Why Nuclear Proliferation Has Not Occurred

Image Credit: flickr/International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Why Nuclear Weapons Don't Spread (Quickly) -- Zachary Keck, The Diplomat

To date, nuclear weapons have spread more slowly than most anticipated. And the pace is slowing even further.

Over at Foreign Policy, David Kenner has an interesting piece on how President Barack Obama’s views on nuclear weapons are shaping his approach to the Middle East (Kenner also includes other so-called weapons of mass destruction, although nuclear weapons are the primary focus).

Kenner’s main thesis is that “non-proliferation has emerged as the centerpiece of Obama’s agenda in the Middle East.” He cites a number of examples to support this argument, from Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles to Iran’s nuclear program.

The piece is well worth the read, although I’m not sure I agree with the central premise. Additionally, while Kenner attributes America’s focus on WMD issues in the Middle East to Obama’s personal interest and passion for these subjects, I would argue it has more to do with external events like the advanced stage of Iran’s nuclear program and the Syrian civil war.

Read more ....

My Comment: A nuclear weapons program is not cheap .... it will also have consequences (sanctions, neighboring states developing their own nukes, etc.). The need to have them has also changed .... most countries are not faced with an existential threat .... and of those who do most do not have the means to have an effective nuclear weapons program. But in an unstable world anything is possible .... and if present trends continue who is to say what the world like in 10 or 20 years.