A solution to the nuclear dilemma has eluded mankind since the creation of nuclear weapons.  A visionary attempt by the United States to eliminate the threat at the beginning of the nuclear age (the "Baruch Plan" for the international control of atomic energy) fell victim to the Cold War.  However, in this new geopolitical era, the UN Security Council finally has the opportunity to function as its founders intended, and it may now be appropriate to reconsider the idea of a security regime that would bring all nuclear weapons under international control.

The internationalization of nuclear security would have to be implemented over a number of years through a systematic step-by-step process.  This paper suggests the following three-phase approach: in Phase I, a new international security regime would be established; in Phase II, a UN-owned international nuclear deterrent force (INDF) would be created; and finally, in Phase III, all national nuclear arsenals would be eliminated in favor of the INDF.

When a state develops a nuclear arsenal, these destructive weapons must be initially integrated into existing military forces and initially managed through existing civil and military institutions. The subsequent relationship between nuclear weapons and civil-military relations in possessor states is complex, however, and presents an important two-way puzzle. First, it is important to ask how existing patterns of civil-military relations in nuclear states have influenced the likelihood of nuclear-weapons use. Some scholars believe that military officers are less war-prone and hawkish than civilian leaders; others believe the opposite, that the military tends to be bellicose and biased in favor of aggressive military postures. Which view is right, especially when nuclear weapons are involved, is a question that has not been fully addressed in the literature. Second, it is important to flip the question around and also ask how nuclear weapons have influenced civil-military relations in the states that have acquired the ultimate weapon. Again, the answer is not clear. One might expect that the massive destructive power of these weapons would encourage much greater civilian involvement in military affairs. Yet, at the same time, one might predict that military organizations would maintain significant control over nuclear policy as they want to protect their operational autonomy, and because the perceived need for a prompt response would mitigate against tight civilian control.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union has brought new nuclear non-proliferation dangers and opportunities. Both revolve around the approximately thirty thousand nuclear weapons and the fissile materials for perhaps ninety thousand nuclear bombs in the former Soviet Union. The weapons are now deployed in only four of the newly independents states - most in Russia, but some still in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. "Loose Nukes" is the colloquial description of one aspect of the new threats.

New positive and negative assurances from all five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now vitally important, not only to provide support to Ukraine and every other non-nuclear-weapons state's legitimate concerns, but to advance the vital goals of nuclear non-proliferation prior to the critical 1995 NPT review and extension conference.