How Sandia Played A Nuclear Deterrence Capabilities During The Cold War

Canada currently does not, nor have they ever indicated at creating a nuclear weapons program, this is due to their status as a non-nuclear weapon state by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as the reliance on the United States for nuclear defense. The following paper will detail Canadian nuclear energy and weapons policy, beginning with a description of their nuclear program. The next section will discuss the reasons for Canada’s avoidance of a nuclear weapons program and the current policy behind the nuclear program. Following will be a discussion of Canada’s nuclear weapons program and the policy on nuclear weapons. The paper will conclude with Canadian concerns over the current nuclear program of Iran.

There have only been two instances in world history of nuclear weapons being used against another nation during a military conflict. In both instances the bombs were dropped by U.S. forces on Japanese soil during WWII in hopes that it would generate fear within the Japanese people, and finally break the government into submission. Since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, no other nation has employed the use a nuclear weapon against another country, so why is it that the United States still possesses a stockpile of nearly 5,000 nuclear warheads if they are not being utilized? The United States has long held the strategy of deterrence, meaning that the purpose of the U.S. arsenal is intended to deter other states from attacking with their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, the United States’ has been taking steps towards reducing its nuclear arsenal and declaring to end developments on new warheads.

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

In 1942, the United States government bought an estimated sixty-thousand acres of rural farm land in eastern Tennessee (Residents). The acquisition of this land was cloaked with secrecy and its’ purpose would be unknown until the end of World War Two. The “Secret City”, now known as Oak Ridge, Tennessee, housed massive nuclear facilities that refined and developed the materials that were necessary to create the atomic bomb. The entire city was protected by armed guards and was completely fenced in (Taylor). The protection of the city and its purpose was so important to national security that its’ location was not disclosed on any map of that time. All of the workers were screened prior to being allowed into the city and many of them were subjected to lie detector tests. Even then the majority of the people who were employed in the facilities were completely unaware of what exactly they were working on (Taylor).

Starting in the 1949 with the explosion of an atomic bomb(RDS-1) in Russia and ending with the dissolvement of the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race was an extremely tense few decades that forever changed the United States in many ways. The Arms Race is exactly what it sounds like; a race to amass more advance weapons. During these four decades, the Nuclear Arms Race affected Americans socially through instilling a variety of emotions ranging from fear, to awe of the power of the nuclear weapons, economically through enlarging governmental role within the economy and mostly importantly, the political impacts were more involvement required by the U.S government in world affairs and as a force against Russia.

In his article, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Marc Trachtenberg considers three historical approaches to the role that nuclear arms played during the 1962 conflict: first, the view that nuclear arms played no role at all, with U.S. and Soviet weapons cancelling each other out, second, the interpretation that the risk involved with nuclear warfare heavily influenced policy making, and finally the view that the strategic imbalance of nuclear force, characterized by a substantial American advantage, significantly impacted the outcome of the crisis. In weighing the three interpretations, Trachtenberg dismisses the first in supporting the existence of the second, using a variety of primary sources to identify instances when decision-makers were influenced by the risk of nuclear warfare. The focus of the article, however, is on advancing and complicating the third approach, which Trachtenberg claims is congruous with the second. In this third section, Trachtenberg advances the approach that the imbalance of nuclear capabilities impacted Soviet strategy but not American decision making. Accordingly, Trachtenberg’s article is characterized by two central claims: that risk of nuclear war influenced policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that American nuclear superiority disproportionately affected Soviet decision-making.

During the early 1940s President Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned “the Manhattan Engineer District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” to start the creation of the United States wartime atomic bombs (Findlay & Hevly, 2011, p. XI). Dubbed the Manhattan Project, the area of Hanford, Washington became the new plutonium factory after the federal government acquired “670-square-mile reservation” (Findlay & Hevly, 2011, p. XI). This reservation was made up of private land holdings, but became condemned for the government to start its build. Near the mid-1940s the first reactor, Hanford’s B, started producing plutonium, then was shortly followed by three more plutonium reactors (Findlay & Hevly, 2011, p. XI). In order to keep the secrecy of the

Are we too casual about nuclear arms threat? by John M. Crisp. The genre is an editorial (January 3,2017). Crisp shows that people are too nonchalant about nuclear weapons and their dangerous effects because of their daily lives and work which do not allow for them to worry about these threats through the use of rhetorical appeals. The earth already suffers from the climate change, yet the American people still ignore the history of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the damages U.S inflicted. Countries yet race to develop plentiful nuclear weapons that are having conflict with other countries. Crisp appeals to logos by utilizing factual information such as the effects of climate change inflicted by nuclear bombs.

Earlier this year, military exercises were carried out throughout America, these were known as Jade Helm 15. A map released of seven states marked Texas as a “hostile state”, yet no one can grasp why, and it has resulted in many rumors and conspiracies coming to light. The Pantex Plant is the United States of America’s only nuclear plant. This has always been a major concern as it is easily found and if destroyed America has no other nuclear plant. Why then is Jade Helm 15 being brought up now, if it has always been an issue? With new information and limited resources being exposed, no-one is certain if the two are connected, but with the following information that has surfaced over the year, it begins to paint a picture.

Since the very beginning of warfare, the goal has always been to achieve the greatest weapon to show dominance over all others, and be the most powerful. This ambition has led to developments of weaponry thought to be the ultimate weapon, unsurpassable, and these weapons always got passed by another, new ultra weapon. In the Cold War, it was a constant race between the US and Soviet Russia to develop the ultimate weapon so that if a true, active war ever came, the nation with the best weapons would win. The United States had developed the atomic bomb during World War II, and showed the world the destructive power of the Little Boy and Fat Man atom bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively, ending the war in the Pacific decisively.

So, classified or sensitive information can be only access by the people who have that level of security clearance.

The development of nuclear weapons helped to end World War II, but in turn created their own war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of modified military missiles such as the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM, by Americans and the Soviets, had an impact on the struggle of power of the Cold War. The importance of military involvement in the creation of modified missiles and engines were critical events of the Cold War. Additionally, the steps taken to get to space were a byproduct of this Arms Race and the Cold War. Because the United States and the Soviet Union feared what the other country would or could do with weapons of mass destruction and the thought of the opposing country being able to control

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.

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

In this memo I will discuss the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. Firstly, I will summarize this event and come up with the questions about each actor’s action and preference; then I will analysis the theory behind this issue--Nuclear Capability and Bargaining Process; thirdly, I will analysis the actors’ preferences and interests; finally, I will discuss why did they sign an agreement at that particular time.