Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
NUCLEAR INSECURITY:
The Paradox of Deterrence, the Hypocrisy of Non-Proliferation,
and the Global Politics of Fear
A Research Paper in International Security Studies
April 2026
Abstract
This paper examines the structural paradox at the heart of the global nuclear order: that the very
states which possess nuclear weapons invoke those arsenals to prevent others from acquiring
them. Drawing on the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and recent
developments in Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, and the broader non-proliferation regime, the paper
argues that nuclear deterrence is not merely a strategic doctrine but a political instrument wielded
selectively — most often by powerful states against weaker ones. The persistence of nuclear
arsenals, the modernisation of warheads, and the repeated lowering of thresholds for nuclear use
have generated a global climate of fear and insecurity far exceeding what deterrence theorists
promised. The paper contends that the current non-proliferation architecture is built on a
foundation of organised hypocrisy, and that this hypocrisy — more than any rogue state's
ambitions — poses the gravest long-term threat to global nuclear safety.
1. Introduction
In 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing up to
226,000 people and inaugurating the nuclear age. The devastation was so total that world leaders
pledged never again — yet within a decade, four more states had joined the nuclear club. Today,
nine countries are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons, collectively holding
Page 1
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
approximately 12,000 warheads. The world spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually
maintaining and modernising these arsenals, even as the same governments that sustain them
demand that others forgo any such capability.
This contradiction — that those who have nuclear weapons insist on the right to keep them while
denying that right to everyone else — is the defining hypocrisy of the contemporary international
security order. It is encoded in the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 and has been signed by
191 states. The treaty formally recognises five nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russia,
China, the United Kingdom, and France) and obliges all others never to acquire them — while
also, in Article VI, committing those same nuclear states to pursue disarmament "in good faith."
More than five decades later, not one nuclear weapon has been eliminated under Article VI.
Far from reducing insecurity, the continued existence of nuclear arsenals generates it. Russia's
nuclear threats during its invasion of Ukraine have paralysed Western decision-making. The
Israeli and US strikes on Iran in 2025 — carried out partly to prevent Iranian nuclearisation —
have perversely accelerated proliferation pressures across the Middle East and beyond. North
Korea, having watched what happened to non-nuclear states like Iraq and Libya, has staked its
survival on its bomb. And states like South Korea and Saudi Arabia are now debating whether
they too need nuclear weapons to feel safe.
This paper is structured in five parts. It begins by examining the legal and moral architecture of
the non-proliferation regime and its inherent inequality. It then analyses how nuclear deterrence
generates rather than contains insecurity. The third section examines three contemporary case
studies — Russia-Ukraine, Iran-Israel, and North Korea — that illustrate the failure of deterrence
as a stabilising force. The fourth section addresses the systemic hypocrisy of states that
modernise their arsenals while criminalising others' ambitions. The paper concludes with
reflections on what a more equitable and genuinely secure world might require.
2. The Architecture of Inequality: The NPT and the 'Nuclear Double
Standard'
The NPT was negotiated in the late 1960s against the backdrop of Cold War anxieties. Its
fundamental premise was that nuclear weapons were too dangerous to spread, and that the states
already possessing them would, in exchange for a freeze on proliferation, move progressively
toward their own disarmament. This bargain — non-proliferation in exchange for eventual
disarmament — was the treaty's moral core. It has never been honoured.
Page 2
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
The basic source of contestation within the regime derives from the fundamental inequality
between the nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots.' As Nina Tannenwald, writing in Global Studies
Quarterly (2024), observes, the NPT is "a strongly institutionalized but weakly liberal regime"
whose patterns of contestation stem from its uneven application of principles. The nuclear-
weapon states have, over decades, resisted liberal reform efforts and engaged in what
Tannenwald calls "illiberal subversion" — using the rules of the treaty to perpetuate a
hierarchical nuclear status quo rather than advance the treaty's stated goal of a nuclear-free
world.
This inequality has become ever more visible. All five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
have increased the role and significance of nuclear weapons in their military and security
policies, directly contradicting their NPT commitments. As the European Leadership Network
noted in 2025: "All five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT are increasing the role and
significance of nuclear weapons in their military and security policies, at odds with the
commitments accepted under the NPT." The 2025 NPT Preparatory Committee failed to agree
on any measures to strengthen the treaty, a failure the ELN described as "a sobering sign of the
divisions fracturing the regime."
Critics within non-nuclear states have long pointed to this as an "outrageous hypocrisy and
double standards." The Reaching Critical Will project, a disarmament monitoring organisation,
noted that while billions are spent on nuclear arsenals and new types of weapons are constructed,
nuclear-armed and nuclear-complicit states continue to delude themselves into thinking that the
rest of the world will "just sit back and watch while they engage in another arms race and bring
us, every day, closer to the brink of nuclear war."
The NPT also formally accords no exceptional nuclear privileges to liberal democracies, yet in
practice, the United States has long argued that its allies' nuclear relationships are categorically
different from those of adversaries. China's delegation to the 2025 NPT Preparatory Committee
explicitly condemned what it called a pattern where a "certain country practices double standards
on nuclear proliferation, exerts maximum pressure on so-called geopolitical adversaries,
strengthens nuclear sharing and extended deterrence arrangements, [and] allows its non-nuclear-
weapon States allies to discuss the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons."
India's stance is particularly illustrative. Having refused to sign the NPT on the grounds that it is
"discriminatory," India conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 and now maintains a nuclear
arsenal rationalised under the doctrine of "minimum credible deterrence." Yet India was
rewarded for its nuclear status with the 2005 India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, normalising its
nuclear position outside the NPT framework — a signal to the world that proliferation by the
Page 3
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
'right' countries carries no real penalty. As the PolSci Institute (2025) summarised, nuclear-
armed states continue to modernise their arsenals "leading to accusations of a 'nuclear double
standard.'"
3. The Insecurity of Security: How Deterrence Generates Fear
The classical theory of nuclear deterrence holds that the mutual threat of catastrophic retaliation
prevents war. This logic rests on the assumption of rational actors, secure second-strike
capabilities, and reliable communication between adversaries. Each of these assumptions is
fragile in practice. The world is not made safer by the existence of weapons that could
exterminate human civilisation; it is made more fearful, more volatile, and more accident-prone.
3.1 The Stability-Instability Paradox
The stability-instability paradox describes a well-documented phenomenon: that nuclear
deterrence at the strategic level may actually encourage lower-level aggression by providing an
umbrella of immunity to nuclear states. Pakistan's use of state-sponsored terrorism against India,
premised on the assumption that nuclear mutual vulnerability would prevent Indian retaliation,
exemplifies this dynamic. As the Global Security Review observed in 2025, Russia's updated
nuclear doctrine lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons employment, broadening the
definition of what could trigger a nuclear response to include conventional attacks that threaten
'critical infrastructure' — effectively using nuclear threats to deter even normal conventional
warfare responses.
This represents the weaponisation of fear itself. Russia, since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, has
used the threat of nuclear escalation as a coercive tool, not as a last resort. The Kremlin signalled
a willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to Ukrainian military successes on Russian
territory, Western weapons supplies, and even the possibility of NATO enlargement. Russian
analysts close to the Kremlin, including Dmitry Trenin and Sergei Karaganov, explicitly argued
in a 2024 book that Russia must transition from traditional deterrence to "offensive nuclear
intimidation" — using nuclear threats proactively to coerce adversaries and shield Russian
aggression from conventional retaliation. This is deterrence theory turned inside out: rather than
preventing war, nuclear weapons are being used to enable it.
3.2 Accidental and Miscalculation Risks
Beyond deliberate nuclear use, nuclear weapons generate fear through the constant risk of
accident and miscalculation. The world has come perilously close to nuclear war on multiple
Page 4
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
occasions — the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Soviet Petrov incident (1983), and the Able
Archer NATO exercise (1983), to name only the most documented near-misses. Cyber threats
have added a new dimension of vulnerability. The Center for Arms Control and Non-
Proliferation noted as early as 2017 that Britain's nuclear facilities had suffered significant
cybersecurity breaches, and that the global community is "in the early stages of understanding
the magnitude of the cyber threat" — one so severe that traditional defences such as firewalls,
antivirus technology, and air gaps "are no longer enough to match today's dynamic threats."
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has kept its Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than at any
point since its creation in 1947, citing not only Russian nuclear rhetoric but also the broader
failure of arms control, the withdrawal from key treaties, and the simultaneous modernisation of
arsenals by multiple nuclear powers. Fear, in this reading, is not an irrational response to nuclear
weapons — it is the entirely rational consequence of their existence.
3.3 The Proliferation-Security Feedback Loop
Perhaps the most corrosive effect of nuclear deterrence logic is that it is contagious. If deterrence
works — if nuclear weapons genuinely guarantee security — then every state facing an
existential threat will want them. This is the proliferation-security feedback loop: as nuclear-
armed states rely more heavily on their arsenals and invoke them more frequently, non-nuclear
states draw the lesson that only nuclear weapons guarantee survival. John Erath, former US
diplomat and policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, summarised
it bluntly in 2026: more countries "feel insecure," with nuclear weapons being the antidote, and
"there is no real alternative."
4. Contemporary Case Studies in Nuclear Insecurity
4.1 Russia, Ukraine, and Nuclear Coercion (2022–2026)
No development in recent years has done more to expose the dangers of nuclear weapons than
Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine. Since its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has
weaponised nuclear rhetoric as a deliberate strategy. President Putin placed strategic deterrence
forces on heightened alert in February 2022, issued repeated warnings that Western support for
Ukraine risked nuclear conflict, and in November 2024 signed a revised nuclear doctrine that
many experts believe has lowered the threshold for nuclear use.
The 2024 Russian nuclear doctrine introduced new language allowing for nuclear response to
conventional attacks — even those originating from non-nuclear states if backed by nuclear ones.
Page 5
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
It also extended protection to allied Belarus, where Russia has reportedly pre-positioned tactical
nuclear weapons. The doctrine further stated that nuclear escalation could occur in response to
'reliable data' of mass launches of aerial weapons crossing Russian borders — a definition broad
enough to cover ordinary conventional attacks. In November 2024, Russia fired an intermediate-
range ballistic missile (Oreshnik) into Dnipro, Ukraine, an unprecedented step in nuclear
signalling during a European conflict.
The impact on Western decision-making has been significant. Russia's nuclear intimidation tactic
"contributed to delays in weapons deliveries, hesitation over troop deployments, and indirect
constraints on Ukrainian counteroffensive operational planning," as the Jamestown Foundation
documented. While Western support eventually expanded to include tanks, combat aircraft, and
long-range missiles, Russia's nuclear umbrella demonstrably slowed and constrained that support
— giving Russia a military advantage it could not have achieved through conventional means
alone.
Ukraine's own experience is a devastating indictment of nuclear disarmament. In 1994, Ukraine
surrendered the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal — inherited from the Soviet Union — in
exchange for security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia, the United
States, and the United Kingdom. Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and its 2022 full-scale
invasion rendered those assurances worthless. The lesson broadcast to the world was
unambiguous: states that give up nuclear weapons lose their security guarantee; states that keep
them retain a form of impunity.
4.2 Iran, Israel, and the Hypocrisy of Enforcement
The treatment of Iran's nuclear programme — and particularly the Israeli and US military strikes
on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 — offers perhaps the starkest illustration of the
hypocrisy embedded in the non-proliferation regime.
Israel has never signed the NPT and is widely believed to possess between 80 and 400 nuclear
warheads. It operates under a policy of deliberate ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its
arsenal. This policy has been tacitly accepted by the international community, and particularly by
the United States, which provides Israel with billions of dollars in annual military assistance.
Iran, by contrast, is an NPT member, submitted to IAEA inspections, and whose supreme leader
issued a fatwa in 2005 declaring the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons
forbidden under Islam. Yet it was Iran — not Israel — whose nuclear facilities were bombed.
As Dr Binoy Kampmark noted in April 2026: the strikes on Iran "reveal the central hypocrisy of
those who insist on keeping the nuclear club closed and limited, something made comically
Page 6
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
grotesque by the fact that one of the belligerents, Israel, is an undeclared nuclear power buttoned
up in strategic ambiguity." The message sent to the world is that legal membership of the NPT
and submission to IAEA inspections provides no protection, while covert nuclear acquisition —
if done by the 'right' state — carries no penalty.
The consequences have been severe. Iran announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT in
June 2025, following the strikes. Iran's envoy to the IAEA declared the US strikes had "delivered
a fundamental and irreparable blow to the international non-proliferation regime, conclusively
demonstrating that the existing NPT framework has been rendered ineffective." An Iranian
parliamentary committee also voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA entirely. By March
2026, Iranian lawmakers were debating full NPT withdrawal. As scholars at The Conversation
observed: "Even if Israel and the US consider their bombing campaign successful, it has almost
certainly renewed the Iranians' resolve to build a weapon. The strikes may only delay an Iranian
bomb by a few years."
This dynamic mirrors what happened after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. North Korea, which
had been accused by the US of pursuing nuclear weapons, watched Iraq — which did not have
them — be invaded and its government overthrown. North Korea withdrew from the NPT that
same year. The lesson was learned: nuclear weapons deter military attack in a way that
international agreements and legal compliance do not.
4.3 North Korea: The Logic of Survivalist Nuclearisation
North Korea's nuclear weapons programme is often presented as irrational aggression or
ideological recklessness. In fact, it follows a clear strategic logic — one that the international
community's behaviour has fully validated. North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006
and has since developed a substantial arsenal, enshrined nuclear status in its constitution, and
reportedly possesses up to 50 warheads. As the Washington Times reported in March 2026,
unlike Iran, which had no proven nuclear capability when attacked, North Korea's weaponisation
has proceeded unimpeded.
The Iranian case has only reinforced North Korean calculations. South Korean experts noted in
June 2025 that North Korea is almost certainly drawing the lesson that Iran's non-nuclear status
made it vulnerable in a way that North Korea — precisely because of its weapons — is not. As
one Korean analyst observed: "North Korea is likely to be concerned that if it gives up its nuclear
weapons, it will end up in a situation similar to Iran, and will not accept future proposals for
denuclearisation discussions."
Page 7
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
The failure of the international community to deter North Korea through decades of sanctions,
diplomacy, and pressure is a testament to the limits of the non-proliferation regime. As the
European Institute for International Relations (2025) noted, "the failure to deter North Korea
through sanctions has revealed that enforcement mechanisms might not be the solution." North
Korea's existence as a nuclear-armed state also generates a cascading insecurity in South Korea
— which, as of 2026, is considered one of the most likely states to move toward developing
nuclear weapons of its own.
5. Organised Hypocrisy: Nuclear Modernisation and the Disarmament Deficit
The term 'organised hypocrisy' — borrowed from realist international relations theory —
describes a situation in which states profess adherence to norms they systematically violate in
practice. It applies with precision to the nuclear-weapon states' relationship with the NPT's
disarmament pillar.
The United States maintains approximately 5,500 nuclear warheads and is engaged in a multi-
decade, trillion-dollar programme to modernise every element of its nuclear triad — land-based
missiles (replacing the Minuteman III with the new Sentinel ICBM), submarine-launched
ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable bombers. In 2024, it initiated a programme to procure a
nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, reversing the Biden administration's earlier
cancellation of the programme. Russia has deployed new hypersonic delivery systems,
positioned tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, and — as of late 2025 — was preparing to
deploy the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile on Belarusian territory, extending its
nuclear reach across Europe. China is expanding and diversifying its nuclear arsenal. France's
President Macron declared in 2026 that the next five decades will be "an era of nuclear weapons"
and called for strengthening France's nuclear deterrent on a European scale.
These developments are directly at odds with NPT Article VI commitments. As Just Security
noted in February 2026, the erosion of unity among nuclear-weapon states in responding to
proliferation threats means that "divisions between nuclear-weapons States over how to address
proliferation risks will only grow." If non-nuclear weapon states see adversaries moving toward
nuclear status without consequence — while existing nuclear states expand their own arsenals —
the incentive to pursue or maintain NPT compliance diminishes sharply.
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences noted that nuclear states "committed themselves to
delegitimising nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPT Review Conference Action Plan, but on
balance they have taken few steps to implement this in practice." This creates what the Academy
Page 8
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
called a 'necessary moral hypocrisy' — deterrence has always required threatening to kill
millions of innocent people, a morally indefensible posture that is nonetheless treated as
necessary. The result is a world in which nuclear states can never be fully honest about what
deterrence means: mass civilian annihilation as policy.
Meanwhile, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), adopted in 2017 by 122
non-nuclear states, represents a direct challenge to this hypocrisy. The TPNW prohibits the
development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
All nine nuclear-armed states have refused to join — and have actively pressured allies and non-
aligned states not to join. Yet the TPNW represents exactly the kind of "liberal counter-
institutionalisation" that Tannenwald describes: an attempt by non-nuclear states to hold nuclear
ones to the moral standard they profess but do not practise.
6. The Erosion of the Non-Proliferation Regime
The cumulative effect of deterrence hypocrisy, selective enforcement, failed disarmament
commitments, and the normalisation of nuclear threats has been a progressive erosion of the non-
proliferation regime that took decades to build. The 2022 NPT Review Conference failed to
adopt a final document, blocked first by Russian objections over language on Ukraine's
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The 2025 Preparatory Committee similarly failed to agree on
measures to strengthen the treaty.
The Arms Control Association assessed in 2026 that with "the risks of new nuclear-armed States
on the rise, the nuclear non-proliferation regime is in danger of collapse." South Korea and Saudi
Arabia were identified as among the states most likely to move closer to weaponisation in 2026.
Countries like Turkey, Egypt, and others in the Middle East — alarmed by both Iran's trajectory
and Israel's undeclared arsenal — may follow.
The collapse of arms control architecture further compounds the risk. The INF Treaty, which
banned intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe and was credited with helping end the
Cold War's most dangerous phase, was abandoned by the US in 2019 after Russian violations.
Russia suspended its participation in the New START Treaty in 2023. No successor framework
is in sight. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists currently places the Doomsday Clock at 89 seconds
to midnight — the closest it has ever been — citing these converging risks.
Perhaps most troubling is the impunity with which nuclear states now use nuclear threats as
instruments of coercion. Russia has made nuclear threats in the context of a conventional war it
Page 9
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
started. The United States has reportedly expanded its nuclear targeting plans to include
conventional attack scenarios against Iran. North Korea tests missile delivery systems with
explicit nuclear intent. Israel and the United States have bombed another country's nuclear
facilities — potentially the most direct violation of the spirit of the NPT imaginable — while
facing no consequences under international law. In this environment, the question for any state
calculating its security needs is not whether nuclear weapons provide security. The record
suggests they do — for those who have them.
7. Conclusion: Toward a Genuinely Secure World
The global nuclear order rests on a foundational lie: that nuclear weapons make their possessors
— and by extension the world — safer, while the same weapons in others' hands represent
unacceptable danger. This lie is maintained through selective treaty enforcement, military
coercion, diplomatic pressure, and a carefully sustained mythology of deterrence stability that the
empirical record does not support.
Russia's nuclear threats during its war on Ukraine have not prevented that war — they have
shaped its conduct in ways that advantage the aggressor. Israel and the United States have
bombed Iran's nuclear facilities in the name of non-proliferation, while sustaining Israel's own
undeclared nuclear arsenal. North Korea's nuclear weapons have provided it with a form of
security that no amount of diplomacy could otherwise guarantee. The NPT's disarmament pillar
has been systematically ignored by every nuclear-weapon state party to the treaty.
The insecurity generated by nuclear weapons is not incidental — it is structural. It flows from the
logic of deterrence itself, which demands that adversaries believe in the credibility of
catastrophic retaliation. To be credible, nuclear threats must be real. And real nuclear threats
produce real fear, real miscalculation risks, real accidents waiting to happen, and real incentives
for proliferation.
A genuinely secure world would require, at minimum: a credible commitment by nuclear-
weapon states to progressive, verifiable, and time-bound disarmament; the universal application
of non-proliferation norms, including to states currently sheltered by great-power patronage; the
replacement of deterrence-based security arrangements with multilateral security guarantees that
do not depend on nuclear threat; and the recognition that the TPNW, rather than being dismissed,
represents the moral direction that the NPT's own Article VI points toward.
Page 10
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
None of this is likely in the near term. What is certain is that the current architecture — of
hypocrisy, selective enforcement, and escalating arsenals — is not stable. The question is not
whether it will fail, but at what cost.
Bibliography
Arms Control Association. (2026, February 11). "In 2026, a Growing Risk of Nuclear Proliferation." Just Security.
[Link]
Baldus, J. (2025, August 20). "How opposing views on nuclear deterrence fracture the non-proliferation regime."
European Leadership Network. [Link]
on-nuclear-deterrence-fracture-the-non-proliferation-regime/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2026, March). "United States nuclear weapons, 2026."
[Link]
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2026, March). "Belligerent and Beleaguered: Russia After the War
with Ukraine." [Link]
divided-european-security
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. (2017, January 11). "Nuclear Power's Overlooked Insecurity."
Morning Star / Arms Control Center. [Link]
Chinese Permanent Mission to the UN. (2025, May). "Statement on Nuclear Non-Proliferation by Delegation of
China at the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 NPT Review Conference."
[Link]
t20250507_11616581.htm
European Institute for International Relations. (2025, March 11). "Iran, North Korea, and the Future of Nuclear
Non-Proliferation." [Link]
nuclear-non-proliferation/
Global Security Review. (2025, October 14). "The Russia-Ukraine Conflict Showcases the Limits of Nuclear
Deterrence." [Link]
deterrence/
House of Commons Library. (2024/2026). "Russia's use of nuclear threats during the Ukraine conflict."
[Link]
ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). (2024, November 21). "New Russian doctrine
increases possible nuclear weapons use scenarios."
[Link]
Jamestown Foundation. (2025, December 19). "Russia Transitions to Nuclear Intimidation."
[Link]
Kampmark, B. (2026, March 31). "It's all about the nukes." The Australian Independent Media Network.
[Link]
Kristensen, H., Korda, M., and Reynolds, E. (2026). "United States nuclear forces, 2026." Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 82(1).
Page 11
Nuclear Insecurity: Deterrence, Hypocrisy, and Global Fear
NIPP (National Institute for Public Policy). (2025, February 5). Schneider, M.B. "The Implications of Russia's New
Nuclear Doctrine." Information Series No. 615. [Link]
implications-of-russias-new-nuclear-doctrine-no-615-february-5-2025/
PolSci Institute. (2025, December 14). "Nuclear Proliferation: Challenges and International Responses."
[Link]
Radio Free Asia. (2025, June 23). "US strikes on Iran may strengthen North Korea's nuclear resolve, experts warn."
[Link]
Reaching Critical Will. (2025). "NPT News in Review," Vol. 20, No. 6.
[Link]
RealClearDefense. (2026, March 9). "Is Russia Changing its Nuclear Doctrine to Affect its War in Ukraine?"
[Link]
ts_war_in_ukraine_1169225.html
Sinovetsa, P. and Alkis, M.A. (2025). "Deterrence, Compellence, or Credibility Fatigue? Russian Nuclear Threats in
the War on Ukraine." Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 8(2).
[Link]
Tannenwald, N. (2024). "The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime as a 'Failed Promise': Contestation and Self-
Undermining Dynamics in a Liberal Order." Global Studies Quarterly, 4(2).
[Link]
The Conversation. (2025, June 24). "The war won't end Iran's nuclear program — it will drive it underground,
following North Korea's model." [Link]
will-drive-it-underground-following-north-koreas-model-259281
Trenin, D., Avakyants, S., and Karaganov, S. (2024). From Deterrence to Intimidation: Nuclear Weapons,
Geopolitics, Coalition Strategy. Moscow.
United States Department of State. (2024). "Statement to Cluster 2 of the 2024 NPT PrepCom." [Link]
[Link]/statement-to-cluster-2-of-the-2024-npt-prepcom/
Wikipedia. (2026). "Nuclear risk during the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)."
[Link]
Wikipedia. (2026). "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."
[Link]
World Nuclear Association. (2026). "Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies." [Link]
library/appendices/nuclear-proliferation-case-studies
38 North. (2026, March). "Eight Lessons for North Korea's Nuclear and Missile Forces From the Ongoing Iran
Conflict." [Link]
from-the-ongoing-iran-conflict/
Page 12