Analysis: Is Nuclear Armageddon More Likely Than Ever?

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

Countries have found nuclear weapons to be a very deadly tool that can cause immediate havoc among any nation. Both the desire of wanting to be the detonator of an atomic weapon and the fear of being on the wrong side of one has brought upon other nations the aspiration to create such weapons. According to Brennan Weiss from businessinsider.com, there are now 8 other countries that bear nuclear weapons besides the United States. Moreover, the US does not even carry the most nuclear weapons; but, however, Russia does. The idea to use the deadly devices and weapons back in World War II have swayed other nations into wanting to become just as strong a power the US had portrayed to be in the second world war. The manufacture of nuclear weapons has become an initial part of the army for the 9 countries that acquire them, and still causes worries to countries to this day due to threats of use.

It is perfectly obvious that when nations compete to increase their military might, the dangers of war becomes greater not lesser ” (Doc. 6). Khrushchev points out that the nuclear weapons and the arms race will only put the world closer to destruction and it won’t preserve peace. These nuclear weapons that were caused by the arms race can one day affect the world and cause massive devastation and large scale of loss of human life. “The arms race was an important part of the Cold War.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

In the article “Is Nuclear Armageddon More Likely than Ever,” I found the passage “Could terrorists acquire a nuke,” very interesting. After reading this passage, I feel very concerned for the U.S safety. There are many known possibilities that terrorists could use nuclear weapons on the U.S. Thankfully, there are agencies in place to control and monitor Uranium and other explosives. The International Atomic Energy Agency is an agency that makes sure that nuclear weapons are not used for military purposes. According to the passage, “The International Atomic Energy Agency catalogued 2,200 attempts to steal or smuggle uranium.” Could these be attempts of ISIS?

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

“Many countries abandoned the NPI treaty and created their own nuclear weapons that can be used against the U.S. at their will”. The NPI treaty was a treaty that was made to agree to stop the production of nuclear weapons around the world. Many countries like China or Japan and many others have abandoned the treaty and began the creation of nuclear weapons. “Terrorist groups have already had an arsenal of nuclear weapons”. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS have created several nuclear weapons. A nuclear war may happen in our near future against

Throughout the past century many nations have started to strive for nuclear weapons this arms race has become an increasingly hostile and dangerous situation to be in. This all started around 70 years ago with the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the United States of America. From then on it has been a race for who could get the newest and best technology being nuclear weapons. Eventually some of the top countries realized what this arms race could do and have started to decrease their stockpiles. But there is a new threat of an arms race in the Middle East which could prove catastrophic for the rest of the world if not kept under control by the U.S. and other G5 nations.

The historian Spencer Weart notes "You say 'nuclear bomb ' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world" The escalation of nuclear proliferation in and around the world, especially in the Middle East has led to the fear of nuclear war in the near future. Many countries built nuclear weapons because it felt insecure from the major nuclear states or from their neighbors conventional military or nuclear capabilities. This is the situation with China, India and Pakistan. Many other reasons encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons, but the main reason for acquiring nuclear weapons is the deterrence against any external threat and prevention external offensive that might lead to war. Nuclear weapons make such countries feel more secure, nuclear weapons can prevent war because countries will have the ability to deter any external aggression. At the same time, there is no guarantee that acquiring nuclear weapons may lead to nuclear war.

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

Nuclear weapons are the most deadly, destructive, and powerful form of technology that the world has ever created. Officially, only 9 states out of 196 in the international arena have possession of them. Although nuclear weapons are being eliminated by states, they still hold a significant value for nations in the IR arena with a nuclear annihilation capacity. States within the international community that own nuclear arsenals are automatically feared and respected because of the status symbol they hold. Conversely, this prestige, power, and influence can also back fire on states and become a disadvantage. States can lose power in the international community by causing tensions and dividing themselves between states who don’t have these nuclear advantages. France is one country in particular that resembles a superpower with nuclear capability. France has gained power in the International community through NATO due to their possession of nuclear weapons. Overall, nuclear weapons still represent a great power in the International Arena today and will continue holding that power.

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,