Nuclear Proliferation in the GCC States

Introduction and Background:

The nuclear proliferation is an important issue in the GCC states. Noting that the proliferation of
nuclear weapons in the region of the GCC states would be a serious threat to peace and security
some countries are more worried about this issue. As they aware of the need to immediately place
all the nuclear facilities of the GCC region under full security of the Agency.
Treaty Collaborations:
Recalling the decision adopted by the Conference in 1995 by the Conference on non -
proliferation of nuclear weapons, adopted on 11 May 1995, on the principles and objectives of non -
proliferation and nuclear disarmament in order to examine the Treaty and its enlargement, in which
the Conference considered it urgent for all countries of the world to accede to the Treaty and to
invite all states that were not yet members of that treaty, in particular those states that operate
nuclear facilities that are not yet subject to security surveillance from joining it at the earliest. Noting
with satisfaction that the Conference in the Final Document of the Conference of the States Parties
to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 2003, purposefully committed to efforts to
achieve the objective of the universality of the Treaty, has invited States which had not yet joined
the Treaty, - join them in making an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear
weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to commit to subjecting all their nuclear activities to the
agency 's security oversight and the need for universal compliance with the Treaty and strict
compliance with the obligations of emphasized to all parties that this instrument imposes on them. [
CITATION Tob \l 2057 ]
Resolution on the Middle East adopted on 11 May 1995, of the Parties' Nuclear Non -
Proliferation Treaty 1995 shows many conformations that are necessary in order to examine the
Treaty and the question of its enlargement, in which the Conference Has noted that there are still
nuclear facilities in the Middle East that are not subject to the existing guarantees, affirming that it is
important that all states join the Treaty at the earliest and call on all states in the Middle East,
without exception as soon as possible to join him, if they have not already done so, and to place
their nuclear installations under full security of the Agency.
Noting with satisfaction that in the final document of the Conference of the Parties, mandated to
consider the Non-Proliferation Treaty 2010, the Conference stressed that it would be important to
establish a process for the full implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East and,
among other things, decided that the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization and the
authors of the resolution of 1995, in consultation To convene with the states of the region, in 2012,
a conference in which all states in the Middle East would participate, for the establishment of a
nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass free zone, due to free agreements between the
states of the region and full Support and commitment of states that have nuclear weapons.
[ CITATION UN00 \l 2057 ]
Mindful that Israel is the only state in the Middle East that is not yet a member of the treaty,
Concerned about the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for security and stability
in the Middle East region, Highlighting the need for confidence-building measures, notably to create
a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, to strengthen peace and security in the region, and to
strengthen the non-proliferation regime in the world, stressing also the need for all parties directly
concerned to consider urgently concrete measures to implement the proposal to establish a nuclear-
free zone in the Middle East, in accordance with the relevant resolutions to achieve those objectives,
and to enforce them to invite the countries concerned to accede to the Treaty and to accept their
nuclear activities under Agency protection measures pending the creation of the Zone.
[ CITATION UN00 \l 2057 ]
 Noting that 183 states have signed the Full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, including a number of states
in the region, Welcomes the conclusions on the GCC states formulated by the Conference of Parties
to oversee the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010; Affirms that it is important for Israel to accede to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 2 and to place all its nuclear facilities under the protection of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to achieve its objective of joining the treaty of all
States of the Region, can be reached. Immediately accede to this treaty, not to design, fabricate,
attempt or otherwise acquire any nuclear weapons, to renounce the possession of nuclear weapons,
and to place its non-guaranteed nuclear facilities under the comprehensive guarantees of the
Agency important confidence-building measure for all countries in the region and a step towards
consolidating peace and security. [ CITATION UN00 \l 2057 ]
It also requests the Secretary-General to report to her sixty-eighth session on the implementation of
this resolution. Decides in the provisional agenda of its sixty-eighth session the item entitled “The
risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East". According to the Swedish peace research institute,
countries in the crisis region have more than doubled their arms imports over the past five years.
The leader among the Arab countries was Saudi Arabia between 2013 and 2017. The KSA is the
second largest weapon importer in the world after India. Riyadh has therefore increased its
armaments purchases by 225 percent compared to the last investigation period from 2008 to 2012.
Money is no problem for the rich dynasty surrounding the impetuous Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. [ CITATION UN \l 2057 ]
Debate about nuclear deal with Iran

The government in Jerusalem has entered into this alliance to stop Iran's advance. Israel sees the
Islamic Republic as a threat, especially the nuclear project. The atomic agreements concluded in
Vienna in July 2015 between Iran and the group of the five UN-Veto powers and Germany deem
Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and also US President Donald Trump to be too lax.

Trump has been calling for some time for additions to the Civil Nuclear Utilities Agreement. If the
government in Teheran remains tough, he wants to withdraw from the agreement and thus de facto
dissolve the arms control treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warns of failure.
[ CITATION IAE \l 2057 ]

Nuclear power plants in the next ten years

The fear of a nuclear power Iran is also driving Sunni-Arab countries around. Many have not only
expanded their conventional and state-of-the-art arsenals over the past five years, but have also
pushed civilian nuclear programs:

Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 state-of-the-art nuclear power plants over the next few years. A
tender for the first two nuclear reactors is already running. In December, it should be clear who gets
the deal. Among the five competitors is also a Russian company.

As early as December, Russia signed a contract with Egypt for the construction of four nuclear power
plants. They should be ready for use by 2028. In 2016, Moscow also agreed with Jordan on the
construction of two nuclear reactors. The Hashemite Kingdom wants to be able to produce nuclear
energy by 2025. The United Arab Emirates are already there. There, the first of four planned South
Korean nuclear power plants is expected to be operational this year.

It is true that these four countries, along with 118 nations last July, pledged not to seek nuclear
weapons. Officially, they only want to produce electricity. But the continuing wars in the region and
the great conflict between Riyadh and Tehran are fuelling fears of a nuclear Middle East. [ CITATION
The14 \l 2057 ]
Nuclear race in the GCC States

Of the nine nuclear powers known to date, only the United States, the Soviet Union and the United
Kingdom were able to build bombs without having previously started civilian nuclear programs. All
the other six countries - India, Pakistan, China, France, Israel, and North Korea - had to build civilian
nuclear programs before they could eventually use them to build their nuclear bombs. [ CITATION
Ben11 \l 2057 ]

For a long time, the Arab states have been upset that the international community is unable to
sanction Israel for its covert nuclear weapons program. Another stumbling block is the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which, according to Arab views, cemented the lead of the original five
nuclear-weapon states over all other countries.

However, the situation now seems to be changing: in recent years, it has become increasingly
difficult for the United States to exert its deterrent power in the Middle East. Moreover, in the eyes
of their constituents, Arab governments are increasingly perceived as weak and incompetent, as if
they were merely trying to assert American interests in the Middle East. [ CITATION UN18 \l 2057 ]

Due to the unusually dynamic nature of the current political climate, the Arab countries are receiving
unprecedented regional support for their nuclear programs. As a result, some of these countries
have begun to develop and implement civil nuclear programs for energy production, with the aim of
producing nuclear weapons in the future.

Nuclear Programs happening in the GCC states that encompass the Middle East:

Egypt has launched a massive research infrastructure to study most aspects of nuclear science and
technology. In December 2017, the Egyptians signed a binding agreement with Russia to jointly build
the first Egyptian nuclear power plant with four reactors in El Dabba. The first reactor should go into
operation in 2026.

Algeria has one of the best and most advanced nuclear facilities in the entire Arab world. Its massive
nuclear program has been following the country since the late 1980s.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia's nuclear program is still in its infancy. As a result, over a 20-year period,
the kingdom is planning to build 16 nuclear power plants, which together cost more than $ 80
billion.

Turkey has the advantage of already having a well-functioning nuclear research agency. On
December 2, 2017, the country in Akkuyu officially opened the construction site for its first nuclear
power plant. It should reach a capacity of 4.8 gigawatts and remain in operation for 60 years.

The United Arab Emirates have repeatedly taken steps towards nuclear power. In Barakah, a
consortium led by KEPCO is building four Korean-style reactors. The first of these plants is scheduled
to go into operation in 2019. [ CITATION Reu19 \l 2057 ]

Morocco has only limited scientific and technical experience in the nuclear field. Nevertheless, the
government plans to build its first nuclear power plant at Sidi Boulbra. Tunisia is investigating the
possible construction of a 600 MW nuclear facility at a site in the north or south of the country. The
goal is to commission the power plant 2020.

Jordan is already in a position to launch a nuclear program. But the ambitious plans are hampered by
the limited capacity of the country's nuclear infrastructure. In Amra north of Amman, the
construction of a 600-megawatt nuclear reactor is planned. The plant should be ready by 2020.
The problem of detection

All these states say they do not want to develop nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is a fact that
states that have achieved a degree of nuclear capability often also develop weapons. Civil nuclear
programs facilitate the illegal procurement of materials. Such programs provide the technology and
knowledge to secretly build nuclear weapons. Equipment or materials suitable for both civilian and
military nuclear programs can be procured without arousing suspicion, as the military programs are
small and difficult to detect.

Arab states pursuing civilian nuclear programs could try to play off Russian, Chinese and European
nuclear interests against each other in order to increase their power over their main ally - the United
States. In addition to China and North Korea, Russia is a good contact for these purposes.[ CITATION
Ben11 \l 2057 ]

The danger of spreading nuclear technology in the Middle East is exacerbated by the fact that the
region is governed largely autocratically. In addition, the risk of nuclear technologies being abused
increases through regime change and the ever-increasing dissolution of state structures.[ CITATION
Ben11 \l 2057 ]

The nuclear weapons will be detected even with complicated security systems. But when the nuclear
program is fully developed, it is better to introduce it to UN and IAEA so that they can study it and
regulate it for the country’s use. The IAEA and UN will also make sure that there are no sanctions
imposed on the country who is trying to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. In addition, if the
enrichment of uranium goes beyond certain limit, it must also be in the knowledge of regulatory
bodies so that they can be informed about new developments. The enhancement in nuclear
technology to improve the country’s defence is one of the main aspects of nuclear programs. The UN
and IAEA can help smoothen the process and also introduce variety of new programs that a country
can follow to make their systems safe from the people who can use it for wars.

Strategic alliances

More and more sophisticated and strategically important technologies are flowing into the GCC
states. This is facilitated by agreements between the countries of the region and other global players
motivated by political and economic power interests - and the desire to sell weapons and
equipment. It cannot be ruled out that some countries are looking for "abbreviations". They not only
develop their civilian programs, but also try to acquire suitable weapons systems.

The fact that nuclear options are being sought in the Middle East gives countries the right to take
action and to forge alliances with states that have nuclear technology - with the aim of achieving a
military balance in the region and defending their own interests. A nuclear Middle East would have a
significant impact on the security and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world. It is
quite possible that some countries - in the foreseeable future - will decide to withdraw from the
NPT. [ CITATION MEP17 \l 2057 ]

And one thing is clear: as long as Israel is not involved, the goal of total nuclear disarmament in the
Middle East cannot be achieved. If a single country has the ability to produce and use nuclear
weapons, it makes no sense for others to renounce their own nuclear capabilities. What is granted
to one country cannot be denied to the rest of the region. [ CITATION UN00 \l 2057 ] This is why
there must be same law must be applied to all the states who do not have nuclear programs in
progress or on all the states which have fully developed their nuclear programs and now are either
making power plants based on them or have been using the technology to produce nuclear
weapons.

Israel's nuclear weapons are fuelling nuclear armament in the Middle East

Israel is so far the only country in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons - although it has
never officially admitted this. As long as these weapons are not the subject of regional security
negotiations, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is likely. so goods. The nuclear energy
programs of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt may have served to build an option for nuclear weapons to
counterbalance Israel. Negotiations on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East
could break this dynamic. There should be a conference in Helsinki in December. However, the
Israeli government renounced its participation so that the conference was postponed indefinitely.
[ CITATION Lio06 \l 2057 ]

In the Middle East, there is a state that has nuclear weapons, that is Israel. In the context of security
issues in the Middle East, there is likely to be a proliferation of nuclear weapons, as long as one does
not address Israeli nuclear weapons. That concerns, for example, Iran. Iran says it does not seek
nuclear weapons; nevertheless, the Iranians - along with the Arab states - are very upset that there
is no change in the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons. And so the nuclear energy programs that drive
some of these states - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt - may be designed to develop nuclear weapons,
should that be the case. This could be more rational than generating energy, because these
countries have other alternatives than nuclear energy.

Iran is furthest apart from Israel, where uranium enrichment is involved, meaning that it can develop
nuclear weapons capacity relatively quickly. But to deal with that, it does not make sense to point to
Iran with only one finger, because that will not work. Iran will ask why it points to it and not Israel,
which has nuclear weapons, or Pakistan or China or the US. We need to work on regional and global
disarmament to stop the spread, we cannot just tell one state not to do it when everyone else does.
It's like parents smoking 10 boxes of cigarettes daily and telling their children not to smoke. That
does not work. [ CITATION Ben11 \l 2057 ] [ CITATION The14 \l 2057 ]

But there is indeed a proposal for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle
East - and for a ban on other weapons of mass destruction in the region - and this proposal has been
greatly advanced by the NPT. An international conference of governments will be held in December
to begin the process of establishing such a zone. This is a positive approach, and it looks like Israel
and Iran will participate in it - the moderators are still negotiating about it in some form - but most
likely they will somehow participate in it. And that can provide a foundation on which to move
forward to define the rules for nuclear weapons in the area. Of course, Israel will need some security
guarantees to refrain from its nuclear weapons, but that could be part of a nuclear-free zone,
because that's what warrants the nuclear-weapon-owning states are not going to attack the states in
the zone. Israel will probably also need the recognition of its right to exist by the Arab states and
Iran. And it is that these states would also be willing to give up their nuclear weapons if Israel gives
up. So it seems that there is a chance of success here, not right now, because there is a lot of
suspicion and a lot of bad blood that needs to be overcome, but there is definitely a chance of
progress. It is definitely a much better approach than threatening or even attacking Iran. but that
could be part of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, because that's what it's all about: Guarantees from
nuclear-weapon-owning states that they will not attack the states in the zone. Israel will probably
also need the recognition of its right to exist by the Arab states and Iran. And it is that these states
would also be willing to give up their nuclear weapons if Israel gives up. It is definitely a much better
approach than threatening or even attacking Iran. It needs to be overcome, but there is definitely a
chance to move forward. It is definitely a much better approach than threatening or even attacking
Iran. [ CITATION UN98 \l 2057 ]

Both countries are in the United Nations, actually quite close to one another, because there is an
alphabetical order: Iran, Iraq, Israel. The same applies to the other international bodies, such as the
Antiparliamentary Union, in which both Iran and Israel are members. So they can sit at the same
table. But: It has to happen in a way that neither of you feels threatened or as if it's all against them.
That is why it is difficult to call a bilateral meeting, they would not agree to that, but they will appear
and attend an international meeting. [ CITATION NYT \l 2057 ]

Nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament

With the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 began the "atomic
age", which produced the risk technology "nuclear energy" for civil purposes, but also the nuclear
weapons. Despite some attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation from the beginning, a ruinous and
dangerous arms race unfolded between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War,
peaking in 1986 at some 86,000 nuclear weapons. The crises over Berlin (1948/1949, 1958/1961),
the Korean War (1950-1953) and Cuba (1962) made clear that nuclear weapons cannot be used. A
global nuclear war would have meant the end of modern civilization. From then on, the superpowers
tried to control their sprawling arsenals and prevent their further spread. This was the birth of
modern arms control and non-proliferation. A central cornerstone is the 1968 Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), the terms of which are now reviewed by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). Further development of new generations of nuclear weapons (vertical proliferation) and
"suitable" launchers Nonetheless, it continued to establish nuclear deterrence between the five
nuclear-weapon states of the United States, Russia, France, China, and Britain. Nuclear strategies
have been refined, resulting in a vast arsenal of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons for a wide
variety of deployment scenarios. The nuclear threat prompted other countries to acquire nuclear
arsenals themselves, be it for reasons of power status, prestige or security considerations. Today
India (since 1974, 1998), Pakistan (1998), Israel (1970s) and North Korea (2006) are considered de
facto nuclear weapons states. The horizontal retransmission, ie ultimately the emergence of new
nuclear states, continues to this day. The struggle over Iran's ambitious civilian nuclear program
highlights the difficulties faced by states that use nuclear energy to verify that a military dimension
can be ruled out. [ CITATION Dig \l 2057 ]

There are about 17270 nuclear weapons worldwide today. While the other categories of
conventional weapons of mass destruction, so certain weapons are forbidden under international
law by convention, this is true today for nuclear weapons is limited to. The use of nuclear weapons
under international law does not generally prohibit, on the other hand, customary law taboo and
morally outlawed. The following is an overview of the state and prospects of nuclear non-
proliferation, arms control and disarmament, almost 70 years after the end of World War II and
more than 20 years after the end of Cold War system competition. [ CITATION UN17 \l 2057 ]

The nuclear Damocles sword

Today's third generation of nuclear weapons has a thousand-fold destructive power of the
Hiroshima bomb and can destroy a big city. In contrast to conventional weapons, three effects are
produced against which there is no direct defence: enormous heat, a blast, and lethal gamma
radiation. The indirect destructive effects are long-lasting fallout, which can spread over a large area
and, depending on the level of explosion, climatic consequences, which can cause global cascade
effects such as temperature drop and consequent crop failures, and famine of apocalyptic
proportions. [ CITATION Nat \l 2057 ]

After the end of the East-West conflict, a global nuclear war with a large number of nuclear weapons
is considered unlikely. Nevertheless, four scenarios are discussed in which nuclear weapons could be
used: 1. Accident could lead to a chain reaction or a release of nuclear material. During the Cold
War, there were dozens of accidents where it was difficult to prevent a nuclear explosion. 2. Nuclear
use "by mistake" due to misinformation and miscalculations is not ruled out in the face of many
stationed nuclear weapons. 3. If nuclear-weapon-capable material can be diverted from the civil or
military fuel cycle, "terrorists" can build a "primitive nuclear weapon" or explode a radiological
bomb. The nuclear old stocks of the superpowers are a source with a high proliferation risk. 4. A
regional nuclear war between two hostile countries, such as India and Pakistan, seems just as
possible as the theft of an intact nuclear weapon or weapons-grade material in a collapsing state.
[ CITATION Cur82 \l 2057 ]

All the above concerns are kept in mind while developing and installing the technology. The benefits
of using this technology over oil and gas are another factor to switch to nuclear to meet the energy
demands. At the same time, the nuclear power can be harnessed to invest in other areas where the
water treatment plants can be powered by them. The complete nuclear cycle can also be
complemented by using the technology. However, the power plants will have to based far away
from the cities as problems can occur during operation and maintenance which must not be ignored
during the discussion of nuclear programs.

Safety of Nuclear Program – Plants and Power

The important question that everyone asks regarding Nuclear Energy is about its safety and control.
The safety technology and the underlying safety philosophy of country’s reactors meet very
stringent and high standards. For a permit, the nuclear power plants in a country has to meet
numerous requirements and undergo numerous controls and tests. These restrictions and controls
are for nuclear power that can be used to meet the energy demands in terms of heat, power and
electricity. [ CITATION Wor18 \l 2057 ]

For instance, the nuclear power plants are equipped with state-of-the-art active and passive safety
systems in UK and Europe. In the event that a system fails, there are replacement systems such as a
multiple and spatially separate cooling or emergency power supply. It is ensured that the system can
be switched off at any time. In addition, Western reactors have a pressure- and gas tight steel and
concrete envelope, the so-called "containment". Even in the unlikely event of human or technical
failure, there are no dangers to humans and the environment. This ensures safety for the workers
that are working at the plant and also for the people who are living nearby as a tragedy can force
people to migrate away from the place as the radiations emitted by the element are devastating and
they keep on radiating it until their half-life has arrived. [ CITATION Nuc \l 2057 ]

The nuclear power plants are subject to constant and independent monitoring and control by the
federal and state authorities. The nuclear power plant operators regularly exchange all relevant
information with the supervisory authorities. Considerable sums of money are constantly being
invested in the maintenance, retrofitting and improvement of the reactor facilities. The practical
experience will be included in the further developments. This guarantees that even older systems
meet the very high safety standards. The employees in the nuclear power plants are motivated and
highly qualified. [ CITATION IAE17 \l 2057 ] Extensive on-the-job training and regular further training
ensure the highest level of specialist know-how. Last but not least, the export of security technology
from one to other countries also leads to an improvement in the nuclear facilities there and an
increase in security. If it were to stay out of nuclear energy, country threatens not only the loss of
competence but also a loss of the right to participate in international committees. A continued
operation of the power plants beyond the currently scheduled running time is safe and technically
feasible. Many countries are already following the path of the term extension. This could be
beneficial for countries in the GCC states to use the existing technology for their own projects that
are related to generating green energy and construct them according to the standards and control
theories that are critical for power plant. [ CITATION Nat \l 2057 ]

The questionnaire was done to investigate how people reacted to the question about the safety of
the nuclear program and whether it is now more safe. 87% agreed with the safety of the program
and it affirms that opinion about the present nuclear technology and how safe it is to operate. The
Middle East can use the existing technology to construct the plant that is based on the varied and
strong principles and technical information that is needed to ensure the safe operation. The majority
of people who think the nuclear program is safe than before is another indication that the local
government will face very less opposition when they want to switch to nuclear power to generate
energy so that they will depend less on oil and gas. [ CITATION Wor18 \l 2057 ]

Nuclear Proliferation – Bombs and discussion on them

The importance of the atomic bomb for international state relations has hardly been analysed from a
global historical perspective. It is true that political science international relations research has
attempted to analyse the atomic bomb as a factor of international state relations by means of
theoretical modelling. However, this political-scientific sub-discipline could not detach itself from its
ahistorical actor concepts, which are informed by the various theory schools. Historians, on the
other hand, have studied the atomic bomb intensively as an element of national foreign policy, but
have just begun to discuss the connection between globalization, nuclear weapons and international
relations. But how can the existence and spread of atomic weapons be located within the
globalization processes of international relations in the 20th century? How can the effect of atomic
bombings on interstate interdependencies, networks of international institutions and the horizon of
expectation of political and social actors be historicized? [ CITATION For1 \l 2057 ] To what extent
does the global history of the atomic bomb in international relations fit into existing
historiographical narratives? For example, could the historian Peter Fassler speak of a "division of
the 'globalization field' in the second half of the 20th century along the block boundaries between
East and West and West, but did not go over this? Or was the atomic bomb a phenomenon of "half
globalization", which, according to Jürgen Osterhammel and Niels Petersson, was limited to the
Western alliance? In the following it is discussed to what extent the atomic bombings on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in international relations were received globally and evaluated in global terms.
[ CITATION Ben11 \l 2057 ]

The nuclear bombs are another aspect of nuclear elements that cannot be ignored. The nuclear
proliferation to a dangerous level that can be used to manufacture weapon grade nuclear fuel is
always a threat that must be monitored. There are regulatory bodies which are in contact with
countries where there is nuclear technology being used. The purpose of them is to ensure that
countries do not violate certain laws that make the country vulnerable to a disaster. [ CITATION
Wor1 \l 2057 ]

Contrary to the prophecies of US and Soviet provenance cited at the outset, as they were expressed
around 1945/46, the atomic bomb was by no means a revolutionary factor in the realpolitik, which
forced a stronger regulation of international relations between states. Rather, the atomic bomb
seemed to fit into the traditional categories of conventional strategic military considerations and
imperial zones of influence. A system of strict international control, even "world government", could
not prevail. [ CITATION RAN \l 2057 ]

Accordingly, a changed tone prevailed among the political-scientific commentators of the USA as
early as 1947: the idea of a world government was now criticized as wishful thinking, which put
"desirability" above "probability". Especially dealing with the atomic bomb question shows that an
effective supranational control of state action under the given institutional framework, but perhaps
also due to certain constants of foreign policy action is hardly possible. Instead, one should resort to
the well-tried means of interstate treaties to establish a minimum of security. Having initially
motivated and fuelled initiatives for stronger international cooperation, the nuclear issue has now all
the more clearly demonstrated its limitations and probably contributed to the rise of "realistic"
dogma in international relations theory, according to which states are always selfishly pursuing their
power interests. [ CITATION AWS \l 2057 ]

It is noteworthy, however, that the hopeful atomic rhetoric nevertheless did not disappear from the
political language: In response to the first Soviet atomic bomb test, President Truman demanded in
September 1949 a "truly effective enforceable international control of atomic energy". This did not
really matter for the time being, but remained situational as a moral appeal. This is most clearly
shown in the resolutions of the US-dominated UN General Assembly, which in the 1940s and 1950s
repeatedly called for the "elimination of atomic weapons" - indeed a distant reminder - and warned
against a "destruction of civilization". [ CITATION AWS \l 2057 ][ CITATION Wor18 \l 2057 ]

The Soviet leadership played no less virtuously on the keyboard of the "blame game" - the mutual
submission of insincere intentions. In November 1949, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei reiterated
American rhetoric: "We are being presented with a plan that will satisfy no one except those who do
not wish to ban or control [nuclear weapons]." Since then, the Soviet Union now even had atomic
bombs and as zealously researched a hydrogen bomb, the official Soviet narrative shifted to a
positive reception of nuclear energy as a motor of progress. Thus, the American push for
international control of nuclear resources was also rejected because, it would lead to a "paralysis of
all economic systems", in which "the power of atomic energy plays a special role". At the same time,
the Soviet Foreign Minister again called for "practical measures to ban nuclear weapons and the
establishment of strict international control", thus reproducing the American initiative almost
equally. [ CITATION IAE \l 2057 ][ CITATION UN \l 2057 ]

The brief internationalist high spirits after the end of the Second World War thus had no structural
impact on the role of the atomic bomb in the international state system in the period of the
beginning of the Cold War. For a global history of the atomic bomb, however, it is significant in that
it was already common at this time to talk about nuclear weapons and their role in the international
state system in the mode of a responsibility imperative. [ CITATION Wor18 \l 2057 ][ CITATION Nat \l
2057 ]

Post 1960s: Cooperation instead of crisis

For the efforts of the superpowers to stabilize the atomic bomb as a factor of international relations,
however, the often postulated mutual confidence of the heads of state seems to have played a
decisive role, rather than the revaluation of the problem of proliferation: The possible worldwide
proliferation of nuclear weapons was opposed The above described concepts of transfer within the
own block - increasingly understood as a serious problem. This shows, for example, a resolution of
the UN General Assembly of 1959, which for the first time no longer demanded "international
control" but explicitly the "prevention of the dissemination" of nuclear weapons. An American
scientific analysis in 1959 assumed that the acquisition of weapons by largest and middle-sized
states was imminent and, although highly problematic, this could hardly be prevented. [ CITATION
FAS \l 2057 ]

The proliferation of nuclear weapons was understood as a process driven by a chain of global
interdependencies. For example, the US State Department feared that Japan's possible nuclear
weapons would encourage India in its plans for nuclear rearmament, which in turn would provide
options and horizons for other states (including West Germany) could influence. However, unlike the
1959 analysis cited above, a CIA report in 1964 argued that the proliferation of nuclear weapons
could well be prevented politically-perhaps confidence in diplomatic solutions had increased in the
meantime.[ CITATION IAE \l 2057 ][ CITATION For1 \l 2057 ]

The development towards intergovernmental cooperation in the nuclear issue in the 1960s can be
explained on the basis of rational interests: after France and later China had entered the nuclear
weapons club, the nuclear powers feared their relative loss of power and thus increasingly came into
a "nuclear complicity" or "proto-détente", What threatened to soften the camp formation: Great
Britain and France turned against the US-American plan, at least passively, to integrate the FRG into
an atomic armaments community and pleaded together with the Soviet Union for a non-
proliferation treaty. The Soviet government shared the view of the US that China should have no
nuclear weapons. The Kennedy administration even considered a joint nuclear-military action with
the Soviet Union against China. In 1969, the Soviet Union made such a proposal. The declining
willingness of the superpowers to transfer technology within their own blocs and the efforts to limit
the proliferation of nuclear weapons on a global scale are against the thesis of a "division of the
'globalization field' along the block boundaries. [ CITATION FAS \l 2057 ][ CITATION Wor18 \l 2057 ]

Further reasons suggest that the developments of the 1960s can only be understood inadequately
by the bipolar grid of the Cold War. Because early on, non-aligned states such as Brazil had tried to
profile themselves on the policy field of disarmament and nuclear weapons control. Links were
established with other topics relevant to these states: a call was made to symmetrically reduce
nuclear weapons budgets in order to invest the released funds in development aid. [ CITATION Dig \l
2057 ][ CITATION Ben11 \l 2057 ]

The nuclear taboo as a global norm

It is questionable whether the atomic taboo actually, as Tannenwald writes, did not establish itself
until around 1960. With regard to broad (civil) social and state initiatives to outlaw nuclear weapons,
it could be argued that the "nuclear taboo" began much earlier and was already present in the
consciousness of the people in East and West in the 1950s. Thus, heads of state of democratic
societies were never able to pursue foreign policy independently of the domestic political discourse.
Foreign policy decisions were fed back to national publics. Johnston and Harrison also point out that
even dictatorships of their own societies owe, if only to a limited extent, accountability for foreign
policy issues, pointing to the tremendous response of the Stockholm appeal to the proscription of
nuclear weapons. Accordingly, one could assume - in addition to the instrumental use of public
opinion as a weapon in the Cold War - a retroactive effect on governments, which could not ignore
this mood for their policies. [ CITATION Ama \l 2057 ]

In spite of all the previous activities that have happened during the 1940s to 1960s, the nuclear
technology is still famous and is continuing to grow. Although there are dangers associated with it
but countries still want to acquire it so that they can feel safe from others and they have something
to show it to the powerful ones that they have what it takes to defend themselves. [ CITATION
Imm \l 2057 ]

Questionnaire

A questionnaire was done as discussed above to understand the basic feedback from the people
regarding the nuclear technology and its use for energy and making weapon grade uranium to keep
the power countries at bay.

Questions:

1. Nuclear program is more safe than before. Do you agree or disagree?

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

2. The nuclear proliferation programs in developing countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
make the world safe and secure.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

3. To what extent if any do you agree that Israel has been involved in terrorism and is still
participating in activities that are not related to them?

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

4. It is piratical to participate in deals that are concerning the arms negotiations.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided
D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

5. Nuclear technology must be used for peaceful purposes to make sure countries can meet
their energy demand.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

6. The nuclear technology must be shared between the neighbouring countries so that they
can benefit from it and improve their security and energy supply.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

7. In the recent times, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has become the cornerstone of a
loosely structured non-proliferation regime due to various countries being involved in
nuclear programs without the regulatory bodies being involved in it.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

8. The Cold War and Arab War were mainly the reasons for the evolution of nuclear weapon
and countries started taking interest in them.

A. Strongly Agree
B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

9. The arms control, deterrence, and Mutual Assured Destruction are important for every
country who are manufacturing nuclear weapons and are also generating energy

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

10. It is believed that a nuclear-armed Iran would cause the spread of nuclear weapons in the
GCC states and will strengthen the states from safety point of view and will make the non-
proliferation regime weaker

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

11. The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency is significant in determining how much
fuel is being used for weapons and how much of it is used for nuclear power for energy.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose
 12. Today’s nuclear weapons pose an existential risk even when they are used for peaceful
purposes as the nuclear waste is difficult to manage.

A. Strongly Agree

B. Agree

C. Undecided

D. Oppose

E. Strongly Oppose

These questions were posted with the view that it will give clear image as what the people think and
it will help the government in making the policy accordingly. 257 people were given the card that
contained the questionnaire. The survey was done around the universities and super markets. The
following graphs and various tables show the responses for the questions.

The table shows the percentage of people that answered each question:

S. No Questions Number of Percentage of people

respondents answered
1 Q1 220 85.6%
2 Q2 120 46.70&
3 Q3 250 97.27%
4 Q4 210 81.71%
5 Q5 178 69.20%
6 Q6 192 74.71%
7 Q7 247 96.11%
8 Q8 231 89.88%
9 Q9 217 84.44%
10 Q10 251 97.66%
11 Q11 102 39.69%
12 Q12 170 66.15%
 Percentage of People Answered

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

The number of responses were useful in many ways. Firstly, the people were reluctant to answer
some questions because they were not interested in the topic but at the same time, they were
willing to answer some of the questions and almost 80-90% people answered either in strongly
agree or disagreed completely with the intent of having the nuclear program in the GCC states.

Coming to the first 2 questions that talked about the safety of nuclear program and then if the
program is developed in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar which are the GCC states, majority of the ones
that answered were convinced that nuclear program is extremely safe and if the nuclear
proliferation program is developed in these countries and can be expanded in others, it will make
the world safer than before.

When it comes to Israel and Middle East, Israel has been continuously threating the region with its
terrorism in Palestine and in the countries that shares their borders with it. Due to the continuous
threats to the region, countries in the GCC states consider getting involved in nuclear proliferation so
that they can develop the technology for their own benefit and also secure their borders from the
threat of Israel. The question was asked to the people about this issue where almost 98% voted that
they consider Israel as a terrorist country and this country has been continuously involved in
activities that disrupt the peace of the region. [ CITATION Her \l 2057 ]

Nuclear Energy for Arms and Energy

For the operation of light water reactors, which dominate the world today, uranium is needed in a
weak enrichment of about 3-4%. This uses enrichment technologies that were already needed for
weapons programs. In the reactors, the "uranium machines", plutonium (about 250 kilograms per
year per gigawatt of reactor power) is produced as a by-product when the uranium fuel rods burn
off.

At its core, fast breeders should use plutonium as fuel. At the same time, more plutonium is to be
obtained in a natural manure incubator than was used for the operation. The additionally produced
plutonium would consist almost exclusively of plutonium-239. However, this plutonium is also highly
sought after for weapon applications, as the above-indicated problems in the construction of
plutonium weapons would be significantly reduced. For the desired access to the fissile reprocessing
would be mandatory. Decades of efforts to realize a functional breeding reactor have nowhere been
successful. About smaller experimental breeders you have practically come out. The extreme
challenges to safety and material technology are taken to ensure that any type of disaster can be
averted.

IAEA and Treaty Regulations

IAEA is an important body in the field of nuclear energy. It consists of nuclear scientists who regulate
many policies related to nuclear power and also keep an eye on how the Uranium enrichment is
being managed by various countries. Any non-nuclear-weapon State Party shall undertake to adopt
the security controls set out in a contract to be negotiated and concluded with the International
Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and
the security control system of that Organization and for the sole purpose of verifying compliance
with its requirements commitments to prevent nuclear energy from being diverted from peaceful
uses to nuclear or other nuclear explosive devices. The measures relating to the safety controls
required by this Article shall be carried out in respect of starting material or special fissile materials,
whether it is manufactured, refurbished or used in an actual nuclear power plant or located outside
of such an installation. The security controls prescribed shall apply to any source material or special
fissile material in any peaceful nuclear energy work carried out within the territory of, under or
otherwise under the jurisdiction of that State. [ CITATION IAE1 \l 2057 ]

References
Amacad. Emerging Risks and Declining Norms in the Age of Technolog. [Online]

AWS. Nuclear Scholars Initiative: A Collection of Papers. [Online]

Benjamin K. Sovacool . 2011. Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment
of Atomic Energy, . [Online] 2011.

Current Affairs Bulletin. 1982. "The global health effects of nuclear war". [Online] 1982.

Digital Comms. Nuclear Weapons and International Law - LMU Digital Commons. [Online]
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=ilr.

FAS Org. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: DIMINISHING THREAT? [Online]

Foreign Affairs. The Atom Bomb as Policy Maker. [Online]

Heritage Foundation. Middle East- Nuclear. [Online]

IAEA and UN. Federal Law Consolidated: Entire Legislation for Non-Proliferation Treaty. [Online]

IAEA. 2017. Computerization of operation and maintenance for nuclear power plants. [Online] 2017.

—. IAEA and Iran: Chronology of Key Events. 2014. [Online]

Immotinaname. The history of CND - Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. [Online]

Lionel Beehner. 2006. Israel’s Nuclear Program and Middle East Peace. [Online] 2006.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/israels-nuclear-program-and-middle-east-peace.

MEPC. 2017. Iranian Nuclear Aspirations and Strategic Balancing in the Middle East. [Online] 2017.

National - International. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on Locals. [Online]

Nuclues IAEA. The Role of Passiv Safety in Nuclear. [Online] https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjq0-
KZ6c3hAhVLo1kKHbFnDBQQFjABegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnucleus.iaea.org%2Fsites%2Fgsan
%2Fact%2FCN-251%2Fpapers%2F27-1-27._Paper_Final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1ZDkyK4ToOdvBUX.

NYTimes. Opinion | The U.N.'s War on Israel - The New York Times. [Online]

RAND Corp. Military Aspects of International Relations. [Online]

Reuters. 2019. UAE regulator in final stages of issuing license for nuclear plant. [Online] 2019.

The Economist. 2014. The revolution is over. [Online] 2014.

Tobin Project. Nuclear in the Middle East. [Online]

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Byman%20%26%20Moller%20-
%20The%20United%20States%20and%20the%20Middle%20East_0.pdf.

UN. 1998. ELIMINATION OF MIDDLE EAST'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STRESSED IN

DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE DEBATE. [Online] 1998.
https://www.un.org/press/en/1998/19981020.gads3116.html.

—. 2018. Nuclear Weapons . [Online] 2018.

—. 2000. Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty. [Online] 2000.

—. Seventy-Second Session of the General Assembly. [Online]

—. 2017. Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons – UNODA. [Online] 2017.

World Nuclear . 2018. Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. [Online] May 2018. http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-
reactors.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards. [Online]