By MARK VERNDICK CABADING

It was around 8:10 in the morning. The city was bustling, and people were rushing out for their daily routines. There was nothing unusual in the city except for a solitary plane that flew right above the city and dropped the "little boy" on the unwary ground. 

All hell broke loose. In a matter of seconds, "little boy" obliterated Hiroshima—people were lying on the ground, either dead or severely wounded. The weapon of mass destruction reduced the city to rubble as the United States marked its first nuclear attack in 1945. 

After witnessing the horrors of the Hiroshima attack, Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS), through the United Nations (UN), called for a ban on the use of nuclear weapons. However, the UN Security Council (UNSC), the main organ of the UN mandated to maintain international peace and security, is also composed of the original nuclear-weapon states (NWS): the US, Russia, Great Britain, China, and France. 

The opposition of the UNSC members to the total elimination of nuclear weapons resulted in disputes over regulations on nuclear weapon possession. This led to a conditional agreement on the prohibition of nuclear technology for enhanced arsenals that also proved futile as NWS continued nuclear development. Using nuclear weapons, NWS kept gaining leverage and exerting influence in the geopolitical sphere.

Nuclear Footprints

The world witnessed the long-term effects of the nuclear attacks on Japan—from national healing to post-World War economic restoration. This encouraged NWS to establish treaties on weapon regulation. However, the influence of NWS over the UN made the enforcement of treaties ineffective with the lack of penalties for NWS. 

To prevent the same aftermath, NNWS initiated campaigns to eliminate nuclear weapons. But NWS opposed the elimination of nuclear weapons and pushed instead for the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the NPT ratified in 1970, nations excluding the original NWS were prohibited from pursuing nuclear programs. Instead of prohibition, NWS pledged to pursue complete disarmament and to provide nuclear technology for NNWS.

Almost 50 years after the establishment of the NPT, NWS remain in possession of their nuclear weapons. 

With the absence of any penal clause in the NPT for disregarding nuclear disarmament commitments, NWS could hold on to nuclear weapons without being sanctioned for their inaction. Meanwhile, NNWS that are in non-compliance with the treaty were penalized through suspension of assistance and return of materials.

The goal of a nuclear-free world is far from accomplished, especially with the NPT unable to deter states like North Korea from possessing nuclear weapons. In January 2003, North Korea, originally an NPT state party, announced its withdrawal from the NPT and started testing nuclear devices. With a state of war existing between North Korea and South Korea, with China and the US as their respective allies, the military exercises of the US around the Korean peninsula threatened North Korea. 

"Above all else, North Korea's nuclear program is about security—it is, by their estimation, the only reliable guarantee of the country's basic sovereignty, of the Communist regime's control, and of the rule of Kim Jong Un,” Prof. John Delury of the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies said in an interview with the BBC.

Through nuclear weapon possession, North Korea employs the 'mutually assured destruction (MAD)' strategy. It ensures that "whoever shoots first, dies second." Yet, regardless of who initiates the first attack, the citizens will always be at the losing end.

Inevitable Fusion

The recent nuclear activities of North Korea increased concerns over the risk of another nuclear war. This resulted in further campaigns, but the nuclear situation remains the same. 

The most recent initiative against nuclear weapons was headed by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a ministerial-level group of NNWS operating within the framework of building international consensus to make progress on nuclear disarmament.

NAC's brainchild, the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), prohibits a full range of nuclear weapon-related activities such as development and use of nuclear weapons. Since the treaty opened for signature and ratification on September 20, 2017, a total of 53 countries, including the Philippines, have already signed it.

The swift progress of the ratification of the TPNW has two implications, according to UP Department of Political Science Associate Professor Herman Joseph Kraft. He observed that the majority of the signatories of the treaty, like the Philippines, are NNWS and developing countries—the usual casualties of war. NNWS recognize their vulnerability to nuclear weapons. As such, the TPNW can potentially eliminate the global security threat from nuclear attacks.

Second, TPNW Parties are expecting to demonize nuclear weapons to the level of biological and chemical attacks through establishing the treaty. 

"As of now, we fear a nuclear war, but the attitude of people is not the same with chemical and biological weapons," Prof. Kraft said. The treaty is expected to serve as an instrument to convince the world that nuclear weapons are just as harmful and threatening.

Reverse Fission

NWS recognize the threat of nuclear weapons to international security. However, if there are no effective conditions that would enforce the total disarmament by NWS, nuclear weapons will not cease to exist—along with the possibility of a nuclear war.

Even with the TPNW, the possibility of a nuclear war is not diminished—especially with the non-participation of NWS in negotiations for the treaty. 

NWS and great powers like the US, the UK, and France reasoned that it would be irrational to ban nuclear weapons. They see this move as leaving their countries vulnerable to attacks by North Korea.

Contrary to the obligation of NWS in the NPT, the US invested billions in their arsenals. According to Colorado College Department of Economics Professor William Weida, the US allocates too much resources to nuclear weapons regardless of the degree of threat from hostile states. This has made the US capable of attacking any country. 

Second to Russia with the most nuclear weapons globally, the US possesses around 4,018 active and inactive nuclear warheads. Theoretically, any first-strike nuclear attack can be survived by the US, enough for it to retaliate in any way it sees fit. ●

Published in print in the Collegian’s November 21, 2017 issue, with the headline “Chain Reaction: On nuclear weapons and mass destruction.”