By Ibraheem Shitta
In a world divided by bombs and boundaries, one question pierces through the double-speak of
global diplomacy: If some nations can have nuclear weapons, why not all, including those in
Africa?
It’s a question that exposes the deep fault lines of international power dynamics, where some
countries hoard unimaginable destructive power, while others are threatened, sanctioned, or
invaded for even thinking about it.
Iran knows this story well. Accused of nuclear ambition, it remains without a single warhead, yet
remains under intense scrutiny and pressure from nations that stockpile thousands.
At the heart of the debate lies not just fear of proliferation, but a global order built on selective privilege and strategic double standards.
Can it be called a Nuclear Apartheid or the hypocrisy of the nuclear Club where nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons?
Five of them (the United States, Russia, China, the UK, and France) are officially recognised as nuclear powers under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
These powers not only possess nukes, but are modernising them, despite commitments to
disarm. Then there are India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, states with nuclear arms outside the treaty. Some admit it; others like Israel remain strategically silent. None are subjected to the same global ire directed at Iran, which is still, by the IAEA’s account, nuclear-free.
As a matter of fact, Israel, has never even admitted it has nuclear weapons, yet everyone from Tel Aviv to Timbuktu knows it does. Its undeclared arsenal is a public secret (i.e. the nuclear ambiguity), and it remains untouched by the very international community that chokes Iran with sanctions for simply enriching uranium. The message is loud and clear: “Nukes are fine, for us. But not for you.”
And here’s the question: Should every country, including African Nations, build the bomb?
In principle? Perhaps; In practice? Not so fast. The question of whether all nations, especially those in Africa, should pursue nuclear weapons
is far from black and white.
It’s a layered debate, charged with history, geopolitics, and the weight of global inequality. On one side of the argument lies the compelling case for universal nuclear rights. Proponents point first to the concept of deterrence. History shows that nuclear-armed countries rarely face direct military aggression.
The bomb acts not just as a weapon, but as a shield, a powerfulinsurance policy in a world where the rules of engagement often bend to might over right. Then there’s the principle of equal sovereignty. If nuclear weapons are genuinely seen as essential for national survival, why should any country (African or otherwise) be denied that option? Denial, in this context, begins to look less like peacekeeping and more like gatekeeping, another way to control who gets to sit at the table of global power. And, perhaps most compellingly, there is the case against global hypocrisy.
While Western and nuclear-heavy states modernise their arsenals, many in the Global South are told to disarm, to restrain, to behave. Nations like those in Africa and Latin America have upheld these expectations, even as others flout them with impunity. The question is simple: why should this imbalance persist?
Yet, the counterargument is no less powerful. First, there’s the cold reality of economic prioritisation. Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily expensive to develop and maintain. For nations still battling poverty, underdevelopment, and fragile infrastructure, channeling resources into atomic arsenals might be not just unwise, but reckless.Then comes the risk of instability. A world with more nuclear states is not necessarily a safer one.
The chances of conflict escalation, accidents, or weapons falling into the wrong hands grow exponentially. In this scenario, the very weapon that promises security could become a catalyst for chaos.
Then, there’s the matter of Africa’s moral leadership. The continent has long taken a principled stance against nuclear armament, anchored by the Treaty of Pelindaba, which declares Africa a nuclear weapons-free zone. It’s a commitment to peace, to a vision of global justice not built on bombs. Abandoning that stance now would mean forfeiting a rare and admirable moral high ground in a world increasingly defined by hard power. So What’s the Real Issue?
This isn’t just about Iran, or Africa, or who gets to press the button. It’s about the credibility of
the global nuclear order itself.
If nuclear weapons are too dangerous for one country, they’re too dangerous for all. If they’re necessary for national defense, then all nations must have equal rights to pursue them.
You can’t have it both ways, unless the goal is to preserve power, not peace which I believe is
the primary motivation for these so-called super-power, nay super-coward countries. Perhaps the answer to global nuclear inequality isn’t to encourage every nation to join the arms
race, but to chart a different, more courageous course altogether. Rather than multiply warheads, the world must demand genuine global disarmament, not as a polite suggestion, but as a binding commitment with teeth. This means holding all nuclear powers accountable, not just the ones who are easy to sanction or isolate. The hypocrisy must end, because peace cannot thrive in a system built on double standards.
The focus should shift from destruction to development. Peaceful nuclear technology, for medicine, for clean energy, for innovation which holds immense promise for humanity. Let the atom heal, not harm. Let it power homes, not end lives. Ultimately, the world needs a new security architecture, one rooted in fairness, not fear.
A system where equity replaces intimidation, and where no nation’s safety depends on the ability to destroy others.
Because in the end, the most powerful weapon a nation can wield isn’t a bomb – it’s justice. Until the rules apply equally to all, the global game will remain what it has long been: rigged.
************
Ibraheem is a broadcast journalist, a Senior Presenter and co-host TVC Breakfast. He is
passionate about global equity, power structures, and media accountability. He believes no
nation is too small to ask big questions, or demand big answers.
'
'
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
