Banning Nuclear Weapons In America

Nuclear weapons have been used for intimidation and power amongst countries around the world. Even till this day, there is news of tension and oppression between countries for power and use nuclear weapons in order acquire the upper head. But in reality, if the world ever goes on the brink of an all out nuclear war, everyone would be dust flowing in the wind. Author Arthur C. Clarke speaks against nuclear weapons in his book 2001: A Space Odyssey. In his book, the message that he tries convey is that technology is advancing rapidly, and the use of it could be either beneficial, or can ultimate be the cause of the destruction of the human race. Its where have to look at our priorities and see what can be used for the greater good.

“Just the fact of having nuclear weapons, and letting the rest of the world know, provides a great amount of security” (HR) With war most countries want to be the strongest so that the war can be won. When the people of a country are reassured that their military has nuclear weapons it creates a sense of security that does not go unnoticed. For Example President Barack Obama called for the United States to lead international efforts toward a world free of nuclear weapons. (U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy) “The Task Force report, titled U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, focuses on near-term policies to reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest possible level consistent with maintaining a credible deterrent.” The United States started to try to ease people’s minds by creating guides to surviving a nuclear attack, should it ever occur. There were even cartoons created to reassure children about this fear, such as Duck and Cover

Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaties reproduced attempts by the superpowers to accomplish strategic nuclear expansions in such a way as to calm mutual deterrence. These attempts were, first, ballistic missile defenses were outlawed; secondly, "first strike" weapons were decommissioned, and last but not least, civil defense was discouraged. Nevertheless, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was comfortable establishing their country's defense on deterrence. Moreover, we have seen some have started a movement to fully ban the weapons in non-nuclear states. Stated in the article ‘Humanitarian reframing of nuclear weapons and the logic of a ban’, “ICAN and other proponents

Nuclear disarmament is about disarming the nuclear bombs around the world. The Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) restricts countries to make a nuclear bomb. Also, the pact was called to order at the dedication in 1968; was legalized in 1970 and on May 11, 1995, the treaty carried on frequently. However, being dependent on the pact, there are five nuclear weapon states (NWS) that are exempt from the NPT, such as France, China, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States. These countries tested the atomic bomb before the pact was called to order at signature in 1968. The United States tested the first atomic bomb on July 1945 and dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Russia tested nuclear bombs in 1949 adopted by the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960, and China in 1964. The five countries agreed to the (NPT) in 1968 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. However, India, Israel, and Pakistan didn’t sign the NPT; Iran, Libya, and Syria were alleged to possess a nuclear bomb. Also, North Korea came out of the NPT in 2003 and deployed nuclear bombs in 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016. Subsequently in the cold war, about 14, 900 nuclear bombs still remain in the eight countries such as China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States and close to 4,000 of that nuclear bombs were accustomed. The United States used approximately 1,650, Russia approximately 1,950, the United Kingdom approximately 120, and France approximately 280 nuclear bombs. The United States has roughly 2,200. Russia has approximately 2,350, and France has around 10 retired bombs. The United States has approximately 4,000, Russia has approximately 4,300, France has approximately, China has approximately 270, the United Kingdom has approximately 95, Israel has approximately 80, Pakistan has roughly has 120-130, and India has approximately 110-120 reserve nuclear bombs. The overall United States has approximately 6,800, Russia has approximately 7,000, France has approximately 300, China has approximately 270, the United Kingdom has approximately 215, Israel has approximately 80, Pakistan has approximately has 120-130, and India has

There are other countries known as rogue states threatening the safety of the world. One of those nations is North Korea who has openly threatened the U.S. with war and the use of nuclear weapons. “North Korea negotiator pulled aside Secretary of State James Toelly, the top U.S. negotiator, and in effect told him, ‘we have nukes. We cannot dismantle them. It is up to you whether we do physical demonstration or transfer them.’” (Edmonson1). In response to North Korea’s threat to the U.S. and other nations should respond by increasing embargoes and by moving troops and missile defense systems to areas that can be hit by a nuke from North Korea. If the U.S. were to go to war with North Korea it would be least likely for an all-out world war because North Korea has no allies. North Korea threatening the U.S. is not the only reason why we should fear them and John R. Bolton does an excellent job at explaining this in his article “Rogue Nations…”. “We now face the danger not only of a North Korea in possession of nuclear weapons, but the risk that it will export fissile material or weapons to other rogue nations or to terrorists” (Bolton3). All the nations that want to protect the world’s peace must work together to stop North Korea from threatening the world with their nukes because if they were able to do it with little to no support then what says another rogue state or terrorist group can do it.

The second most important question is that banning firearms is one of the better solutions? Actually this is one of the main impossible tasks to ban the guns. Adam Winkler of The University of California states, "One key to ratcheting down the emotions in the gun debate is to move beyond disbarment and to recognize the permanence of guns in America. With approximately 300 million guns already in circulation and gun owners unlikely to ever comply with orders to turn in their guns, the guns are here to stay." This statement clearly proves that banning guns in USA is a big challenge.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has greatly limited many countries from gaining nuclear capabilities (Q&A). When it was first made there were five nuclear powers. Their goal was to not transfer nuclear weapons or assist non-nuclear countries in making nuclear weapons (Q&A). There are countries who have given up their nuclear arsenals at least partially because of NPT. South Africa and Ukraine have both given up their nuclear weapons (Q&A). These countries and others have proven that a country does not need nuclear weapons to be influential to the world. Other countries such as Germany and Spain have never developed nuclear weapons and have remained their global influence. (Allport pg.

Nuclear weapons have been around for quite some time, although only one nation has ever used one for mass destruction. Now that the United States has proven it is not scared to use one, the question remains if they will ever use another. Although the whole world is playing a what if game, the hope is that nobody will drop one. However, although that is a goal why are nations continuing to grow their supply of said weapons? The spread of such weapons have increased significantly over time, and nations hold them on the back burner in case of future conflicts. The issue remains, how can we keep a nation from using one against the United States when there is no guaranteed way to eliminate their supply? A few recommendations for future nuclear use is as follows:

Seventy five years prior to today, nuclear weapons were born into the world, and seventy one years ago they were first used on an opponent. The United States used nuclear weapons for the purpose of defeating the Axis Powers of the Second World War. Only to, continue their employment as deterrence against a towering Soviet Union. Thus began the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviets. The purpose, to achieve supremacy in nuclear warfare, throughout the arms race several other countries developed nuclear capabilities. Eventually, both sides held enough nuclear power to annihilate the other, regardless of a successful first hit. Halting the use of nuclear weapons, because of the fear of the capability to retaliate and suffer the same fate. Following the Cold War, several countries were left with nuclear capabilities possessing a serious threat, and the understanding of the grave consequences if chosen to employ them. Concluding nuclear weapons were a means of security and deterrence against other states.

I believe nuclear weapons should not be banned worldwide. First off no country will get rid of

Is it possible to prevent countries from obtaining nuclear weapons? Is it possible to restrict the research and intelligence behind this idea of procurement? How could the international community go about mandating these restrictions and ideas? Whose responsibility would it be to aid in this prevention? If one country is prevented from obtaining or developing nuclear weapons, should every country deal with similar preventative methods and actions? How can a country reasonably be stopped in regards to procurement? Is further nuclear action against the possibility of more nuclear action the only way, or could more traditional wartime methods or even conceptually simple political actions be the answer? These, and so many more, questions are what makes the possible, yet ultimately improbable reality of preventing countries from attaining nuclear weapons so complicated and ostensibly difficult to realize.

For this paper, you are required to select a US federal government strategy document (but not one from the Week 3 reading) and compare and contrast it to a strategy document from another governmental entity.

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.

The definition of a weapon of mass destruction is a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction (Farlex).Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen. They get their explosive power from transforming matter into energy. Nuclear weapons are classified as chemical, biological and radioactive weapons of mass destruction (FBI). Many people have venture in that their sizable power used during wars could destroy human development as we know it. The nations of the world have long request ways to standstill, limit, and slaughter these weapons of mass destruction and keep the use of them out of wars. The program of abolishing nuclear weapons should be carried out. I want nuclear weapons abolish so we won’t destroy ourselves, and stop terrorist from getting their hands on these weapons of mass destruction and destroying civilization as we know it and to prevent further damage.

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.