Should we allow scatterbrained national and international leaders to turn this world into a madhouse? The other day, a friend of mine aptly remarked, "The February 20th World Day for Social Justice should be named the World Day of Narcissists." He seemed to have a point.
Nations are more and more run by people who grab power and demonstrate a narcissistic tendency to play the megalomaniac.

The 'mad house' reference here is meant to show that some powerful nations are amassing nuclear arsenals in their backyards. They push them into the weapons market and force other countries to buy them after creating warlike situations. They flex their military muscle to scare other countries. They use them in a cowboy fashion to prevent anyone from attempting to foray into the weapons business.

Reports say, as of early 2026, there are nine countries known or widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. Together, they hold an estimated total of roughly 12,000 to 12,500 warheads. In fact, the vast majority belong to just two nations: Russia and the United States.

The countries that have estimated warheads are: Russia (5,459), United States (5,117), China (600), France (290), United Kingdom (225), India (180), Pakistan (170 Non-Signatory), Israel (90), and North Korea (50).

The "Big Two", Russia and the US, account for about 86% of the world's total nuclear inventory. Reportedly, China is currently undergoing the rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal, with projections suggesting it could reach 1,000 warheads by 2030.

Five NATO members (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) do not own nuclear weapons but host US warheads on their soil. Since 2023, Belarus has also hosted Russian tactical nuclear weapons.
South Africa is the only country to have built its own nuclear weapons and then voluntarily dismantled them (in the early 1990s). Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus also inherited weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union but transferred them to Russia to join the NPT as non-nuclear states.

The warheads belong to different categories: 1. Land: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), 2. Sea: Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and 3. Air: Strategic Bombers.

The question of "hypocrisy" is at the very heart of the global debate over nuclear weapons. Even a conversation at a tea stall can veer into a logical question: how is it that the US, with its 5000+ nuclear warheads, threatens to eliminate Iran and its leader because Iran is suspected of having a nuclear lab? But then, some tell us that the question of hypocrisy depends on who handles the rulebook. Critics and several nations in the Global South often use the term "nuclear apartheid" to describe the current system.

The NPT "Bargain": The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was based on a deal: non-nuclear countries promised never to get the bomb, and in exchange, the five "official" nuclear powers (including the US) promised to eventually get rid of theirs (Article VI). But decades later, the US and Russia still hold thousands of warheads and are currently spending trillions of dollars to modernise them.

Iranian leaders point out that the US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, yet it claims the "moral authority" to decide who else can have them. They argue that being threatened with "obliteration" (as seen in the 2025 strikes) actually proves why a country might need a deterrent to survive.

It is time the US stops playing the global policeman. It is totally illogical and unacceptable that the US, playing the superpower, has the responsibility to rein in others when it comes to 'nuclear liability.' This political duplicity is amplified by the fact that Israel, a close US ally, is widely known to have its own nuclear weapons but is not part of the NPT and faces no sanctions or US pressure to disarm. Hence, the US sanctions and impositions are of a "double standard" and hypocritical. The US role of a nuclear bully, maintaining a monopoly and dishing out diktats, is unacceptable.

Why does the US want to play the global police man when its own backyards are packed with criminality? Who will buy the US argument that its interventions are meant to prevent regional imbalances? Such questions are shared by many critics globally, including within the US itself.

The argument usually boils down to the "who" and the "why." The US views nuclear proliferation as an "existential threat." They argue that while domestic crime is a serious social issue, a nuclear-armed Iran (or any nuclear escalation) could lead to a global war or an economic collapse that would make domestic problems infinitely worse.

The Trump proponents also argue that, if the US stops being the "policeman," a vacuum is created. They believe this vacuum would be filled by rivals (such as Russia or China) or lead to regional arms races that would eventually drag the US into a much larger, more expensive conflict.

But, in fact, "policing" is often code for protecting US economic interests—securing oil routes (like the Strait of Hormuz) and ensuring global trade stays open.

Many nations in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are increasingly vocal about the hypocrisy of the US and its allies. They see a "double standard" where the US enforces rules on others (like Iran) that it does not follow itself.

There appears to be the beginning of a fallout. The growing criticism that the US should "fix its own house first" has become a central theme in the "America First" movement. Many Americans argue that trillions spent on foreign interventions and "policing" the Middle East should have been spent on US infrastructure, border security, and crime prevention.

Some critics argue that, without a "Global Policeman," the world will become a more violent place where "might makes right," and regional bullies are free to invade their neighbours without fear of an international response. But these critics do not ask why the UN, as a global referee, has been weakened by the US through its veto power and by devaluing the UN.

Unfortunately, the UN has been marginalised into a charity box, only to rush with medicine and food for the victims of bombs and missiles.
It will be interesting to see what is cooking up in the BRICs kitchen to countermand the mad race of the 'Global Policeman!'