The Nuclear Proliferation

During our oral presentation, we have shown to the class the stakes of the nuclear weapons proliferation. As we said "defence" is a huge subject to cover and through this writing, I'll continue to develop it by going into others major facts and ethical issues related to the subject.

For the next coming years, there are high probabilities that some countries continue to develop a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon program while the actual nuclear countries won't give up their chance to improve their deterrent weapons, increase their ballistic missiles accuracy and efficiency.

In that context, what could be the manifestations of such a race for arming or re-arming? What could do the international institutions to present or limit their effects? How will we deal with the various ethical issues that we will be confronted to?

I will try to answer to those questions by bringing some clear facts that could help us to understand the increasing importance that such issues will have in the coming years.

Thus in a first part, I will examine the manifestations and impacts over countries of such a race for arming. Then in a second part, I will highlight the gap of our international institutions to deal with those problems. In the third part, I will show that in such cases we would be confronted to numerous ethical issues that could become a raising problem.

I- The arming/ re-arming race

In the next coming years chances are that some countries try to develop various non conventional weapons while the actual nuclear countries continue to increases their deterrent weapons arsenal.

The demonstration from a country of its nuclear capabilities would continue to discredit the current non proliferation treaty. Such a country, who is not supposed to develop a nuclear program, could lead to a possible shift of the balance of power and increase the risk of conflicts leading to the nuclear escalation. That way countries without nuclear weapons, especially the Middle East ones and in North East Asia, could decide to get them elsewhere. For example from engineers and scientists such as Abdul Qadeer Khan, "father" of the Pakistanis bomb. The biological and chemical weapons can also constitute a substantial threat, in particular from the terrorists knowing their objectives to acquire light and furtive weapon that could have a spectacular impact over the citizens. Moreover, some countries continue to integrate the production tools of those two types of weapons in commercial infrastructures to hide them to potential inspectors, experts or commissioners. Major progress are made in biological sciences that could speed up the development of biological agent design for arming. It would be more difficult to detect them and to protect against them.

Moreover, in the coming years, countries and populations would be more and more exposed to dangers from ballistics missiles, or planes (DRONE) without airline pilots. For example, North Korea which is increasing the range, reliability and accuracy of its missiles. Countries like North Korea and Iran could develop or acquire missiles such as LCAM or ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles).Those events remains fictitious for the moment, but if occur various treaties would then be obsolete or insignificant. Our existing international institutions would face a crisis. I propose you now to examine the potential impacts of such situations on our institutions.

II- The crisis of international institutions

The increasing pressure over the international institutions often make them inefficient, they have to proceed to radical adaptations to better respond to new players and priorities. The regional institutions (E.U) would have a lot to do to face new threats from economical changes, terrorism, the organized crime and the proliferation of massive destruction weapons.

Institutions created after World War II such as the United Nations or the International Monetary Fond can be obsolete unless they take into account the increasing power of raising power (China, India, Brazil,Ð'...) .

In fact, defenders and opponent to multilateralism reach the consensus to say that Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia has shown the inefficiency, lack of preparation, weaknesses of international and regional institution.

The failure of States, source of conflicts and threats, speaks in favour of a better coordination of institutions, especially the financial ones or entities in charge of security at a regional scale.

Therefore, one of the biggest problem that handicap their efficiency is building a worldwide consensus concerning how and when intervene. The institutions reactivity is an essential step for them to be up to their potential and promises. Various states especially from the emerging powers to a special care not to create the conditions of an international intervention in their affairs. Yet, a state failure could be avoided if that failure is clearly identified and thanks to "preventive measures".

By elsewhere, we have to face more ethical questions linked to the biotechnology discoveries like cloning, the genetically modified organisms; the advance of technologies and the worries about the private life; but also debates around environmental questions. Those subject could potentially draw huge disagreement between countries. United States could stand against Europe, and put the developing countries back up in that problem. Developing countries could also see those raising ethical questions as a way for rich countries to slow down their progression by imposing "occidental" norms and values.

Thus, numerous are the ones who think that international institutions are too rigid, a picture of the after Second World War, that is no longer the image of the current world.

III- The no man's land

The majority of nowadays conflicts take on the appearance of non conventional conflicts, that do not enlist regular forces. Just like the humanitarian interventions et the operations designed to kick out terrorists from their back basis. Therefore, far from the conventional war, the principles that establish the resort to military forces are more and more contested (Summer 06 the conflict between Hezbollah and Tsahal).

The international laws that set the national sovereignty and the Geneva convention as a sanctuary have been establish before the confrontation to those new types of threats, from the beginning