Does nuclear pledge make you feel safer?

What will North Korea's pledge to give up all nuclear weapons mean for global security?

In exchange for promises of aid and security, including a statement from the US saying it had no intention of attacking, the North pledged on Monday to "drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programmes", according to negotiators in Beijing.

North Korea will rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty and will have to allow United Nations inspectors to return to its nuclear sites. The move is the first major breakthrough in more than two years of deadlock over the subject.

What will the pledge mean for global security? Does the move make you feel safer? What is future for the nuclear weapons debate? How might this affect Japan and South Korea?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of views received:

North Korea was/is a local danger rather than an international danger Istvan Hunanui, Chisinau, Moldova

North Korea was/is a local danger rather than an international danger. Therefore it was/is not of serious concern. The biggest international nuclear concerns are Pakistan and Iran. Both with religious agenda and clear export ambitions of both ideology and means.
Istvan Hunanui, Chisinau, Moldova

I didn't feel especially threatened before the North Koreans made this pledge. There are other things in this life to worry about than nuclear weapons.
Daniel, Kent, UK

The world would be a better and safer place to live if all nations on earth have nuclear weapons so that there would be level playing field for all. The few nations who have nuclear weapons are using it as a bullying tool.
Charles Akogyeram, Skien, Norway

No, I do not feel much safer. North Korea has broken at least one other agreement regarding nuclear matters, they will break this one too.
Bruce, Heidelberg, Germany

Global security is very much in doubt as North Korea is a very slippery power. Pledges are often given with no real intention to follow through. So while any positive signs should be welcomed one should always be wary and be prepared for last minute hitches, stumbling-blocks placed at the eleventh hour. So do not let down your guard.
Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium

I believe it was a great challenge and achievement by the negotiators Rowland Ogundu, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

First, I believe it was a great challenge and achievement by the negotiators, secondly without referring to God as the ultimate being through some wired religious arguments; North Korea has changed the rhythm of the song by shifting a little to the right. The international community must encourage and applaud this right attitude and must not be found wanting in fulfilment of the agreed conditions.
Rowland Ogundu, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

This Bush government has made everyone unsafe after aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have double standards and suicide bombing is a reaction of their crazy policies.
Hoded, Dubai, UAE

There are always two things that make any nation dangerous when it comes to weapons of mass destruction; intent and ability. Having been "close" to North Korea, I would definably state that they qualify as having aggressive intentions. This move places them, hopefully, further away from having the ability. Therefore I feel a lot safer from the threat this country poses. Good news. Next Iran please.
Ian Berry, Shrewsbury, UK

Instead of stopping countries from developing nuclear power to generate electricity why not help and assist them especially when they are an emerging nation. This non-proliferation treaty was aimed at stopping nuclear weapons but now the US seems to be using it to control the world's development via the UN.
Mark, UK

Why do the US and their allies have the right to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons when they have them too? If they have them why shouldn't everyone? I certainly don't trust the Americans to act in anyone else's interest but their own.
G Simpson, Perth, Australia

Let us see what happens in the next few months when the economic and other aid package are delivered G Balocating, Tokyo, Japan

I am very sceptical about North Korea's commitment to abandon its nuclear program. It has been proven before that when there are pressing internal needs of that country, its negotiators give way to the demands of the civilized nations. Let us see what happens in the next few months when the economic and other aid package are delivered.
G Balocating, Tokyo, Japan

I hope that North Korea is sincere this time (and not like an agreement Clinton had) and one day soon North and South Korea merges to form a democratic Korea, just like Germany did. Some of the respondents (who are US haters) may be thinking that US should not have joined the Second World War, after the Pearl Harbor incident and delivered Europe and Asia from Germany and Japan.
Jacob, USA

If North Korea is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Japan and Taiwan will have no choice but to follow suite. And they are better equipped to do that quicker than North Korea. Is this what you really want? And as for the US "building thousands of new nuclear weapons" it is a typical anti-American propaganda. United States has not designed or built a new nuclear bomb or warhead in decades! It (and Russia) actually has reduced its nuclear arsenal by thousands of warheads and ICBMs and continues to do so. How is that for "warmongering"?
Mirek Kondracki, Bielsko-Biala, Poland

I'd like to pose a few simple questions: Who is a greater threat to world peace, dictatorial North Korea or democratic South Korea? Dictatorial Iran or democratic Turkey? Communist China or democratic Taiwan? If people in the free world can't tell the moral difference between dictators and democracies, and the reasons dictators should not have nuclear weapons, may God help us all!
Matt Johnson, Guam, USA

I think lot of fuss is being generated by the West about North Korea. With technological advancement and free trade, many more countries are bound to have this weapon sooner or later. Days are not far away when these weapons will be sold and purchased. I can only feel safe if these weapons are destroyed totally from the planet.
SP Samantaray, Beira, Mozambique

Those who state "why should North Korea disarm if the US won't?" are clearly missing the point. North Korea wants aid from the US (and others). We (the US) simply want something in exchange. Honestly, why is this always missed by the "Hate America" Europeans?
Adrian Leishman, Jacksonville, USA

The North Koreans have agreed to re-adopt the terms on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under this treaty, the 189 nations participating agree that there will only be five nuclear powers: US, UK, France, USSR/Russia, and China. Israel, India, and Pakistan did not adopt the treaty.
John, Pueblo, Colorado, USA

Those suggesting that America is "out to invade" North Korea are letting sheer prejudice cloud their judgement. The US have troops in South Korea because of a UN mandate requiring the US to defend South Korea. North Korea has never signed a peace treaty. The USA have nothing to gain by attacking North Korea and would never risk drawing China into such a war (as happened in 1950). It's also worth noting that the North started the Korean War with an unprovoked invasion of the South.
Peter, UK

The North Korean government flushed its integrity down the toilet by repeatedly telling immature lies to its own citizens as well as the rest of the world and dishonouring international agreements in the past. It is only a matter of time before this treaty lies in tatters, because after this Kim's regime would want to have something to threaten the world with, in order to create grounds for making more of its impudent demands. Blackmailing has always been one of Pyongyang's favourite diplomatic approaches and apparently it's working. Therefore the US and other countries should make sure the North Koreans hold up their side of the deal. I do feel that the world is safer for now, but Pyongyang's legacy of deceit makes it all uncertain.
Jun, South Korea

North Korea will continue its research, and the international community will remain unable to stop it Dario Ciriello

The deal is just another stalling tactic. North Korea will continue its research, and the international community will remain unable to stop it. No state within sight of attaining nuclear power will ever be stopped by anything short of military force. Why should they? Nuclear weapons are too great a prize. Non-proliferation remains a very worthy ideal, but is a dead duck in practice, and we should own up to this reality.
Dario Ciriello

North Korea is supposed to have nuclear weapons and have made no pledge thus far and nothing negative has come of it - a pledge will make no difference. The US will continue to be as paranoid as ever. As for the threat to world peace, all nuclear weapons dropped in wartime, were done by the US. The biggest inventory of WMD is the US. The most willing to use force as the first option, is the US. This makes me definitely uneasy and I consider it a threat to world peace.
M Da Silva, Toronto, Canada

It is one thing to make a promise and it is another thing to adhere to it. The world will only feel safer if the promises are adhered to.
Omorodion Osula, Boston, USA

I don't feel any safer at all - I live in the country with the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet - and an inept government sits at the controls.
Brian Kincaid, Portland, Oregon, USA

I will personally feel less safe than I did before. I live in Canada. Our international policy is that of peace and humanitarian assistance to those countries that need it. With North Korea out of the nuclear arms race, for me it means that our cousins south of the border, the United States, have more reason to find war with other countries (especially in the Far East), not less. Since we live so close to them, I personally feel less safe. At least while North Korea was holding Japan at bay, with its "tests" this held the United States in a stalemate. Now the balance has fallen in the favour of the United States. If anything, peace was more likely if North Korea to produce and maintain nuclear weapons. Look what happened to Iraq after the UN inspectors confirmed that no nuclear weapons in the country.
Aleem Sidi, Montreal, Canada

A decade of sanctions obviously did nothing but slow progression toward arms development Chris Musgrave, Barbourville Kentucky, USA

The problem of nuclear expansion in North Korea is that we live in a world where the use of hard power is shunned, military action is diplomatically out of the question, because one war was already fought there that was never finished. In any case this is a debacle that won't soon end, a decade of sanctions obviously did nothing but slow progression toward arms development, and now it is probably too late. How do you cut off the hard power of an authoritarian state and dictator without using hard power to do so? How does one avoid war to prevent war later?
Chris Musgrave, Barbourville Kentucky, USA

No I do not feel safer. Before we knew more about what was going on. Now any weapons developments will take place quietly. However, due to the quality of current weapons being developed, there was, in my opinion, not much of a threat in the first place.
Katie Mills, Leysin, Switzerland

This is a fantastic development. I worked in South Korea through 2004 (during this crisis' worse period). The Korean people didn't seem too fazed about the whole thing as they took the stance of 'everything will work itself out'. It is good to see that they may be correct as Korea is a very beautiful land with fantastic people who are nothing but welcoming. Fingers crossed there are no set backs this time.
Carlo, Glasgow, Scotland

At some point in the (not too distant) future nuclear power will be the single biggest source of energy for the planet - it is inevitable with the demise of fossil fuels. Any country who wants a nuclear weapon will be able to get one as the technology and raw materials will be widely available. I think NK are simply cashing in on the situation whilst they can.
Graeme, England

North Korea developed nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent against attack by the United States. I am surprised N Korea gave up its nuclear program giving that the USA still poses a threat to N Korea. I was never afraid of N Korea using nuclear weapons except to defend against a massive conventional attack against them.
Eric Bjorgan, St Paul, MN, USA

Another irrational move in a fundamentally illogical situation. If nuclear weapons are such a fantastic deterrent, then it should not matter one iota if Korea, or the maddest person on earth has a million of the darned things. Because if they're a deterrent nobody is going to use them, so what's the worry? If there's a worry, it's because people secretly know they're not a deterrent but nobody except CND has ever had the guts and intelligence to state this. And if they're not a deterrent it still doesn't matter if North Korea has them, because they could use any weapon anyway. From every angle, deterrence fails. I will feel safer if America stops threatening other countries all the time. Period.
Tom Franklin, London, UK

How were India and Pakistan allowed to develop test and deploy nuclear weapons with not so much as a raised eyebrow. Yet the EU and US get excited when Iran and N Korea express intentions of developing weapons. Double standards or just a threat to Western interests?
Martyn Howie, Aberdeen

North Korea gained what they want and yet they will continue to obscure their activities John, NYC, USA

It means nothing. North Korea gained what they want and yet they will continue to obscure their activities and do what they like. Nothing has changed but the diplomatic world will gloss it over until the day it is too late.
John, NYC, USA

I will not feel safe until the only country that used nuclear weapons in warfare gives them up.
Stavros Krysiak, San Jose, CA

At the beginning of Iraq war, many Japanese said that it is not Iraq but North Korea that should be forced to abandon it's nuclear ambition. Yet, the US deputy says it's "win-win". It feels like a political gimmick and the re-definition of the start-line. I don't think we're any safer at all.
Yutaka Nakauchi, Tokyo, Japan

What do you mean by "safer"? I think unless the U.S. is disarmed of its nuclear arsenal the question asked in the context is really funny. In reality, this is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons against a civilian population and can potentially repeat the act against a non-nuclear weapon state.
Ahmad Farooq, Islamabad & Pakistan

Having lived the last 26 years in Japan, I can with authority say that the only times North Korea let off a missile, they crashed in the ocean nearby. Japan would be the only target of a nuclear missile, and even the Japanese laughed at that suggestion. Since the things can only fly a few kilometres and they are inaccurate, China and S Korea have no reason to worry, I have been wondering why the US and Britain are so worried.
A Hanes, Osaka Japan

North Korea has made similar "pledges" in the past. Yet, if the UN can, for once, conduct a competent operation, then the US, Japan, and South Korea can dare to be hopeful.
Mark, AZ, USA

I'd feel a lot safer if the US were contained and forced to give up weapons of mass destruction. North Korea just needs a lot of help. And please let's keep the Great Leader in the driving seat. We've seen what happens in the rest of the world when the strongmen are removed in the name of freedom and democracy - look no further than Indonesia and Iraq.
Martin, Thailand

Yes, if it actually holds, I'll feel safer. I can't believe the people that say they never felt threatened. It shows a bit of navel gazing and ignorance of Asian politics. If talks ultimately failed, South Korea and Japan (and possibly Taiwan) could quickly build nuclear weapons. Do you think North Korea and China will be pleased? It can quickly deteriorate into a deadly arms race. Don't feel so safe and smug just because you don't have soldiers in South Korea or Asia. You're not. Nuclear weapons and fallout respect no border.
Kim, Montana, USA

While this is indeed welcome news, there are still many issues to be resolved; for example, the issue of Japanese abductees. One of the most interesting aspects of these talks has been the heavy role the US has played: clearly, they wish to remain a dominant power in the region. This, I think, is a far more worrying situation than that of North Korean nuclear capabilities. The tight alliance between the US and the ruling party in Japan has prevented the satisfactory normalisation of relations between Japan and its Asian neighbours, including the Koreas and China.
Michael, Tokyo, Japan

I would feel safer if the US gave up their nukes. North Korea has never used nuclear weapons against another country, nor have they threatened to. Unless the US steps down from their belief that they are the world's police force, then why can't other countries own nukes too?
S H, St Albans

North Korea has not really promised "to give up nuclear weapons". This move seems purely tactical and ad hoc in nature. It will go back to its blackmailing techniques if it needs something else to cover up its terribly mismanaged economy.
Aruni Mukherjee, Kolkata, India

North Korea is an anachronistic almost medieval regime with a personally unstable all-powerful leader Hans H. Niehus

North Korea is an anachronistic almost medieval regime with a personally unstable all powerful leader. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They can do a great deal of damage by selling their nuclear technology and destabilizing the region. Reading the other discussions I get the feeling that most of the respondents come from a different planet. How could any rational human being think of the United States as a threat to world peace, or as a nation posing a nuclear threat to anyone. Isn't that like comparing apples to pears?
Hans H. Niehus, Schenectady, USA

The North Koreans are communists who've starved millions of their own people to death. Their promises are worthless - and whatever other countries do to get rid of them would be more than justified.
Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes, UK

There are still seven countries and one unacknowledged with nuclear weapons. Four of these countries are extremely volatile, five have a huge amount of power which is wielded, not always beneficially for mankind, and one has already used them. So as far as global security goes this is only a start, they all need to get rid of their weapons and they all need to allow the UN inspectors into their countries.
Anela, New York, USA

This pledge means less than nothing and the UN Inspectors are yet another example of money being wasted as they have no power to back them up and before any action can be taken against those who break the non proliferation treaty's terms the Un have to agree on a course of action and then put it into force, normally at the expense of the western powers and with the opposition of Third World countries who are frightened that all the aid that they receive could be reduced.
J.Burdall, Matlock, England

I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel particularly 'unsafe' in relation to North Korea before this deal Alex Lang

I don't feel any safer because I didn't feel particularly 'unsafe' in relation to North Korea before this deal. The biggest worry to global security has been for years and continues to be the government of the United States. For those with the intelligence to think and see for themselves and not just accept what they are spoon-fed in the USA and the UK that is blatantly clear.
Alex Lang, Bath UK

The threat posed by North Korea was completely different from that now posed by Islamists and will doubtless be solved by re-unification with South Korea which was one of the "Great Leader's" political goals anyway. A win win situation for both sides and a welcome step in the right direction.
Terry, London, UK

You can't blame other countries for wanting these weapons when the world is so unstable. If I was in such a country, I'd certainly sleep better at night knowing that my government had a deterrent against US invasion. As it stands, North Korea only has a statement of intention standing between it and total annihilation. Iran has even less, is next door to thousands of US soldiers and it has oil! If I were Iranian I'd be making nukes as fast as I could.
Matt, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (ex. UK)

North Korea were never really a danger to anyone - they were and are just manipulating the situation to get the maximum benefit they can, hoping for economic advantages and improved international status. The real dangers are elsewhere: India and Pakistan, Israel, and of course the USA. The idea that war is a valid tool in international relations, as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq, is far more dangerous than anything North Korea could ever come up with. The resultant increase in terrorism, directly attributable to the current US approach to the world, is what really puts us at risk.
Paul, London, England

I remain far less concerned over nuclear brinkmanship than over other ways by which we may render this planet uninhabitable. Nuclear weapons are so devastating, and so obviously place the politicians who press the "nuke" buttons in the front line, that I believe it highly unlikely they will ever be used in anger again. I do, however, worry greatly about the environmental disaster that we seem hell-bent on bringing about. Global warming is far more likely to wipe us out than nuclear weapons.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK

I can only see two possible differences between Iran and North Korea. Firstly, Iran has lots of oil. Secondly, I find it much more likely, given its communist history, that North Korea already has some nuclear weapons capability. One of these reasons is surely why the two countries are being treated very differently by the US. Either they want to control Iran so they can control the flow of its oil, or they are afraid to attack North Korea just in case Los Angeles gets wiped out.
N Rhodes, Leicestershire, UK

This alleged agreement will last no longer than previous agreements George Hinton

The North Koreans have been playing a game of brinkmanship for years. This alleged agreement will last no longer than previous agreements, as North Korea searches for weaknesses in the joint negotiators position and seeks to exploit anomalies. The only way that peace on the peninsula, and in the region can be obtained is by the overthrow of the repressive North Korean regime and it's "religion" of "Juche" and undying devotion to the Great Leader. Until that end comes about the north will be a loose cannon seeking to destabilise and take advantage from of its neighbours.
George Hinton, Twickenham, Middlesex

I or Pakistan are not threatened by North Korean nukes. We are a nuclear power ourselves and surrounded by India, China, Iran, and Russia in the neighbourhood, pledges do not make any difference. Only disarmament by the United States, the only country to have used nukes and openly debating the use of nukes in future conflicts, would make the world safer as the US is the only country to pose a threat in that regard.
Hashim, Islamabad, Pakistan

As strange as this may sound, I see nuclear weapons as a good thing. Lets face it, all the big boys in the world have them tucked away, I don't believe for a second they haven't. However each acts as the others deterrent, so no government no matter how corrupt or powerful can possibly consider dropping one, not least as the knock on effects are global, so as long as the worlds superpowers squabble about who has them but don't use them, other countries considering it surely won't bother.
Pete, Macclesfield, UK

Is it deja vu again? North Korea gave similar pledges around 1994 only to renege on them later. It is notable that George W. Bush stated a few weeks ago that options, including the military option, is on the table as regards Iran's nuclear programme but now the US has openly stated it would not attack North Korea. History may not repeat itself. Notwithstanding the tremendous neocon influence in Washington, the US might not want to spend so much social, political and military costs by attacking either North Korea or Iran even if there were to be fundamental breaches.
Myint Zan , Sarawak, Malaysia

North Korea is not the problem. It is the US and UK that are the problem. They aim to spend billions building new nuclear weapons. As long as they set the example that nuclear weapons are good for your defence/attack then there will be other leaders who will say what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
B.Selvadurai, Klang, Malaysia

No - Because I didn't feel particularly threatened by North Korea anyway. Of course the world is a better place without nuclear weapons, but there is a great hypocrisy to this . How can countries in the west who are in possession of such weapons themselves tell the rest of the world they can't have them!
Zoe, Hull

It is difficult to accept we are at the same position we were at years ago. The NK will keep dangling the nuclear carrot to get increased aid and benefits every time it wants a better deal.
Ian A Bedford, Hsinchu, Taiwan

North Korea is a despotic and brutal regime which cannot feed its own people and yet has a massive standing army. It is only a matter of time before it implodes into anarchy. I do not trust the current leadership at all, but they have only limited ability to harm the outside world.
Ralph Williams, Cambridge UK

To be honest no, it does not make me feel any safer, then again it didn't make me feel less safe that they could have been developing weapons. Why can they not have nuclear weapons? Why can nations like the US, with a history of attacking nations, have them and other nations, which have not attacked anyone in quite a while, not? For the most part the nations that are being told "no nuclear plants" seem to be just wanting them for power, and so what if they can make a nuclear device. Anyone with a degree in physics can make one.
Robb, Dublin, Ireland