Deterrence And Organizational Theory : Nuclear Proliferation

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

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent 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

The Cold War was the greatest example of Nuclear Deterrence in history. The U.S. and Russia, had threatened nuclear war as a deterrence for almost fifty years. Next, we will evaluate logical fallacies, inform what it means to be a Strategic Airmen as well as how this course maintains my strategic focus in the conclusion.

Punishment given to offenders acts as an example for society and deters others from committing the same crime. Punishment serves as proof and as a model to the rest of society that criminal behavior will have consequences and can be seen as an educational tool. When using punishment as a threat, warning or intimidation tactic for the prevention of evil, it is formally referred to as general deterrence. “General deterrence stems from the perceived threat or fear of the inherent elements of punishment itself, not through some indirect process. Examples of general deterrence from fear of direct sanctions are refraining from speeding for fear of a fine or in my argument, refraining from a felony for fear of incarceration” (Williams & Hawkins, 547). By presenting

Evidence: The Trident missiles can be given an extended life span, which will provide a massively capable and cost-effective platform for the decades to come. . . Our nuclear submarines are undetectable and cannot be taken out by a pre-emptive strike. That is why they provide the best form of nuclear deterrence available to us. (Hutton, 24, 26)

Blackwell analyzes the change in nuclear deterrence, which is based on behavior. In addition, he present his findings that although nuclear weapons aren’t being launched, they serve as war deterrents. He claims that nuclear weapons also deter radical nations and terrorists, by invoking fear. This is exemplified in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which Saddam Hussein made extensive war considerations responding

Another concept of the deterrence theory that relates to my deviance act is family ties. A family tie means that somewhere down the road, within my family tree the way we act in my family is because its how my bloodline was raised generation after generation. This concept fits right in with the deterrence theory because if someone has a family tie to a certain situation or a certain situation, then chances are they too will join in on the action. This connects to my situation because at first, when I handed my father the letter, he kind of shrugged it off and just looked at it as a stupid school assignment that I had to do to pass my class. This is because of our family ties, any male in my family, whether they are alive today, or have passed away, would have reacted exactly how my dad did. In fact thats exactly how I imagined him reacting with my first attempt to read him the letter. But once my dad had alone time, where he felt no one was going to look down on him for getting emotional, he broke the family tie and reread the letter I wrote to him and reflected on it. When I brought it to his attention that I knew that he went ahead and reread my letter, once again he denied it before finally opening up to me about everything I had written. The family ties were broken, but just between us, for a short amount of time, I don 't think either of us will ever let any other family member know what went on between the two of us for that short 20 minutes of opening up to

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.

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

The deterrence theory, also referred to as the deterrence doctrine, deals with formal social control, in the form of judges, law enforcement officers, and the law itself. According to the deterrence doctrine, there are three ways punishment is carried out. The first way, is by the severity of the punishment. The deterrence theory explains that a person is less likely to commit a crime if the punishment for that crime is more severe. Punishment for deviant activities and crimes can range from less severe to more severe. The second way is that punishment for a crime can either more or less assured. According to the deterrence doctrine, people will be less likely to commit a crime if they know they will be punished for their deviant or illegal actions. The third way is that punishment for committing a crime can be expeditious or passive, depending on the circumstance of the situation. According to Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz (2013) “In general deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the general public from committing crimes; in specific deterrence the punishment of a criminal deters the criminal alone from committing more crimes.” (page 29)

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.