Muslim World Report

The Nuclear Ambitions of Lesser Developed Nations in a Changing World

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 28, 2025 10:12 PM | 9 min read | 1751 words

TL;DR: This blog explores the rising nuclear ambitions of lesser-developed nations in 2025, examining the implications for global security and international relations. As these nations pursue nuclear capabilities for deterrence, the evolving geopolitical landscape may lead to escalated tensions, arms races, and a transformation of global power dynamics.

Assessing the Future of Nuclear Proliferation in Lesser Developed Countries

The Situation

As the global community confronts the complexities of 2025, the specter of nuclear proliferation looms particularly large in lesser-developed countries. Recent developments have illuminated the growing aspirations of several nations in the Global South to pursue nuclear capabilities, driven not primarily by a desire to deploy these devastating weapons but as a pragmatic strategy of deterrence in an increasingly unstable international landscape. This trend poses profound implications, significantly impacting regional stability and global power dynamics.

Historically, countries such as India and Pakistan developed nuclear arsenals to bolster their security and assert geopolitical stature. More recently, North Korea exemplifies this ambition, seeking nuclear capabilities as both a deterrent against perceived external threats and a mechanism to enhance its negotiating power on the international stage (Hymans, 2010). The current geopolitical climate has been defined by the fragility of established powers; internal strife within these nations, characterized by:

  • Political unrest
  • Economic downturns
  • Demographic changes

has led to a perceived decline in their global influence. Consequently, the deterrence model becomes an attractive proposition for countries asserting their sovereignty in the face of an uncertain future.

Ironically, while developed nations strive to institutionalize nuclear non-proliferation through treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), their military interventions and geopolitical maneuvers frequently undermine global stability. The NPT and regional frameworks, such as the Tlatelolco Treaty in Latin America, are often perceived as favoring existing nuclear powers while stifling the legitimate aspirations of others (Herrera, Kulkarni, & Garrido, 2023). This selective adherence to disarmament principles raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of power dynamics within the current global order. As developing nations assess their security needs amid rising tensions, the temptation to pursue nuclear capabilities grows, leading to a precarious balance that could easily tip into chaos if perceived threats materialize.

The urgent question becomes: What will happen if nuclear proliferation increases among lesser-developed nations? This blog post aims to analyze potential scenarios that could arise from an uptick in global nuclear capabilities—scenarios that could reshape international relations in unforeseen ways.

What If Scenarios

What if more countries develop nuclear capabilities?

Should an increasing number of lesser-developed countries succeed in developing nuclear weapons, the implications for global security and power dynamics will be seismic. A rise in the number of nuclear-armed states would fundamentally challenge existing geopolitical hierarchies, leading to a multipolar world where regional conflicts could escalate into potential nuclear confrontations (Doxey et al., 2000). The growing presence of nuclear-armed nations raises concerns about:

  • Miscalculations in crises
  • Nations with nuclear capabilities in close proximity to one another

The question of how these nations prioritize their national interests over international norms becomes increasingly relevant. As countries armed with nuclear weapons prioritize their own agendas, existing international frameworks may be challenged, leading to a heightened risk of conflict escalation. For instance, in volatile regions such as South Asia and the Middle East, the risks associated with nuclear proliferation could become pronounced.

Beyond direct state implications, the proliferation of nuclear capabilities poses broader risks for global security. The potential for non-state actors to gain access to nuclear materials increases the threat of nuclear terrorism, compounding the challenges faced by the international community (Knopf, 2012). Existing nuclear powers, perceiving a shift in the balance of power, may feel compelled to expand their arsenals, igniting an arms race that diverts resources from crucial social and developmental needs, ultimately exacerbating poverty and inequality within the very nations that seek security through nuclear armament.

In light of these dynamics, it will be crucial for the international community to respond effectively. Collective efforts to promote disarmament and prevent conflict will be critical. However, given that nations would prioritize their security concerns, reaching a global consensus becomes increasingly difficult. As the normalization of nuclear capabilities among nations previously viewed as non-nuclear states unfolds, the global landscape faces an uncertain and potentially tumultuous future.

What if developed nations regress in power and stability?

The regression of developed nations in terms of power and stability amplifies the risk of nuclear proliferation across the Global South. If Western powers experience internal strife marked by:

  • Economic downturns
  • Political unrest
  • Declining global influence

the resulting chaos could ripple through international relations (Wesley, 2008). Observing the perceived instability of traditional powers, lesser-developed countries may grow skeptical of the efficacy and validity of the existing global order. Driven by a desire to assert their autonomy, these nations might increasingly view nuclear capabilities as essential to national resilience in an uncertain world (Hobsbawm, 1994).

In this context, traditional diplomatic norms may erode. As developed nations focus on stabilizing their internal affairs, their commitment to international diplomacy could wane, creating a vacuum that lesser-developed countries might exploit. As these nations navigate their security dilemmas, the likelihood of an arms race increases, with nations stockpiling nuclear capabilities not necessarily for offensive purposes but as leverage in negotiations for international aid and support.

The ethical implications of this regression are significant. If developed nations cannot maintain stability within their own borders, their ability to advocate for non-proliferation norms abroad comes into question (Hampson & Heinbecker, 2011). The world could become characterized by nuclear proliferation not as an exception but rather as a new norm. The resultant landscape would fundamentally alter the character of international relations, leading to unforeseen consequences that extend beyond traditional security concerns.

What if international treaties fail to adapt?

The failure of international treaties to adapt to evolving geopolitical realities could have dire consequences for global security. Should lesser-developed countries perceive frameworks like the NPT as relics of a bygone era—designed primarily to maintain the status quo while failing to address their contemporary security needs—the credibility of non-proliferation efforts may evaporate (Furinawa et al., 1990). Unchecked, the belief that existing power structures do not respect the aspirations of lesser-developed nations could push them toward developing their own nuclear arsenals, fundamentally undermining the core tenets of non-proliferation.

In a world where international treaties become mere symbols of outdated diplomacy, non-signatory states may feel justified in pursuing their own nuclear programs. As mistrust grows, nations might prefer unilateral actions over multilateral dialogues, resulting in a fragmented landscape where nuclear capabilities become increasingly prevalent.

International organizations must consider reforming their approaches to nuclear proliferation in such a scenario. A shift toward embracing inclusive dialogue—acknowledging the legitimate security concerns of lesser-developed nations while exploring common ground—becomes essential. The need for a reformed NPT that incorporates the perspectives of these countries could bridge gaps in trust and legitimacy, fostering an environment conducive to cooperation rather than competition (Gavin & Cawthra, 2008). The global community may need to rethink its strategies, putting forth efforts to build confidence among emerging nuclear states.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of the potential for increased nuclear proliferation among lesser-developed countries, strategic maneuvers from all parties will be critical to managing this evolving situation. Developed nations must acknowledge that the security concerns driving lesser-developed countries toward nuclear ambitions are legitimate. Engaging in genuine diplomatic dialogue will be essential to rebuilding trust and establishing frameworks that ensure mutual security. Rather than dismissing the nuclear aspirations of these nations outright, a concerted effort to address underlying issues—economic disparity, political instability, and external threats—could lead to a more stable global environment.

International treaties and institutions must also evolve in response to these dynamics. Reforming treaties like the NPT to include the perspectives and concerns of lesser-developed nations could bridge essential gaps in trust and legitimacy. Such reforms might recognize the right of nations to pursue peaceful nuclear technology while implementing stringent safeguards against proliferation.

For lesser-developed countries, the decision to pursue nuclear capabilities must be weighed against the long-term implications for national and regional security. It is vital to understand that prioritizing diplomatic partnerships over unilateral military advancements may offer a more stable route toward security, steering nations away from escalating risks associated with nuclear arms.

Furthermore, enhancing the focus on non-proliferation education and capacity-building initiatives—especially in regions with emerging nuclear interests—is essential for the global community. Promoting awareness of the human and environmental costs associated with nuclear arms can help dissuade nations from pursuing such paths (Cawthra & Moeller, 2008). Grassroots movements advocating for disarmament and peace can play a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, ultimately influencing national policies.

The dialogue surrounding nuclear proliferation and the ambitions of lesser-developed countries must be framed within the context of mutual respect and understanding. To maintain global peace, cooperative engagement, transparent acknowledgment of security needs, and a commitment to adapting international norms to reflect the realities of an evolving nuclear landscape are paramount.

References

  • Adler, E. (2010). “Constructing stable peace: The role of international organizations.” International Organization, 64(1), 15–45.
  • Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). “The Politics of International Regime Complexity.” Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.
  • Cawthra, G. (2008). The Role of NGOs in Nuclear Non-Proliferation. London: Routledge.
  • Doxey, M. P., et al. (2000). “Nuclear Proliferation and International Relations.” International Affairs, 76(4), 751-765.
  • Furinawa, Y., et al. (1990). “Adapting to Change: The Non-Proliferation Treaty after the Cold War.” World Politics, 43(2), 171-196.
  • Gavin, F. J. (2012). Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Gavin, F. J., & Cawthra, G. (2008). “Nonproliferation and the Politics of Nuclear Energy.” Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 97-109.
  • Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2017). “Global migration and the challenge of nuclear proliferation.” Journal of Global Security Studies, 2(2), 123-135.
  • Herrera, V., Kulkarni, M. V., & Garrido, L. A. (2023). “The Non-Proliferation Treaty: Past, Present, and Future.” International Security, 47(3), 3-36.
  • Hampson, F. O., & Heinbecker, P. (2011). “Rethinking the Responsibility to Protect: The Role of NATO.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 17(2), 151-164.
  • Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. London: Michael Joseph.
  • Hymans, J. E. C. (2010). Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians, and Proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Knopf, J. W. (2012). “The proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors.” The Nonproliferation Review, 19(1), 1-25.
  • Koh, H. H., et al. (1997). “The Future of Non-Proliferation.” Yale Journal of International Law, 22(2), 185-230.
  • Posen, B. R. (1993). “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict.” Survival, 35(1), 27–47.
  • Wesley, M. (2008). “The emerging world order: The future of the multipolarity.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, 62(3), 315-329.
← Prev Next →