By Cally Ikpe, Ph.D
Throughout history, nations have competed for influence, territory, resources and strategic advantage. Whether driven by pride, ideology, religion, economics or national interest, the tendency of stronger states to dominate weaker ones has remained a recurring feature of international politics. Consequently, states perceived as vulnerable have often found themselves subjected to conquest, coercion or external interference.
History offers numerous examples. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, spanning roughly the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, flourished largely because European powers possessed overwhelming military and naval superiority.
Likewise, the colonization of Africa during the late nineteenth century was facilitated by technological and military advantages. In many instances, colonised peoples had to wage prolonged armed struggles before attaining independence in the mid-twentieth century.
The First World War, 1914–1918, and the Second World War, 1939–1945, demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of unchecked military rivalry. The latter culminated in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, introducing humanity to the destructive power of nuclear weapons.
In response, the international community sought to prevent the spread of such weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons, NPT, which entered into force in 1970, aimed to limit the number of nuclear-armed States while encouraging disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Yet the pursuit of nuclear capability did not cease.
Several countries either developed or were believed to have developed nuclear arsenals outside the framework envisioned by the treaty.
North Korea’s Nuclear Path
North Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, withdrew from the NPT in January 2003 and pursued nuclear capability despite rigorous international sanctions, trade embargoes, and diplomatic pressure led by the United States. North Korea perhaps, presents the most striking example. Despite severe economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and sustained international pressure, it conducted its first nuclear test on 9 October 2006 and has since carried out multiple additional tests while steadily advancing its missile programme.
Successive governments in Pyongyang have portrayed these capabilities not as instruments of conquest but as the ultimate guarantee of regime survival. From North Korea’s perspective, nuclear weapons provide insurance against foreign intervention. Its leadership has repeatedly pointed to examples where governments without credible strategic deterrence were overthrown through external military action or coercion.
Incidents such as the US military invasion of Panama in December 1989 to oust Manuel Noriega, the 2003 invasion of Iraq following the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya after Muammar Gaddafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear programme in 2003 and the 3 January 2026 capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cila Flores – now facing trial in New York City on the charges of narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking – are often cited in strategic discussion as reinforcing this perception.
Whether or not one agrees with Pyongyang’s reasoning, the outcome is difficult to ignore. Since becoming a de facto nuclear-armed State, no major power has seriously contemplated a conventional military invasion of North Korea. Instead, diplomatic negotiations, sanctions and deterrence have become the principal tools of engagement.
Today, there are nine countries widely regarded as possessing nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, although Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its arsenal. Collectively, these states possess an estimated 12,000 nuclear warheads, with the overwhelming majority held by the United States and Russia. The strategic logic underpinning this reality is known as deterrence. It rests on the assumption that no rational actor will initiate an attack if doing so guarantees devastating retaliation.
During the Cold War, this principle evolved into what came to be known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), arguably helping to prevent direct war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. This deterrence debate also shapes current international tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme.
The United States, Israel and several European governments argue that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is essential to regional and global security. Iranian leaders, on the other hand, insist that their nuclear activities are peaceful while maintaining that the country has a legitimate right to develop advanced nuclear technology.
Regardless of one’s position, the controversy underscores a broader strategic question: States that feel threatened often become more determined, not less, to acquire credible deterrent capabilities. The paradox is therefore unmistakable. The international community understandably seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation because a world with many nuclear-armed States could be significantly more dangerous.
Yet history also suggests that countries possessing credible nuclear deterrents are generally less likely to become targets of direct military invasion by other major powers.This raises an uncomfortable but important question: does the possession of overwhelming retaliatory capability contribute to national security, or does it merely increase humanity’s collective risk?
Regional Instability And The Iranian Analogy
The dynamic between sovereign vulnerability and nuclear pursuit is evident in the Middle-East. The persistent geopolitical pressure and economic sanctions applied to Iran by the US and regional adversaries stem directly from efforts to prevent Tehran from achieving nuclear breakout status.
For non-nuclear States involved in asymmetric conflicts, conventional capabilities restrict them to targeting regional military infrastructure or proxy positions rather than the sovereign territory of global superpowers. Observing how nuclear status shields North Korea from military interventions reinforces the incentive for other pressured states to view nuclear capability as their ultimate defensive shield.
North Korea’s experience does not provide a definitive answer. It does, however, illustrate a strategic reality that policymakers cannot ignore. Whether admired or condemned, its nuclear arsenal has fundamentally altered how other nations engage with it. In that sense, a nuclear-armed North Korea has become a metaphor for a State whose sovereignty is reinforced not by international goodwill, but by the perceived certainty that any existential attack would carry unacceptable consequences.
That conclusion is deeply unsettling. Yet it reflects one of the central paradoxes of modern international relations: while nuclear weapons undoubtedly increase the dangers confronting humanity, they have also, in certain circumstances, served as powerful instruments of deterrence.
North Korea’s experience neither justifies nuclear proliferation nor settles the moral debate surrounding these weapons. It does, however, compel policymakers and scholars alike to confront an uncomfortable strategic reality – that in an international system where power remains the ultimate currency, the capacity to inflict unacceptable retaliation can profoundly shape the security and survival of States.
