For the concerns of nuclear proliferation (15), I put:
Danger of nuclear imbalances
Arguably, in order for there to be peace and security, through the balance of terror, through the system of deterrence there needs to be a ‘balance of power’, there needs to be an equal amount of nuclear weapons for each state. There is no guarantee that vertical or horizontal nuclear proliferation will preserve the balance of power as nuclear proliferation inevitably creates temporary imbalances which may then be exploited by aggressive states. For example, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is a perfect example how nuclear weapons were dropped specifically to take advantage of the military imbalance of Japan. Danger of nuclear imbalances could possibly threaten international stability it is for that reason why countries undergo arms races. For example, UK-German naval arms race that preceded WW1, and the US-Soviet nuclear arms race during the Cold War.
Irresponsible nuclear powers
Some argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could get into the wrong hands. The possibility of a nuclear first strike relies on the existence of a political or military leadership that is not hostile to risk-taking, or a leadership that, because of its values and beliefs, pursues symbolic violence as a method of ‘total war’. The greatest concern is therefore that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even non-state actors like terrorist organizations, which may have fewer moralities about using them. For example, in the case of North Korea, nuclear weapons create the prospect of a nuclear adventurism that threatens not only South Korea but also Japan and even the USA. The belief that a nuclear first strike by North Korea is a real and present danger is based on a number of factors. Most importantly, its leadership is erratic and autocratic (its leader, Kim Jong-Il (The ‘Dear Leader’) is the son of the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-sung.
Ineffective deterrence
Some view the system of nuclear deterrence as a weakness and a risk to international stability and argue that a world in which there are nuclear weapons will always carry the threat of a nuclear war: Realists use the following arguments to add further credence to their statements. Firstly, a nuclear war could commence if nuclear weapons get into the wrong hands of dictators. Leaders of dictatorships may express suicidal or psychotic attributes and may not be deterred by any form of deterrence e.g. North Korea. Secondly, country X may use NUTS to try to gain a first strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy’s nuclear launch silos thereby rendering country Y incapable of a second strike response. Thirdly, deterrence may always fail due to miscalculations and accidents. For instances, states may make miscalculations about whether other states possess an invulnerable second-strike capability or, for that matter, whether they possess nuclear weapons at all. Fourthly, conventional wars may also escalate into nuclear wars, through mistakes made in the frenetic atmosphere that often surrounds decision makers in war-time situations. Fifthly, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race that elevates the risk of actual war.
(If I had time, I would have mentioned)
Destructive capacity
The argument that nuclear proliferation poses a substantial threat to peace and security derives from the massive destructive capacity of nuclear weapons. This, then enables nuclear powers to dictate to other powers, as the USA did in using nuclear weapons to bring an end to the war against Japan in 1945. Nuclear proliferation can be seen as inherently unstable on the grounds that it creates at least temporary imbalances, allowing states that seek military advantage to pursue offensive policies. Nuclear arms races therefore tend to increase the likelihood of war. Such fears have intensified in the post-Cold War era as proliferation has made regional conflicts considerably more dangerous. This applies to tension between India and Pakistan as well as to tension between Israel and Iran. Nuclear proliferation is thus more dangerous in the emerging multipolar world order than it was in the relatively stable bipolar ‘first’ nuclear age. Anxieties about nuclear weapons have been substantially heightened by the belief that recent developments make it more likely that they will be used. This is evident in the development of ‘tactical’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons that are designed to be usable, but it is particularly linked to the fear that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of military-based dictatorial regimes, or even terrorist groups, which will have fewer scruples about using them. Nuclear terrorism is through of by some as the ultimate modern security threat.