in the media

Heading for the Fourth Nuclear Age

The roots of the nuclear order's unraveling can be traced to four distinct factors that have evolved over the last six decades: weaknesses in the original NPT formula, changes in the global distribution of power, nuclear weapons technology proliferation, and complacency with the current regime.

published by
Ifri Security Studies Center Proliferation Paper No. 24
 on January 22, 2009

Source: Ifri Security Studies Center Proliferation Paper No. 24

In a new Proliferation Paper published by the Institut Français des Relations Internationales' (Ifri) Security Studies Center, Ariel E. Levite examines the evolution of the global nuclear order since the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945 to present by breaking down the sixty-plus years of nuclear history into three analytically distinct "ages," each lasting roughly twenty years. By doing so, Levite traces back the roots of the current nuclear predicament to some early seeds of trouble which have gradually grown more profound. He attributes much of the unraveling of the nuclear order to:

  1. Certain inherent weaknesses in the original NPT formula;
     
  2. Changes in the global distribution of power since the codification of the nuclear order in the 1960s;
     
  3. The dissemination of nuclear weapon technology; and
     
  4. Complacency and subsequent disillusionment with the nuclear order since the early 1990s.

The paper further analyzes what could precipitate a new nuclear age around 2010. Levite argues that such a "fourth nuclear age" would likely be characterized by either a nuclear anarchy, which he believes has become the default option, or a more benign nuclear order manifested by lower numbers of weapons and stringent controls and restrictions on remaining nuclear arsenals and activities. He concludes by considering the more pressing requirements for regaining nuclear stability.

Click here for other Proliferation Papers published by the Institut Français des Relations Internationales' (Ifri) Security Studies Center.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.