Got Nuke? The Quest for Strategic Parity

Our world is long accustomed to the Nuclear Club and the number of doomsday ordnances its admired members possess—Russia (5459), the US (5177), China (600), France (290), the UK (225), India (180), Pakistan (170), Israel (90), and North Korea (50)[1]. However, as international relations continue to sail through the most volatile waters in years, more and more are now anchoring their hopes in the world’s most destructive technology. If it’s any comfort, their motivations are seldom rooted in naked aggression but rather a calculated search for the 3 Ps: preservation, prestige, and parity.

The Existential Shield: Israel and the "Samson Option"

Used by journalists, academics, and military analysts to describe Israel's unofficial "last resort" nuclear doctrine, the “Samson Option” is a nod to the character of Samson in the Bible, who used his restored strength to push apart the pillars of a Philistine temple in a final act of dual demise as he took his enemies down with him.

While Israel has insisted on nuclear opacity, it is widely believed to possess approximately 90 warheads as the ultimate insurance policy against regional adversaries. Beyond its “Samson Option,” Israel also justifies preventive conventional strikes with its Begin Doctrine—as displayed against Iraq in 1981, Syria in 2007, and most recently in Iran in June 2025 and early 2026—to ensure it maintains a nuclear monopoly in the region. The Jewish state argues that it is the only path toward ensuring its survival.

The Threshold Reality: Iran and Saudi Arabia

Surrounded by US military bases and facing a de facto nuclear-armed Israel, Tehran’s justification finds its root in a “siege mentality.” While the Islamic Republic insists its program is intended for peaceful energy, widespread skepticism within the international community remains, as many view a nuclear deterrent as Tehran’s ultimate insurance against regime change.

This has triggered a chain reaction in Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has explicitly stated that if Iran develops a bomb, Saudi Arabia will be compelled to reciprocate in kind. From Riyadh’s point of view, a nuclear-armed Iran would be given free rein to project power across the Middle East carte blanche; therefore, a Saudi counterweight is a necessary tool to uphold the regional balance of power. The Saudi justification centers on "strategic parity."

Lesson from History: Libya

In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi consented to eliminating Libya’s WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) programs as a quid pro quo for sanctions relief. A scant eight years later, the mercurial pariah was toppled and terminated in a NATO-backed insurgency.

None took the cautionary tale of Libya more seriously than North Korea. Despite the highly choreographed summit and cinematic photo-ops with Donald Trump in Singapore in 2018, Kim Jong Un knew better than to trade away his ironclad guarantee of sovereignty. In early 2026, Kim enshrined his country's nuclear status as “irreversible,” reinforcing the cold reality that international law often fails to protect the disarmed.

The Decoupling Fear: South Korea and Japan

Despite sharing the shade of the US nuclear umbrella in East Asia, feet are shifting in Japan and South Korea over the fear of “decoupling.” Do Seoul and Tokyo seriously believe the US will come to their defense, especially if it means San Francisco getting a retaliatory hit? To wake and smell the coffee is one thing—beyond the masked aroma is a modern odor more rancid than ever. After all, a tangible, local deterrent is more credible than a fading and distant American promise.

The Pragmatist: Singapore

Further south, one of the world’s most pragmatic countries knows too that it’s not immune to this shifting tide. A non-nuclear state, Singapore is the only ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) country that has served an outright rejection of the TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons).

Well trained in decorative words, the ultra-rich nation argues that the TPNW might undermine the existing framework of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and that the TPNW's language on the transit of nuclear materials might conflict with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To add the linguistic icing to its ornate cake, it further argues that its quest is not for a bomb but for the legal and intellectual infrastructure to use nuclear technology for "energy sovereignty" and its 2050 Net-Zero goals. Taking notes, anyone?

Conclusion

Looking through the lens of the myriad of countries seeking nuclear weapons, we can empathize with their logical philosophy. But let’s face it: Be it Israel’s survivalist doctrine, Iran’s hunt for a regime shield, South Korea’s fear of abandonment, or Singapore’s struggle in achieving the elusive passing grade in energy security, the central tenet is a vacuum of faith in collective security.

While their justifications are internally coherent, the result is a proliferation cascade that barrels our 21st century towards the jagged reefs of a new fissionable age. The haunting riddle of our times remains: how can we provide these nations and others a safe harbor of security without them being seduced by the atom’s siren call?

[1] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). SIPRI yearbook 2025: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sipri/9780198979791.001.0001

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs