Video summary
Eighty years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the global consensus remains that nuclear weapons should be eliminated, yet recent illegal military actions by the United States and Israel against Iran have fundamentally altered this landscape. These aggressive attacks have led many nations to view nuclear arsenals not as instruments of destruction, but as essential shields for their survival. Consequently, what is often framed in mainstream media as a dangerous obsession with the bomb among smaller states is actually presented by the speakers as a rational strategic choice. When powerful nations like the United States repeatedly violate international norms and initiate wars without cause, they create an environment where peace cannot be achieved through diplomacy alone, forcing vulnerable countries to seek their own deterrents to ensure security against potential retaliation.
The video highlights two starkly different historical pathways that small states face when considering nuclear development: the case of Libya and the case of North Korea. In 2003, Libya announced its intention to dismantle its nuclear program, only to be invaded by NATO forces three years later in 2011, leaving the country in ruins with no functioning state institutions. Conversely, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test in 2006 and has since maintained a credible deterrent that has prevented direct military attacks despite immense international pressure. The speakers argue that these contrasting outcomes demonstrate that giving up nuclear weapons without guaranteed security guarantees can lead to regime collapse and destruction, whereas pursuing them can provide the stability necessary to avoid war. This reality forces other nations to look at North Korea's strategy rather than condemning it as irrational.
Furthermore, the transcript suggests that the United States has often undermined diplomatic efforts to resolve nuclear tensions by renegading on promises and shifting toward hardline stances whenever administrations change. In negotiations with North Korea, opportunities for peace were frequently missed because the US failed to provide the security assurances required by Pyongyang, effectively pushing them toward a nuclear track as a means of self-preservation. The development of nuclear weapons is also described as an ongoing process involving delivery systems and continuous technological advancement, meaning that stopping proliferation requires addressing the root causes of insecurity rather than simply demanding disarmament. Ultimately, the speakers conclude that true peace can only be established by creating conditions where smaller nations feel safe enough to forgo nuclear weapons, which currently means ending the cycle of imperialist attacks and austerity imposed by Western powers.
Read the full video transcript
Hello, welcome to no cold war
perspectives which is brought to you in
association with people's dispatch. My
name is Vijay Prashad. I'm the director
of triontinental and a member of of no
cold war. Recently Dehan Song and I
wrote a piece together called the US
makes most compelling case for nuclear
proliferation which you can read at the
people's dispatch site. Dehan is part of
the international strategy center in
Soul, South Korea, also in the no cold
war collective and an associate of the
Korea policy institute. Look, it's very
clear 80 years after atom bombs were
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that
everybody, every rational person would
want to get rid of nuclear bombs. That
is very clear. We are completely opposed
uh to nuclear weapons. In fact, we are
opposed to war in general uh as a
general policy. We would prefer any
other means to war, peace over war any
day. That of course includes nuclear
weapons. On the other hand, the um
illegal Israeli and US attack on Iran
has made a lot of countries consider the
question of nuclear weapons as a shield.
And and really that's what we mean by
saying the US makes a compelling case
for nuclear proliferation. The attack on
Iran more proliferation than
non-prololiferation. Than, you've been
giving a lot of thought to this. What
are some of your immediate um thoughts
and concerns about the question of
proliferation in our time?
>> Sure. I mean uh I don't think it nobody
wants proliferation like we're living in
a time where we're meeting like climate
change like existential crisis of
climate change right like it doesn't
like war it's a massive greenhouse
producer or it's just you know there is
no sustainable war right it's at a time
when we should be focusing on peace on
resolving these like existential crisis
like climate change global warming
whatnot uh you know we're like moving
towards the precipice of war, right? But
I think one interesting point is that uh
often times a lot of people especially
the mainstream media paints a lot of
small countries that are pursuing
nuclear weapons as just being like
obsessed with the bomb, right, for no
reason whatsoever. Uh as opposed to
really understanding it as a rational
choice, right? as a rational choice as a
nuclear deterrent that in effect is
effective, right? So we I guess the
point is like we want a world with
peace, but that has to stop start with
like creating the conditions for peace,
right? There has to start with not
having a powerful country like the
United States just like attacking other
countries. Uh yeah. So I would say in in
to some regards there is a rationale
like a like a reasoning behind a
prolifer nuclear proliferation among
these smaller states that is not just an
obsession that is not just irrational uh
and we we don't want nuclear
proliferation but to do so I think the
conditions for peace have to be created
>> the conditions for peace and when you
look at the case studies people look at
Libya which announced in 2003, we're
going to give up our nuclear weapons.
2011, the state was attacked by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and
Libya now stands as a destroyed country.
Um, 3 years after Libya made that
announcement, we write in our article
that North Korea tested a nuclear
weapon. 2006, the only country to do so
in the 21st century. Um, nobody has been
able to attack North Korea despite
enormous buildup and pressure. These are
two interesting pathways. The North
Korea pathway, the Libya pathway. I
mean, sadly, sadly, this is what small
countries are looking at. They are
looking at these two choices. They are
making a determination.
>> Yeah. I mean, um, I think it's
interesting because North Korea would
site Libya, right? Uh, they will site
Iraq, right? They would say, "Hey, Iraq
got bombed because it didn't have any
weapons of mass destruction." Right?
That's like the North Korean
perspective, right? And I think it's
interesting because if you actually take
the time to look at the history of the
negotiations between the United States
and North Korea, it's clear that there
were all these hinge points in which
peace could have been made and the
nuclear program could have been stopped.
But in each instance, the United States
reneaked on its promises and backtracked
or an administration changed and decided
to take a hardline stance and in effect
pushed North Korea from a diplomatic
track to a nuclear track, right? To some
degree, uh North Korea was able to use a
two-track policy uh approach in order to
not get left in the hook, right? Instead
of like the United States just saying,
"Yeah, you know, we're pursuing
diplomacy, so just denuclearize," North
Korea was like, "No, we're not going to
do it until we actually have well
complete security guarantee from the
United States, which which the United
States never gave." And basically push
North Korea to nuclear development. And
I think what's interesting to point out
is that nuclear development doesn't just
stop with the bomb, right? Now you go
into the vehicles to deliver the bomb
and then you know there's there's a
whole process. So it's like if you want
to stop that process just because North
Korea has nuclear bombs it doesn't mean
that there's no more further
development. There's constantly further
development. So if like the United
States wants to stop that then there has
to be like you know you have to feel
security. You have to feel that you're
not going to get attacked.
Well, every country wants peace and
development. They want security. They
don't want what the West is imposing,
which is war and austerity. It's out of
the question. 80th anniversary of the
atom bombs being dropped on Japan. Um,
we really, you know, honor uh the memory
of people who were killed in that in
that terrible terrible assault on these
civilian cities. Our article is called
the US makes most compelling case for
nuclear proliferation. Dehan and I both
work with no cold war. This is no cold
war perspectives um done in association
with people's dispatch. Thanks a lot.