Nuclear Deterrence v. Disarmament: A Legal and Strategic Conflict in the 21st Century

The struggle between stopping wars with nuclear weapons and getting rid of them is one of the hardest and longest-lasting issues in international law and global safety today. Countries use nuclear weapons as a way to scare others from attacking by threatening major retaliation. At the same time, calls to destroy all nuclear weapons come from concerns about ethics, laws, and humanity. This article looks at how the clash between these ideas is changing now, as new technology global power struggles, and fresh dangers reshape how the world sees nuclear weapons. The article examines laws controlling nuclear weapons. It looks at tools like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It also highlights how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a role in monitoring. The research explores how much these laws set strict duties for countries under Article VI of the NPT. This article requires countries to talk about ways to achieve nuclear disarmament. Even with these rules in place, countries with nuclear weapons still stick to deterrence strategies. They argue their weapons are crucial to protect both their own safety and global security. Looking at it, the idea of deterrence shown through things like assured destruction, has played a role in helping to prevent big wars in history. But the article points out the dangers linked to deterrence. These include mistakes accidental launches, and the chance of arming leading to competition and escalation. The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion also talked about how nuclear weapons lead to major humanitarian problems. This raises questions about whether using deterrence is both legal and justified.