Understanding Why the UN Did Not Ban Nuclear Weapons After WWII Like Chemical and Biological Weapons Were After WWI

Many wonder why the United Nations (UN) failed to ban nuclear weapons after World War II, much like the chemical and biological weapons were banned after World War I. The reasons behind this are rooted in the complex nature of international politics, technology, and the constraints of international law.

Key Points

The UN is not a government and does not have the authority to ban anything. Key factors preventing a ban on nuclear weapons include the presence of nuclear powers on the UN Security Council. Treaties on chemical and biological weapons were successful because they were voluntary and aligned with cost-benefit analysis. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows ownership by recognized nuclear powers and aims to prevent proliferation, but only countries that sign and ratify it are bound. The legal and political challenges of using nuclear weapons also contribute to the lack of a complete ban.

Why the UN Cannot Ban Anything

The first and most crucial aspect to understand is that the UN is not a government and thus lacks the authority to enforce bans or regulations on a global scale. The UN Security Council, which includes nuclear powers, often vetoes proposals that they see as harmful to their interests or contrary to international stability.

The Role of the UN Security Council

The UN Security Council plays a pivotal role in determining the legality and implementation of any international action, including bans on weapons. With nuclear powers holding veto power, any attempt to completely ban nuclear weapons is likely to face significant opposition and may be vetoed. This effectively limits the UN's ability to enforce such bans.

Chemical and Biological Weapons: A Successful Ban

It's important to note that chemical and biological weapons were successfully banned after World War I through specific treaties. These treaties were voluntarily signed by most countries, recognizing the diminishing effectiveness of these weapons compared to their high cost. However, the treaties only became binding on the countries that ratified them. Those countries opted to join these treaties, knowing that the ban would not only prevent the catastrophic use of these weapons but also reduce the need to maintain stockpiles at significant expense.

Pre-World War I Bans: Insufficient and Ineffective

Pre-World War I treaties against chemical and biological weapons were merely "no first use" policies, full of loopholes that proved ineffective in preventing the escalation of conflicts. This highlights the importance of comprehensive and well-defined treaties. Such treaties took a considerable amount of time to be implemented, often long after the conflicts they aimed to address. This timing is a significant factor in why the bans on chemical and biological weapons were more effective than those on nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - A Partial Success

There has been a ban on nuclear weapons, but it does not operate on a unilateral basis. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the primary framework for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons technology. This treaty allows ownership of nuclear weapons by recognized nuclear powers while prohibiting the proliferation of such technology. However, the NPT is only binding on countries that have signed and ratified it. Several countries, including India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan, have never signed or ratified the treaty, while North Korea initially signed but later withdrew.

Legal and Political Challenges of Using Nuclear Weapons

Even without a complete ban, the legal and political challenges of using nuclear weapons make a complete ban less critical. Legal concerns and political unwillingness to bear the blame for a first nuclear strike mean that the weapons remain underutilized. The US, for instance, has theoretical plans for nuclear use, but in practice, there has been reluctance to target cities. In a revealing interview, 13 past and present CIA directors revealed that virtually all warheads aimed at Moscow are targeting a specific radar site far from the city. This indicates that the use of nuclear weapons is impolitic and legally problematic.

Overall, the lack of a complete ban on nuclear weapons can be attributed to the combined efforts of nuclear powers, the complexities of international politics, and the historical context of wartime technology. While the UN cannot compel nations to sign and adhere to treaties, it remains a vital forum for influencing global norms and preventing the use of catastrophic weapons.