Why can the United States accept that France and the UK have nuclear weapons, but not Iran and North Korea?

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION Student Name Course Name of Professor University Date Comparative Analysis of International Responses to Nuclear Proliferation The issue of the United States’ stance on the nuclear weapons possession of France, the United Kingdom, Iran, and North Korea presents a complex problem due to historical ties, diplomatic considerations, and the pursuit of global security. While France and established NATO allies are considered responsible custodians of nuclear capabilities, Iran and North Korea are perceived as antagonistic to the coalition of NATO members prepared to possess nuclear weapons. The implication is that these two nations could disrupt regional and global security dynamics by pursuing their nuclear ambitions. It underscores the perception of a divide between responsible nuclear powers and those viewed as potential threats, framing international responses to nuclear proliferation in maintaining stability and deterring destabilising actions by certain states (Huntley, 2006, p.740). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) sees nuclear weapons as having been a crucial component in the Alliance’s deterrence and defence posture for over 70 years. As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, NATO’s function as a nuclear alliance is guaranteed. However, it is committed to establishing a security architecture that ensures the enforcement of this pact and others, aiming to achieve additional reductions in nuclear weapons. This article analyses the distinctive conditions, strategic positions, alliance ties, and geo-political consequences that shape the actions of the United States in response to the situation and difficulties at hand. It also offers a comprehensive explanation of the possibility of greater responsibility. The past historical line of the United States’ choice to let France and Britain act as nuclear fission states is rooted in the ups of World War II. After confining these states to the United States itself throughout the 5-year war in 1949, it led to the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (Huntley, 2006, p.741). This partnership led to the creation of a close cooperative relationship between the United States and its European allies, especially between France and Great Britain, with regard to politics of security and defence. In addition, the imposition of a Nuclear Sharing framework, which leads to the calculated access and possibly the usage of nuclear weapons by the member states, facilitates the acceptance of the tangible nuclear security systems possessed by France and Britain. Such arms-sharing arrangements allowed allies to distribute nuclear resources and knowledge to increase collective defence among the allies while tightening stringent oversight and control conditions. It should be mentioned that the reliability of this kind of data is highly dependent on how well these data are collected and historical accounts put together. On the other hand, the United States did not object to Great Britain and France’s acquisition of nuclear power. The US always disagreed with North Korea and Iran pursuing nuclear ambitions and missile programs with no delay (Davenport et al., 2021, p.10). The US government will never be content with stability in these states’ atomic arsenal fields. The US has defined Iran and North Korea as enemies with the objective of confining their nuclear programs as they pose a global threat to the security not only of the region but more so at the international level (Takeyh, 2019, p. 365). With Iran’s efforts to build nuclear technology, which is always claimed to be peaceful, it has been the chief reason for the long-running tense relations and sometimes economic sanctions imposed by other countries. The US and the allied countries have explicitly demonstrated their dread of Iran’s nuclear program and hold that the country might use its weapons to devastate this already volatile region of the Middle East. It, furthermore, supports the individuals and groups that are bent upon political destabilization. Similarly, Pyongyang’s development of nuclear weapons and advanced missile capabilities have heightened the tensions on the Korean peninsula and the unstable and confrontational nature of the North Korean regime, in conjunction with its ambition to build ICBMs capable of reaching the US mainland, has amplified geopolitical hazards such as eventually going to the Korean Peninsula war and destabilizing the overall Asia-Pacific region. The historical context of these countries’ nuclear has provided the basis for the United States’ decision in dealing with the non-proliferation efforts. Conversely, while France and Britain were actively integrated into those allies who possess nuclear weapons that NATO, Iran and North Korea formed, were the international community subject to scrutiny and pressure to prevent their nuclear programs (Kroenig, 2018, p.96). This differentiation represents the multifaceted nature of diplomatic alliances, security conundrums, and the quest for a peaceful nuclear world. The United States’ stance of giving their approval to France and Great Britain possessing nuclear weapons also reflects the strong ties that keep the NATO alliance in place and working for global security. Nuclear deterrence within the alliance has demonstrated that it is behind the prevention of prospective conflicts by a member state and the defence of the member states jointly. France and the UK, for their part, also figured in the NATO strategy of nuclear deterrence reinforcement security of the alliance as a whole. In contrast, mainly because of the threat these countries pose to regional and global stability, the US opposed Iran’s development of a nuclear program (Huntley, 2006, p.741). The Iranian nuclear weapons project, which is a major challenge for the Middle East, is seen as an arms race, and as such, the further instability of the region is regarded as a threatening thought since long-standing conflicts and tensions continue to suck up lives in the Middle East. The North Korean nuclear and missile programs, accompanied by the inflammatory rhetoric and aggressive posturing, have stirred up a huge crisis on the Korean peninsula and made neighbours, in particular the US allies, very vulnerable to military confrontation with a possibility of escalation. The decision of the United States to deploy nuclear bombs in France and the United Kingdom was based on strategic considerations regarding the evolving circumstances surrounding the deployment of nuclear weapons. This decision was made in light of the successful utilisation and responsible management of these weapons by both countries. France and the UK, which usually act as prominent NATO members, have undoubtedly proved their indisputable belief in the very notion of nuclear renunciation, which plays a critical role in preserving world security and being the basis of global security and stability. They have implemented safeguards and control measures to ensure the secure handling and management of their nuclear arsenals, reflecting a high level of accountability and responsibility (Huntley, 2006, p.726). France and the UK have gained credibility and acceptability as members of the nuclear power inside the US alliance group due to their effective nuclear management. The participati...