Global Nuclear Arsenal: A Dangerous Illusion of Security
The Futility of Nuclear Weapons
When assessing a nation's assets, nuclear warheads hold little real value. It is a well-accepted truth that a nuclear conflict would mark the end of human civilization as we know it. Nevertheless, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has highlighted that countries continue to expand their nuclear arsenals under the guise of 'nuclear deterrence,' wasting billions on stockpiling and developing advanced delivery systems. SIPRI reports that there are currently 12,241 nuclear warheads distributed among nine nations. Out of these, 9,614 are stockpiled, while 3,912 are actively deployed on submarines, ships, and military bases. The United States and Russia collectively own about 90% of these warheads, but China is rapidly increasing its capabilities, now possessing around 600 warheads, with 24 actively deployed. Additionally, nations like Iran and North Korea are also striving to enhance their nuclear capabilities, with Iran's ambitions being a significant factor in its ongoing conflict with Israel, which has targeted its nuclear facilities in preemptive strikes.
As per SIPRI, India has 180 nuclear warheads, a slight increase from Pakistan's 170, following India's addition of eight warheads in 2025. Proponents of nuclear armament argue that such weapons are a necessary evil, suggesting that during recent tensions between India and Pakistan, the presence of nuclear arms may have prevented a more severe conflict. However, to emphasize the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is to defend an untenable position. The reality is that the world is currently facing three significant conflicts, heightening the risk of a nuclear war more than ever before. SIPRI's findings indicate that humanity is re-entering a nuclear arms race, with over $100 billion spent on nuclear arsenals last year. This resurgence in arms development reflects a troubling trend where nations overlook the inherent dangers of their nuclear stockpiles. Instead of pursuing disarmament, leaders seem focused on immediate objectives, disregarding the broader implications of their actions.