Ian Duncur Argumentative Essay

“That is why I commissioned the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper. I took a clear decision that our nation should actively plan for and shape our national future. Only by doing so can we realise our vision of being a land of increased opportunity, prosperity and

Another major aspect this limb deals with is that of Australia’s relationship with the United Nations and other major international organisations .

Negativity has been surrounding our identity ever since “Invasion Day”, due to the poor treatment of the original owners of the land. Kevin Rudd’s speech left us all shocked, yet empowered to embrace this opportunity to change the face of Australia.

A few years back while on vacation in Santo Domingo, I overheard a conversation between three American men who were sitting at a table behind me in a local restaurant. Their discussion peeked my interest because they were to talking about World War II and the Vietnam War, which happens to be a couple of my favorite topics of study, more specially they spoke on the foreign policies that dictated these wars. As their conversation progressed I discovered the names of these gentleman; George, Booker and Jack. George seemed to be the leader of the party, listening to him reminded me of a military general, he believed that America’s foreign policy should be to provide leadership throughout the world so it can maintain global stability. Booker’s opinion was different; his thoughts gave way to ideas of America working alongside other countries to resolve international problems and crises. Jack’s logic was unlike his friends, he believed that the United States should stop interfering in international affairs, reason being that the US is exploiting countries around the globe.

“I love my footy and I’m training with first grade again, I guess you’ve got to take the opportunity.

The connection between the growths of the nuclear arsenals of these two countries would lead to the coining of terms such as “nuclear arms race,” and “mutually assured destruction (MAD),” which were American terms that referenced American political theories on armament. However, to apply off-handedly American strategic thought to Soviet political strategy only serves to further distance the western understanding of the cold war from the truth. In fact, a report entitled “The Soviet Strategic Culture” commissioned by the United States air force in 1977 openly acknowledges this fact in its preface, observing the difference between the countries “organizational, historical, and political contexts,” and suggesting that both countries would respond very differently given similar “situational and technological constraints.” Interestingly, this report’s purpose is to inform American individuals on how to deal with Soviet ideology, and refers to the “rational man versus the soviet man” suggesting that the soviet strategy is barbaric. However, noticeably, the author writes this report after 22 years of ‘fighting’ the cold war, and the negative references in this article seem to present a

There was an election promise clearly given by the current governing party to build the submarines at the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide. Something changed radically between that promise being made before the election and the announcement sometime afterwards that the government would conduct an evaluation process to decide which foreign shipbuilder should be given the multi-billion dollar contract to build the underwater craft. Why the government decided to go back on the promise to build at the ASC has not been explained--apart from the announcement by the then Defence Minister that he wouldn’t trust the ASC ‘to build a canoe’.

The United States nuclear weapons program poses serious health risks to its citizens. A combination of secrecy, law enforcement, reckless neglect and an emphasis on production at the cost of health, safety and the environment created toxic

The US-Australia alliance under ANZUS has widespread and bipartisan support as one of the key pillars of Australian foreign policy (Brereton, 2001:347, see also Fraser, 2005:345). The alliance is also reflective of the continuing persuasion of middle power diplomacy in Australian international relations regardless of Liberal claims not to adhere to the doctrine for one characteristic of middle powers includes using niche opportunities to exercise influence and power to affect outcomes in favour of their national interest (Ungerer, 2007:540). For Australia, this opportunity appeared during post-WWII US-Japanese Peace Treaty negotiations, ‘the Australian Government was insistent that [it] would not sign unless [it] had a defence relationship with the United States… Without that leverage, ANZUS would not have existed’ (Fraser, 2005:334). Although Downer does not explicitly approve of the framing Australia as a middle power, it cannot be ignored that his view that the US-alliance ‘…gives Australia much greater weight and relevance... [and] carry more weight in Washington in regional

This is not the first time that China has been blamed for cyber attacks on Australia. In November, Chinese spies were accused of attempting to hack confidential data on the country’s future submarines. Two years ago, reports surfaced about alleged attempts to obtain an ASIO establishment’s

As you can imagine, the US Nuclear Weapons Program is a complicated entity. There are a number of players on the nuclear weapons team, so to speak, each with their own task to fulfil.

In this day in age, there are many potential threats to our nation and we must protect the American people with tact, and perceptiveness. When handling foreign affairs our main goal is to insure the welfare of our nation. While it may seem at times immoral not to police the world, we’ve tried that approach and it has been extremely unsuccessful. We’ve lost American lives for wars that we haven’t needed to be in. Although upholding the blessings of liberty wherever they may be violated is paramount to the American way of life, it is not as important as the welfare of our nation. By voluntarily getting involved in foreign conflicts we do just that, and put the safety of our nation in jeopardy, both by creating unnecessary enemies, and giving up thousands of young American lives for nothing, but policing the world. As our founding fathers believed, America is ready to take more of an isolationist approach again. This does not mean ignoring currents threats like ISIS, and nuclear capabilities in nations that are a danger by wielding such weaponry, this does not mean ignoring atrocities such as the civil war in Syria, this does not mean neglecting the fact that Russia is a loose canon with a box of matches. What this does mean is assessing the situation with aplomb, and making decisions as a nation that values a majoritarian policy rather that brash decision making that leads to an outcome that will effect our children.

If terrorists did get a device, it would likely employ U235 in a gun type setup since that is the easiest to construct and get a yield from. This type of device places two subcritical masses of material apart from each other and then uses an explosive charge to rapidly drive the two pieces together and form a supercritical mass (Nuclear Weapon Design, 1998, non-paginated). This relative simplicity of design, especially in comparison to an implosion model, would seem to dictate that the risk of a terror group getting one of these is high, however the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is obtaining the special nuclear material. Many may point out that U235 has been available on the world markets before, however samples sold consisted of 100 grams, with the promise of a total of 2-3 kilograms (Sokova, Potter, & Chuen, 2007, non-paginated). According to Sokova, Potter, & Chuen (2007), a skilled nuclear scientist could obtain a nuclear yield with as little as 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Anticipating a lower skill level, a terrorist organization would need approximately 50 kilograms for a gun type device and the machining capability to create the two subcritical masses of appropriate shape. This process is difficult and unlikely to be within the capability of a terror organization without assistance from a

Carl Sagan very memorably likened the nuclear arms race to “two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline – one with three matches, the other with five.” This scenario underscores the false sense of security, the fallacy of nuclear superiority, and the danger posed by the proliferation and mere existence of weapons capable of achieving nuclear holocaust and widespread destruction. This essay will analyze and acknowledge the grounds for supporting/tolerating nuclear proliferation using the cases of Israel and Iran as examples, while arguing that theoretical grounds for proliferation do not outweigh the actual and potential risks of escalation to nuclear war, nuclear miscalculation or accident, or nuclear technology falling into the hands of increasingly sophisticated terrorist groups.

The current Australian position is potentially not the ideal method in terms of policy, but in