In the theatre of global power, few symbols carry as much weight as the nuclear weapon. Ever since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, nuclear arms have remained the ultimate deterrent, a tool for both security and geopolitical leverage. Yet, while a select club of nations continues to possess these devastating weapons, others are harshly sanctioned, isolated, or even invaded at the mere suggestion of pursuing them. This enduring double standard warrants scrutiny.

The United States, along with Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France — the five officially recognized nuclear powers under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — remain the custodians of nuclear arsenals. These nations were grandfathered into legality simply because they developed their arsenals before a cut-off date. The treaty aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while gradually working toward global disarmament. More than five decades later, disarmament remains a distant ideal, and non-proliferation has morphed into a tool of selective enforcement.

Consider the case of Iran, a country that has faced crippling sanctions and military threats for its nuclear ambitions, despite no confirmed weaponisation. North Korea, having successfully tested nuclear weapons, now exists in a peculiar state of sanctioned deterrence. Meanwhile, nations like Israel, widely believed to possess nuclear arms, enjoy a shield of diplomatic silence from Western powers, particularly the United States.

The justification is often couched in the language of global security. More nuclear-armed states, it is argued, increase the likelihood of conflict, accidental launches, or nuclear terrorism. There is truth to this concern. The more fingers on the proverbial button, the higher the risks. But to suggest that only certain nations are responsible enough to wield such power is a claim rooted in political self-interest, not principle.

For the United States and its allies, preventing proliferation is as much about preserving strategic dominance as it is about safeguarding peace. Nuclear weapons grant nations not only military deterrence but also disproportionate diplomatic influence. The idea of potential adversaries acquiring similar leverage is understandably uncomfortable for those invested in maintaining the current balance of power.

This double standard has consequences. It fosters resentment, fuels regional arms races, and undermines the credibility of international institutions tasked with promoting fairness and stability. As long as nuclear disarmament remains a rhetorical goal and not an actionable policy among the existing nuclear powers, attempts to police others will be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility.

The world faces a stark choice. Either move earnestly towards universal disarmament — as originally promised under the NPT — or acknowledge the hypocrisy embedded in the current order. The status quo, where power is held by a few and denied to others, only perpetuates global inequality and deepens distrust.

Until then, the nuclear question will remain less about morality and more about who has the power to decide.