Controling the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

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.

The dropping of the atomic bomb was the first of many nuclear projects. The first project was called the Manhattan project. Three bombs were created, one was a test, and the two others were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities in Japan. These bombs created mass destruction for the two cities; buildings were obliterated, fires erupted, and radiation spread for miles. After foreign countries saw what the United States was capable of, countries all around the world started to develop their own nuclear weapons, creating a surplus of weapons of mass destruction. “Today, eight countries in the world have nuclear arsenals (weapon supplies). The United States and Russia (formerly part of the Soviet Union) have most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Other countries with nuclear arms include China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom” (Kroenig). Following World War Two, the Soviet Union and the United States were leaders of nuclear weapons. This period was called the Cold War. Forty-five years of potential nuclear destruction loomed over the Soviets and Americans. It wasn’t until after the Cold War that diplomats created the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, or NPT for short, recognizes the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom as nuclear weapon states. Nearly every country in the world is a member of the treaty, even if they do not possess nuclear weapons, by law they state that they are a nonnuclear

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

Document C shows the buildup of nuclear weapons, but they are not being put to use. Thanks to JFK’s agreement with Russia, the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

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

The end of World War II had many nations shocked and pondering in 1940’s. Thoughts of a weapon that can erase an entire populous in a short amount of time prompted many nations to consider nuclear armament. This originated from the devastating events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought the world somber, and fearful. Some individuals recognized this and did take measures in order to regulate and prevent future use of these weapons. The Acheson-Lilienthal Report was a document that took a stand against national independent control of atomic weapons by proposing compromise between the U.S, and U.S.S.R., the failure to secure the document prompted the Cold War era and Nuclear Arms race, this became a foundation for further agreements and

While the quotes states that even if there a plan to control the atomic weapons there should always be loop whole and another one need to be enforced to stop any country trying to gain absolute power over everyone in which would in sight war.

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.

When the bombs were detonated, there were no laws or regulations against the use of nuclear power in warfare, nor was nuclear technology frowned upon. The power of nuclear energy was evident after the explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to a desire for nuclear advancement worldwide peacefully. Several conferences were held and many plans were proposed for the future of nuclear technology. There were two major plans for how to handle nuclear weaponry in the future. The Baruch Plan was the proposal that the spread of nuclear weaponry cease. To do so, mining of atomic materials was to be supervised by the United Nations, and the United States was to give up its atomic weapons. The plan was presented to the Soviet Union, and their response was the Gromyko Plan.

During the Cold War there was a great deal of tension between the United States and the USSR. Both sides competed in arms race that is, equipping their arsenal of nuclear weaponry. Both sides realized how big of a danger these weapons possess and what destruction they might cause. People on both sides lived in a constant fear of nuclear war. For example, North Korea has developed an unpredictable character by testing and launching nuclear weapons. The same fear which was common during the Cold War is present today but on a bigger. Thus, in 1963 the Kennedy administration was able to pass the Limited Test Ban Treaty “which stopped above-ground nuclear tests” (Sagan, p.23). The 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) that countries agree to disarmament and arms limitation (Sagan, p.23). Without implementing these treatiesthe number of nuclear weapons would be very

A treaty was signed that prohibited the creation of defenses for nuclear weapons due to an advantage they might have if a nuclear war was to start. “The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, prohibits the use of defensive systems that might give an advantage to one side in a nuclear war”

The fear of an attack, however, stayed with many people. It became the goal of the United States to stockpile weapons, to use in the event of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Un-ion or other nuclear super-power. A few years later, during the Nixon Presidency in 1968, the United States, USSR, and a number of other states signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The NPT was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology from the super-power states to the still-developing states. (Winkler 1999, 182)

By now, more than 75 cities said ‘no’ to nuclear waste and the energy company Delta declared in January to have put the plans for a second NPP on hold. They declared it was not feasible anymore to built a second NPP. However, minister Verhagen still wants a second NPP, though he does not seen to get much support anymore…

For decades, states seeking to limit nuclear weapons have called for a CTBT in the conviction that a comprehensive test ban would foreclose the ability to develop new and more powerful types of nuclear arms and would be an important stepping stone to the objective of ultimately eliminating all nuclear weapons. Historically, the nuclear powers have depended on nuclear testing to develop new types of nuclear weapons and to a far lesser extent, to confirm the reliability of their arsenals. The United States and other countries concerned about nuclear proliferation also have supported a CTBT as a means for slowing the spread of advanced nuclear weapon capabilities to additional countries. They have argued that although a state seeking to develop nuclear weapons may not need to conduct a test to build a simple fission bomb, such tests would be necessary to develop more complex and powerful thermonuclear weapons. Some argue that testing would also be necessary for a new nuclear state to develop small warheads for ballistic or cruise missiles.

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.