Cold War Research Paper

Within our global political arena, many parties have varying motivations keen on improving their national repute and military ability, but it essential to the preservation of ourselves and our planet to think objectively about the consequences of uninhibited and ever-advancing military possibilities. We must learn from the past to be able to better prepare for the future. We have witnessed the pervasive harm that has come from the irresponsible use of nuclear arms. This has instilled in modern cultures worldwide a wariness about these weapons. We recognize the importance of keeping military technology in check in order to prevent another arms race and to mitigate current rivalries and instabilities within the global political arena. Treaties such as the NPT demonstrate the unanimous consensus of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and the CTBT emphasizes the stark contrast between states which have little interest in ever conducting nuclear weapons research and those which view their ability to test nuclear technologies as essential to remaining global military and political powerhouses. All states, however, regardless of their ambitions with nuclear technology, are aware of the repercussions of the proliferation and use of these weapons, and recognize the importance in continuing to regulate both peaceful

Society might argue that there is evil, yet what some call evil others call good. Nuclear weapons are the greatest legacy from the Cold War. Since then, generations have grown up afraid of a sudden nuclear war. The two words aforementioned can make many people shiver, and it can also get them to debate. From debating these two words, came two common beliefs: it is either the most dangerous challenge we face as a community and should be “un-invented”, or although they pose a significant threat they are essential to our defense.

National security is the main reason why a country will go nuclear. Just for protection, but nuclear weapons are also looked at as political objects of considerable importance. Jacques Hymans believes that decisions to go or not to go nuclear results not from the international structure, but rather from individual hearts. (Futter 51) In the security model, it is suggested that states form and keep nuclear weapons mainly for reasons of national security. However, the domestic politics model, and the norms model suggest a different reason why states go nuclear. Domestic politics model suggest that states choose to build nuclear weapons because of the internal and bureaucratic interests. The norms model suggest that states will go nuclear as a

The Cold War was two awesome superpowers needing to pick up impact and control over the world. The Soviet Union and the United States both utilized intermediary wars to push their belief systems significantly further. The most exceedingly dangerous of these intermediary wars was the Cuban rocket emergency, the nearest the world has ever come to atomic war (Walt, 2013). President Kennedy and the Russian president met in mystery and consulted to have all warheads from Cuba while America would expel all their old warheads from close Russia. Close to the finish of the Cold War, the Berlin Wall torn down which enabled Germany to wind up plainly a new one country which helped it to yet again turn into a prosperous country. The Soviet Union confronted many difficulties a while later at last after they acknowledged the unification of Germany the Cold War finally arrived at an end (Lyons,

Over the past decade, an international debate over how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has erupted. However, many people in the United States lack a thorough understanding of the implications of a nuclear Iran. A close examination of the facts demonstrates that Tehran has clear intent to develop, but not necessarily use, nuclear weapons. A realistic assessment should take this into account when considering the significant threat posed to the United States by Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

A nuclear Iran may be inevitable within the next decade. There is ample evidence suggesting that Iran has the intention and capability of obtaining nuclear weapons. According to Fox News, a new document issued by the Department of Defense on the Iran nuclear threat states: “Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.” Clark Abt, professor at Harvard University, estimates that a single nuclear attack on a major US harbor, such as New York City or Washington DC, could cause a loss of one million civilians and could create three trillion dollars of economic losses. In order to identify the necessary steps to avert Iran from procuring nuclear weapons and thus preventing possible nuclear attacks, it is crucial to understand why Iran seeks to arm in the first place. It is profusely clear that International relations theories provide an insight into why Iran aspires to develop a nuclear program. However, upon further examination, only the realist and identity, not the liberal, theories in international relations can further our knowledge of this issue.

Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.

Many US policy-makers and international relations scholars argued that states seek to develop nuclear weapons when they face a significant military threat to their security and this cannot be met through alternative means. If these nations seeking for nuclear weapon do not face such threat, they will willingly and extemporaneously remain non-nuclear states.

Since the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the international world has become increasingly concerned with the development and potential use of destructive nuclear weapons. The Cold War-era saw these concerns at their height, as the US and the Soviet Union vied for superiority in the international system. The fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s seemed to mark an end to the most concerning chapter in the history of nuclear proliferation. However, nuclear weapons have once again come to the forefront of international concern specifically regarding regions like Iran, Pakistan, India, and China. The article “Living with a Nuclear Iran” by Robert D. Kaplan and “America’s Nuclear Meltdown towards “Global Zero”” by

Nuclear Weapons and the threat they possess have become a significant part of international relations since the The United States of America used them end to prematurely end it’s war with Japan in 1945. Despite this, in recent times numerous countries have successfully sought to ascertain and develop nuclear offensive capabilities however no nuclear program has received as much international scrutiny as that of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Diamond, 2012: 3). The international community and Iran have been in stalemate for years, in short, due to world powers suspecting that there is a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program (IAEA, 2013: 2). Iran’s claims in contrary to this accusation is that their nuclear program are peaceful and is instead for the purpose of providing Iran with an alternative energy source to gas and oil, (Takeyh, 2003: 21). There are still multiple unknown factors regarding Iran’s nuclear program, with the core divisive issue being uncertainties regarding Iran’s grounds for wanting to produce nuclear offensive capabilities. Different theoretical frameworks are useful for granting unique insight and appreciation of this uncertainty and what is at

Many world leaders claim that nuclear weapons are vital to maintain a healthy balance of power. They guarantee that nuclear weapons are hindrances that keep the world from aggregating war. Analysts are supporting this contention by pronouncing how nuclear weapons have been keeping peace. In any case, different specialists and researchers prevent the viability from claiming nuclear weapons as hindrances and announce that nuclear weapons will prompt more confusion. The issue is that amidst a world, as of now, loaded with war and turmoil, global leaders keep on insisting that the world 's supply of nuclear weapons is really a shield, an advantage in keeping the world from complete turmoil.

In abolishing nuclear weapons, not all countries will comply, and this will leave the countries that did in a vulnerable position. There are many rogue states that would like to acquire nuclear weapons such as Iran and North Korea which are getting the materials for them from countries like Pakistan (Cooper). Smaller nations fear giving up the safety net of nuclear weapons with the thought of these countries not giving up their power and using the absence of nuclear weapons in other countries as a weakness. If all nuclear weapons are banned, then how will a country defend itself against a rogue state that has decided to keep nukes? The Republican Party concludes that the best way to ensure the security of the country is by strengthening its defense and offensive capabilities (“National High”). According to Griffin, Patrick Glynn, a researcher of the A.E.I claims, “The world is safer if the United States has a substantial nuclear capability. You don't get international gangsters like Saddam Hussein or Kim IL Sung to disarm by moral example.”

As defined by Christoph Bluth from the Political Studies Association, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is “widely perceived by political leaders as one of the major problems of global security in the contemporary era” (Bluth, 2012). This is clear by the catalog of concern and actions taken by governments around the world to address the issue of nuclear weaponry. With more than 22,000 nuclear weapons in existence today, international law must try to unite with nations in order to control, constrain and potentially eliminate nuclear weapons (Bluth, 2012). The following essay will examine nuclear

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has had a major impact on how states operate both domestically and internationally. Moreover, the potential consequences to states possessing nuclear weapons (one of the three types of weapons of mass destruction) have caused a contentious divide between those who support the possession of nuclear weapons and those who are vehemently against it. While some states believe that nuclear weapons pose a lethal threat to innocent civilians and undermine international security. Others argue that nuclear weapons are what ensure international security. In particular, the deterrence theory argues that the presence of nuclear weapons deters states from engaging in war with each other for the fear that the opposing state will retaliate with nuclear weapons (Lindamood, 2016). Thus, states would rather settle their differences than suffer the consequences of a nuclear war. In light of the deterrence theory, one can argue that the world would never be global zero or “a world without nuclear weapons” (Lindamood, 2016). States with nuclear weapons will want to maintain their security and relative power by keeping nuclear weapons while states looking to improve their security and relative power will want to obtain nuclear weapons. For the interests of improving security and increasing one’s relative power, states will continue to possess and proliferate nuclear weapons, making global zero impossible.

Nuclear weapons play a significant role in our understanding of international relations. They are the weapons that shape the most powerful governments in the world. These weapons act both defensively and offensively because they