In the post-Cold war era, one of the major foreign policy objectives of the great powers has become prevention of further nuclear proliferation and for the reason many nonproliferation frameworks are developed.
During the Cold War era, the formation of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 with the aim to prevent efforts by any non-nuclear state to acquire the same has credited a partial success to the Treaty. The imprecise role of the NPT showed that the median of non-proliferation had turned out to be profoundly ingrained in international affairs than ever before as the former Soviet states also cooperated with the international community by withdrawing the post-Soviet nuclear weapons under their possession.
For many states having nuclear ambitions, the non-proliferation efforts and the NPT are seen as discriminatory in their nature. Of course, for the non-nuclear but ambitious states there should be no global nuclear monopoly. For them, the reason behind the global power status is mainly due to the nuclear capability where none of the states will ever dare to attack any nuclear weapon state.
The argument is further strengthened with the recent examples of Iraq, Afghanistan and many other states who were not capable of defend themselves against invasions. Had they been nuclear states, for any invader, the cost of aggression could have been much higher than the assessments of attacking any nuclear weapon state.
The rational choice for many ambitious non-nuclear states to choose the nuclear option subversively is due to the reason of safeguarding themselves against external threat of hostile nations and such reasons serve as a great pretext for going forward with their nuclear programs.
Similarly, in the case of states like India and China who have fought a major war in 1962 and are still considered hostile countries towards each other, India found itself in a most vulnerable situation having a nuclear-armed state on its border. Not only that, China was much stronger with its conventional arsenal in comparison to India. Moreover, they had another belligerent neighbor and an ally of China on their western border, Pakistan. While this is but only one reason for India’s push towards nuclearization, but it surely was a major reason.
Likewise in the case of Pakistan, the situation was much critical than the Indian because right from its inception Pakistan had been a victim of regional aggression and had experienced three wars with its arch-rival, India. The country had ultimately lost a major portion of its territory, now known as Bangladesh. For Pakistan, the Indian nuclearization was not less than a security nightmare. The repeated nuclear ambitions of India, first in 1974 under the codename Smiling Budha and later on the explosions of 1998, Pakistan had been left with no choice but ensure its very existence through the maintenance of the status-quo and power equilibrium by through nuclearization.
The basic reason of the malfunctioning of non-proliferation efforts of the international community is due to the fundamental issue of the absence of a real-time workable framework for resolving the causes of tensions and conflicts in the regions. With the absence of such a framework, weak states find themselves in a vulnerable position and it is this perceived vulnerability that pushes them towards nuclearization.
For example, the issue of Kashmir between India and Pakistan right from the independence of both countries has remained a bone of contention between both states and has made the South Asian region a nuclear flashpoint. Likewise, in Middle East, a prolong conflict between Palestine and nuclear capable and encroaching state of Israel, having a hostile relationship with almost all of its neighbors will only discourage the global non-proliferation efforts.
Moreover, the most prominent obligations of the NPT are that, the Nuclear weapon states (NWS) are not supposed to transfer and assist any non-nuclear weapon state in the acquisition of the nuclear technology. However, right from the beginning, the Treaty itself has remained under fluctuations due to the violating actions of its founding members. The U.S nuclear cooperation with the de-facto nuclear India which will facilitate the later, to import atomic fuel and technologies from the U.S, ultimately paves the way for creating a tit for tat situation in an already troubled South Asia.
Realistically, such action-reaction syndrome and issues of national pride will make the world not more than a stockpile of mass killing weapons. A world where many states with a weak governmental structure having nuclear capabilities will only cause disaster to the human race and ultimately destruction of the world.
However, the nuclear weapon states also seek their level best to stop the efforts of any state trying to acquire nuclear technology but for many nuclear ambitious nations the issue lies with discriminatory nature of the NPT and its fundamental justification of de-jure status to pre-1968 nuclear states. If the nuclear weapons are not a good deal for global peace and security then no one should possess them, they argue.
One of the strongest argument for answering the question as to why states seek to develop nuclear capability is, the privilege and the status as a great power, having leverage in the affairs of international political discourse along with independence of making decisions of national interest without external interferences.
Therefore, the complexity of the international political system compels states either to acquire nukes or align themselves with nuclear weapon states to get shelter under the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear allies. Those who by any way have acquired the nukes have clear leverage and power in the global political arena consequently generating a sense of inferiority amongst others. Therefore, many states prefer becoming rogue states by pursuing the nuclear path to some level of edge and deter their enemies from aggression.
