussing the problems nuclear weapons creates for a country. It is clear to
see through the research I have gathered and my analysis of it that the creation or harboring of
nuclear weapons leads to the corruption of a country. It is unfortunate that today there is so much
chaos that surrounds one object; to many nations this object is just an allusion. In order for peace
to be amongst the world, nuclear weapons states must realize that their stockpile puts the whole
world in danger. Not even the use of it, the threat of use and creation of them results in
guaranteed pandemonium on a global scale.
The first solution that is deemed necessary in light of the information found while
completing this research would be the removal of bilateral conflict. As explained in the section
pertaining to The Logic of Evil, Scott Sagan argues that one of the main reason countries seek
nuclear weapons is to protect their country against the threat from another. This is proven as we
can see in the case of the Soviet Union, who only made a nuclear weapon when the United States
dropped one on Japan. The debate that justifies the creation of nuclear weapons to defend
national security is an old one that needs to be tossed away. To solve the problem we see more
often than none which consists of countries falling to corruption after they decide to obtain
nuclear weapons, we need to take out the root. If there was no reason for these countries to feel
threatened, then the decision to get weapons of mass destruction would be out of sight and out of
mind. Today we see too many occasions where one country is completely closed off to the idea
of helping or supporting another. The creation of an international law would stall the hostility
between two countries. In the end however, it boils down to how willing one country is to mend
a relationship with another. This is a decision put in the same hands of a leader who decided to
dip their toe in the frigid lake of nuclear weapons.
Another step towards removing nuclear corruption in countries is to remove the
people who make these awful decisions from which chaos ensues. The general public of a
country has no say in the purchasing of nuclear weapons; there is a guarantee of a considerable
percentage of the country not even knowing how a nuclear weapon is made. The real problem
lies in the decision maker; it is by their own standards and decisions that the nuclear stockpile
was formed. Although, mentioned in the interview earlier with James Acton, he highlighted that
one problem is verification. In order for the leader who is making bad decisions to be stopped,

36

they need to be making bad decisions. There must be a sure guarantee that one country is indeed
cheating. In this case, it should be their jobs being removed and maybe even a life. In history it
is shown to us that when a ruler is not directing the people in the right way, the people will not
tolerate it and remove the leader; very well known example is that of the French and Marie
Antoinette. In the case of nuclear weapons, and proved in the research above, the most influential
person in a country is usually the driving force behind the nuclear weapons program in their
country. While world leaders are proving capable of addressing nuclear terrorism, one of the
most difficult issues facing the international community, they still must do more to address such
evils as corruption, which holds entire peoples and countries hostage (Khodorkovsky, 2010). For
example in the case studies a similarity was found between North Korea and India. The whole
reason they started the weapon campaign was due to the push by government and the only reason
it exists today is by the same reason. In India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru started nuclear
campaigns which lead to the testing of these weapons and a war that almost happened with
Pakistan. North Korea on the other hand had Kin Jing Un to rapidly publicize their actions
concerning nuclear weapons.
To remove these leaders, foreign assistance is needed but the aid of one county in
particular would be detrimental to the overall well being of the other country in need. The help
of the United States of America will, without a doubt do nothing but throw a country down a
spiral with very few chance of ever getting up. It may be hard for some to believe since the U.S
is never published in a negative light but there are instances we could have gone without the help
of America. For example, the only reason Iraq was invaded in 2003 is because of a claim of
nuclear weapons. This allowed a terrorist group to become more stable and mobile in that
country, it also opened doors for terrorists to enter other countries. The next example is one
shown in the case study for China. The U.S were allies with Southern Korea in the Korean War,
they blackmailed China with nuclear weapons to withdraw support from the war. While the help
America gave to one country won a war, it also turned Chinas back even further away from the
U.S and it gave them a legitimate reason to create nuclear weapons.
The United States of America is a country with over 30 000 nuclear weapons, their
intentions of solving the problem of proliferation are almost invisible. Not even to speak of them
stopping corruption they are fully aware of in countries who try to obtain nuclear weapons. The

37

United States on intervenes concerning the world when it is in their national interest, a country
with nearly 50 000 weapons would not want to expose the way it got its own weapons. In
addition throughout this paper it is clear to see America is very heavily involved in nuclear
weapons talk. This country was the reason behind every case study getting involved in nuclear
weapons, they were also mentioned time and time again for having a say or a plan in times where
nuclear weapons were very important. Without a doubt, America needs to be removed from the
picture so that countries in the world will never have a separate country policing them. The first
consideration to be taken while speaking of American involvement is in the section Role of
Control the words America, keep, and monopoly are put into the same sentence. A surprising
revelation comes from that tweet and it is clear that America knew it had a monopoly on nukes
and they wanted to keep it that way. The failure of America to see how the immense power they
had was in no way beneficial to the world is shocking. Although they are stuck in the cold-war
era state of mind because they are unable to see the negative impacts of nuclear weapons. Many
governments refuse to admit that their nuclear stockpile was a result of the frayed nerves of
superpower leaders the United States being one of them 1. The next case is a triple hitter, the role
America played in three separate countries about the topic of nuclear weapons. Firstly in China,
the Americans threatened the Chinese government to no longer support Northern Korea in the
Korean War. This lead to China deciding to create weapons of mass destruction. Also in India,
the American government decided to put sanctions down against the Indian government which
prevented the right amount of humanitarian work doing its job and helping poverish children in
Arica. The last example in the case study was the country of North Korea; America was the
country who got them interested in these weapons and also gave them a link to the enemy Soviet
Union. A key point to recognize is that all three of these countries have been connected with the
United States in some way which forced them to create nuclear weapons. For there to be rest
amongst countries of the world, it is best for people to no longer think of America as a nuclear
power but rather as nuclear poison. Somehow, they manage to reel a nation in and lead it into
dangerous territory. The one that is usually trekked by countries who can handle that, only these
smaller countries are ill equipped which forces them to lie to get their way.
It is imperative for countries that have disagreements with one another to reconcile in
order for there to no longer be a reason to stock nuclear weapons. If all countries got along there
would be no other national enemy to protect themselves from. Terrorists may be very active in

38

todays society but if all countries remain steadfast together, there will not be need to harbor
these weapons. The US and Russia are the only two nations believed to have the capacity to
carry out Launch-on-Warning (Nuclear Weapons in the U.S and Russia).These two countries
have the greatest number of nuclear weapons, accounting for over 50% of the global stockpile.
Unfortunately, they both happen to have strained relationships with one another and can launch
nuclear weapons in warning. Their ability to have a weapon launched within minutes of warning
is something that puts the safety of the world in jeopardy. For the world to keep peace,
disagreements like these must be resolved to save humanity.

39

Works Cited
Albright, David. & Stricker, Andrea. (2015, September 28). If you Give a Mouse a
Cookie. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://isis-online.org/uploads/isisreports/documents/Iran_Prisoner_Swap_28Sept2015-Final.pdf
Arguments for Nuclear Abolition. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.icanw.org/why-a-ban/arguments-for-a-ban/
Binder, Markus K. "Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: Overview." Issues:
Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2016. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.D. I. (n.d.).
Borger, J. (2014, January 15). The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal. Retrieved
March 7, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nucleararsenal
Campaign overview. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.icanw.org/campaign/campaign-overview/
China's Non-Proliferation Words vs.China's Nuclear Proliferation Deeds*. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.nci.org/i/ib12997.htm
China.
(n.d.).RetrievedMarch28,2016,fromhttp://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996). (n.d.). Retrieved May 06, 2016, from
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Treaties/Treaty19.shtml
Diefenbaker Canada Centre. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from
http://www.usask.ca/diefenbaker/galleries/virtual_exhibit/nuclear_question_in_canada/
EconomyofChina.
(n.d.).RetrievedMarch28,2016,fromhttps://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Economy_of_China
Fact Sheets & Briefs. (2014, June 23). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
Glossary | Learn | NTI. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from
http://www.nti.org/learn/glossary/#nonproliferation
India-Pakistan: Nuclear Weapon Update - 1998. (1998, November/December). Retrieved
March 29, 2016, from http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/nuke98.html
India. (2016, March). Retrieved March 28, 2016, from
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/india/nuclear/

40

Hawks, D. (n.d.). The Difference Between Wants vs. Needs in Economics - Video &
Lesson Transcript | Study.com. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-difference-between-wants-vs-needs-in-economics.html
History.com Staff. (2009). Korean War. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war
Humanitraian Pledge. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://www.icanw.org/pledge/
Hudson, G. F. (2011, October 11). Russia and China: The Dilemmas of Power. Retrieved
March 28, 2016, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1960-10-01/russia-andchina-dilemmas-power
Insight on Nuclear Technology [E-mail to R. Litwak]. (2016, February 23).
James M. Acton. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2016, from
http://carnegieendowment.org/experts/?fa=434
Khodrovosky, M. (2010, May 26). The world's biggest threat is corruption, not nuclear
weapons. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052503973.html
Kristensen, H. M., & Norris, R. S. (2014, January 9). Worldwide deployments of nuclear
weapons, 2014. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/26/0096340214547619.full#fn-17
Kristensen, H. M., & Norris, R. S. (n.d.). Status of World Nuclear Forces - Federation Of
American Scientists. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://fas.org/issues/nuclearweapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
Lee, G. (2003). The Political Philosophy of Juche. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal3/korea1.pdf
Millett, A. R. (n.d.). Korean War. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
http://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War
Moles, B. (2012, September 14). India and Pakistan: A Decade Since Operation
Parakram. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/09/14/india-andpakistan-a-decade-since-operation-parakram/
Morrow, D., & Carriere, M. (n.d.). The Economic Impacts of the 1988 Sanctions on India
and Pakistan. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from https://www.nonproliferation.org/wpcontent/uploads/npr/morrow64.pdf
N. (n.d.). Nuclear arsenals. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://www.icanw.org/thefacts/nuclear-arsenals/

41

N. (n.d.). Nuclear weapons timeline. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/the-nuclear-age/
N. (n.d.). UNODA - Nuclear Weapons Home. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/
North Korea. (2016, April). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/nuclear
North Korea Test-Fires Several Missiles. (2006, July 03). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/world/asia/04cnd-korea.html?_r=0
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (1968). (2016). In Issues: Understanding Controversy
and Society. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from http://issues.abc-clio.com/
Nuclear Power in India. (2016, April). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://www.worldnuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx
Nuclear Weapons for Canadian Forces. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2016, from
http://www.usask.ca/diefenbaker/galleries/virtual_exhibit/nuclear_question_in_canada/docs/secr
et_draft.pdf
Nuclear Weapons in the U.S. and Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/
Nuclear Weapons Quotes. Retrieved March 1, from
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/daisakuike469550.html?src=t_nuclear_weapons
Nuclear weapons timeline. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/the-nuclear-age/
Nuclear Weapons Spending: A theft of public spending. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2016,
from http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ICAN-DisarmamentDevelopment.pdf
Padden, B. (2015, December 11). North Korea, Under UN Scrutiny, Turns to H-Bomb
'Scare Tactic' Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.voanews.com/content/north-koreaunder-un-scrutiny-turns-to-h-bomb-scare-tactic/3098511.html
Pillalamari, A. (2015, April 21). Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program: 5 Things You
Need to Know. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistansnuclear-weapons-program-5-things-you-nee.d-know-12687
Rice, M. (n.d.). Arms Control Today. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_04/irnap00
Rogue State. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state

42

Roberts, B., Manning, R. A., & Montaperto, R. M. (2000, July). China: The Forgotten
Nuclear Power.Retrieved May 06, 2016, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/200007-01/china-forgotten-nuclear-power
Robinson, B. (2002). Project Ploughshares. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from
http://ploughshares.ca/pl_publications/canadas-connections-to-nuclear-weapons/
Robert S. Litwak. (2011). Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/robert-s-litwak
Rosen, A. (2014, August 27). Here's Where We Think The World's Nukes Are Stored And What It Says About Global Security. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-nukes-and-where-theyre-stored-2014-8
Sagan, S. D. (1997). Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a
Bomb. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://iisdb.stanford.edu/pubs/20278/Why_Do_States_Build_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf
Samore, G. (2013, May 14). Nuclear Rights and Wrongs. Retrieved March 28, 2016,
from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2013-11-14/nuclear-rights-and-wrongs
Sidel, V. W., & Levy, B. S. (2007, September). Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons:
Opportunities for Control and Abolition. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963312/
The Case for a Ban Treaty. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from
http://www.icanw.org/why-a-ban/the-case-for-a-ban-treaty/
The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2016,
from http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html
The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Global Security. (2010). Retrieved March 7, 2016, from
https://thoughteconomics.com/the-role-of-nuclear-weapons-in-global-security/
UNODA - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2016, from
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/bNuclear/nwfz/
Vision. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2016, from
http://www.un.org/disarmament/about/vision/
Younger, S. M. (2007, June 27). Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved
March 9, 2016, from http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm

43

Appendix
Appendix I

44