Anti Missile Anti American Rhetoric

As in any other Treaty a verification and transparency regime was set up to have compliance by both the United States and Russian administration to meet the treaty’s limitations. Verification control included in site inspection, data exchange, maintain records of location, numbers and characteristics of the weapons that is limited by the treaty. The purpose of in site inspection of the nuclear facilities, weapon arsenal storage and sharing of the data recordings as indicated in the Treaty is to place a transparency and establish trust in the intentions between the US and Russian governmental parties. This would show willingness that both parties working to comply with the Treaty and carry further progress in reduction of the nuclear weapons stock.

President, John F Kennedy, in his speech to the american people, “Cuban Missile Crisis,” recounts a time when the U.S was at its closest to a nuclear war against the soviet union due to nuclear missiles being planted in cuba. Kennedy’s purpose of this speech was to inform to the american people that he has decided to quarantine Cuba and of what his thoughts were of the current situation at hand. Kennedy uses a sentimental tone throughout his speech to appeal to similar feelings that his citizens are experiencing. Kennedy effectively informs his audience of the sighting of missile sites found through Cuba and what his resolve to end this would be through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos paired with rhetorical devices .

With sources dating back to the late 1960s, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has expanded to be a useful instrument of the government’s security. Its principal motivations for developing the nuclear weapons are as follows: to block foreign pressure, create an international impact and preserve the terms and conditions of the DPRK (ruling party of North Korea). In contrast, Iran 's motivations to develop strategic weapons appear to be more complex than that of North Korea. Iran 's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

Twenty years after the largest mass murder on European soil since the Third Reich, one question still remains unanswered. How did this happen when the eyes of the world were watching? Why were death squads able to, unchecked, massacre more than 8,000 men and boys in a UN protected “safe zone”? According to eyewitness accounts of survivors, “They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity” (International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia). The sole male survivor in his entire family, Mevludin Oric recounted how he lay for hours under the corpse of his nephew pretending to be dead while death squads searched the killing fields. “I closed my eyes...And for a few seconds before the expected shot, I wonder what it is like in heaven, or in hell.”(NBC)

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

The tensions during the cold war would have only escalated if there was no restriction on what could be used during a state of war. Despite the growing hostility toward the situation, the Allied powers came up with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which eventually received signatures from 191 nations since it was introduced in 1968 by the United Nations. The preamble highlights the ideology behind the treaty and its attempt to destabilize tensions during and after the 20th century, but may have failed or succeed by allowing loopholes to exist. It is a possibility that the attention was to allow nations to take advantage of nuclear weapons, in that case, this treaty has succeeded. If that is not the case, the treaty has failed its objective. The first error seen in the preamble is the statement that " affirming the principle that the benefits of a peaceful application of nuclear technology by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon states from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all parties to the treaty whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon states"(Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). In essence, nuclear reactors use the same materials found in nuclear weapons but the material is nowhere nearly as powerful. Giving away the means needed to make the weapon stronger is dangerous.

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

Australia has neither produced nor purchased nuclear weaponry at any point. As the world's 3rd largest Uranium producer, Australia has taken great strides to ensure the sales of their product is used only in nuclear power plants and never for weaponry. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) works with many Southeast Asian countries through the Regional Security of Radioactive Sources project to help manage security risks caused by radioactive sources. Japan has also collaborated with the ANSTO to create the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament which aims to improve worldwide efforts pertaining to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Australia hopes that the General Assembly Plenary will consider the negative effect nuclear weapons have on the environment and condone their use. To address this problem the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) must be strengthened. As

The Iranian nuclear deal and sanctions is a very convoluted and confusing dilemma. Thomas Friedman a foreign affairs, globalization and technology correspondent for The New York Times, wrote the article titled, “Look Before Leaping” in which he writes about the basic ins and outs of the Iranian nuclear deal. He discusses the most probable possibilities of the deal going into depth about the likelihood that Iran is a potential economic and social ally in the sense that “Iran is a real country and civilization, with competitive (yet restricted) elections, educated women and a powerful military. Patching up the US-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria” (Friedman). He also goes into the possibility that Iran could, once the nuclear sanctions are lifted, attack Israel and lead not only the region, but also the globe into absolute and complete disarray. The complexities of this issue stem all the way back to 1979, when Iran revolted against its Shah and transitioned to “its ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps — to gradually move Iran from being a revolutionary state to a normal one” (Friedman). For far too long Iran has been involved in

We already know that sometimes a world war or world domination is sparked through these things. Nobody wants to have less power than others. The Iran deal can be taking a wrong turn. We will never know until it happens. The world already has enough problems on their backs to burden such as: climate change, terrorists, unemployment, etc. A war with Iran, or possibly a World War 3 will just make everything worst. When Iran finally make these weapons, the US or any other country cannot tell what they can do with them. Nine is a big number, and if Iran tries to take down the "big game" countries with those bombs, Iran can be looking at world domination. . The United States believes that we would live in a "more secure world free from the threat

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s conquest for nuclear energy technology commenced during the 1950’s, inspired by U.S President Dwight Eisenhower’s program called “Atoms for Peace”. This program fabricated a plan in which the U.S Atomic Energy Commission would lend Iran as much as 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium in order to further develop their nuclear industries, including health care and medicine.i Two years following the agreement, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center at the Tehran University, and the United States to arranged to supply a five-megawatt reactor. Several years later, in July of 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

• Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes will be recognized by the United States and its allies, as guaranteed by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.