Nuclear Weapons

Quick Recap – Examples of Nuclear Disasters

The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine (1986) was the worst nuclear power accident in history, releasing massive radiation, forcing over 100,000 evacuations, and leaving a long-lasting exclusion zone.

The Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan (2011) followed an earthquake and tsunami, causing reactor meltdowns and radioactive leaks into the air and ocean. Tens of thousands were displaced, and debates over nuclear energy safety intensified.

The Three Mile Island accident in the USA (1979) involved a partial reactor meltdown. While small amounts of radiation escaped and no deaths occurred, it created widespread fear and stricter safety regulations.

Finally, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in 1945 showed the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons in war, killing over 200,000 people and leaving survivors with long-term health effects.

Who Has Nuclear Weapons and Why Some Are Allowed While Others Are Not

When we talk about nuclear weapons today, it is important to first understand who actually possesses them. Currently, nine countries in the world are known or strongly believed to have nuclear arsenals. The United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom are officially recognized under international law as “nuclear-weapon states.” These countries were the first to develop and test nuclear weapons, and they are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Outside this group, there are four other nuclear-armed states: India, Pakistan, and North Korea, which developed their programs after 1967, and Israel, which has never confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons but is widely believed to maintain an arsenal.

The distribution of nuclear weapons is not accidental; it is the result of history, treaties, and politics. In 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was established with three goals: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to encourage eventual nuclear disarmament. Under this treaty, only countries that had tested nuclear weapons before 1 January 1967 were officially recognized as nuclear powers. This means the U.S., Russia (then the Soviet Union), China, France, and the U.K. gained the legal right to keep their weapons, while all other nations agreed not to pursue them.

At first glance, this might look like a reasonable compromise — a way to prevent new countries from developing nuclear weapons while working towards gradual disarmament. But in reality, the NPT created a system of double standards. It divided the world into two groups: the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Those who already had nuclear weapons were allowed to keep them, while others were permanently denied the same right. To make matters worse, the five recognized nuclear states have been very slow in reducing their arsenals, despite the treaty’s promise that they would eventually move toward complete disarmament.

This inequality has led to frustration and resentment, especially among countries that feel vulnerable or threatened. For example, India refused to sign the NPT from the beginning, arguing that it was unfair for some countries to keep their weapons while others were denied. India later conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, formally declaring itself a nuclear power. Its neighbor, Pakistan, soon followed, claiming it needed nuclear weapons to balance India’s power. North Korea took a different path: it signed the NPT but later withdrew, saying it could not trust a system where powerful nations kept their weapons while demanding others disarm. In its view, nuclear weapons are the only guarantee of survival against outside threats.

Perhaps the most controversial case is Israel. Although Israel has never openly admitted to having nuclear weapons, it is widely believed to possess dozens of warheads. Yet, unlike North Korea or Iran, Israel has never faced serious international sanctions over its nuclear program. This selective enforcement highlights the hypocrisy at the heart of global nuclear politics: countries considered allies of powerful states often face less scrutiny, while others are punished harshly for even pursuing nuclear technology.

The double standards of the nuclear system create several problems. First, they undermine trust. Non-nuclear countries feel that the recognized powers are not living up to their side of the bargain, since they continue to modernize their arsenals instead of disarming. Second, the system encourages some nations to pursue nuclear weapons in secret, believing that the only way to ensure their security is to join the nuclear club. Finally, the unequal rules make it harder to achieve global cooperation, because many nations see the system as designed to protect the dominance of a few powerful states.

Supporters of the NPT argue that without it, many more countries would likely have nuclear weapons today. They also point out that several countries — such as South Africa, which gave up its small nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, and former Soviet republics like Ukraine and Kazakhstan, which surrendered their inherited weapons after the Cold War — have chosen disarmament. However, the fact remains that the most powerful countries continue to hold on to their nuclear stockpiles, even while preaching to others about the dangers of proliferation.

In conclusion, the issue of who has nuclear weapons and why some are allowed while others are not exposes the double standards at the heart of international relations. The five original nuclear powers enjoy a privileged position, while others are condemned or punished for trying to join their ranks. This creates resentment, fuels mistrust, and undermines the goal of global disarmament. If the world is serious about eliminating nuclear weapons, then the rules must apply equally to all nations, not just the weaker ones. Only when fairness replaces hypocrisy can we hope to move toward a future free of nuclear weapons.