Is The Iran Deal An Effective Form Of Non Proliferation Policy?

On February 5th 2011, the NEW START Treaty between the United Stated and Russia that was signed on April 8th 2010 entered into force. The treaty between this two world powers is a measurement for further reduction and limitation of strategic arms and nuclear arsenal. Both United States and the Russian administration have to meet the treaty’s limitation and reduction of their nuclear strategic weapons by February 5th 2018. The New START Treaty establishes a strategic stability between the world two biggest nuclear powers. The Treaty has strengthened US –Russian relationships and a new stability for the non-proliferation era and has placed nuclear inspection sites in

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.

Libya, another nation that was considered an immediate threat for the United Nations because of their nuclear development plans had recently promised to end their bombing-make labors and the American government state that “ The Success of [Their] mission in Libya underscores the success of this administration’s broader nonproliferation efforts around the world” . However of those two rogue nations North Korea is considered to be a bigger danger since unstable treaty which ended the Korean War didn’t eliminate the hostilities between the authoritarian regime of North Korean and the United States. Nevertheless, on 1994 Bill Clinton signed a treaty with North Korea that ended their plutonium production in exchange of energy supplies from the United States. This agreement ended when on October 2002, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, James A. Kelly, visited North Korea and stated that the visit was “frank but useful” and “raised, in a frank manner, our concerns on a full range of issues, including weapons of mass destruction, missile-development programs, missile exports, North Korea's threatening conventional force posture, human rights failings and the dire humanitarian situation.” Right after this, North Korea Withdrew form the Non Proliferation Treaty and was kicked out from the United Nations and expanded their

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

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.

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 third and final proposal is taking greater action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to confirm all nations are on the same playing field to dismantle nuclear weaponry. I plan on providing updated analysis in these issues as well. The Seventh Decade was written in 2007 and a lot has gone on since then in regards to nuclear activity and I plan on making it clear to the reader where the U.S. and the rest of the world stands.

Given the progress of globalization, international security has become an entailment that all countries must work on in order to guarantee the perennity of world peace. However, this quietude is threatened by the growing menace of nuclear proliferation. Canada, as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1969, leads anti-proliferation campaigns to ensure global disarmament.

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.

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

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”

Part of arms control is the decommissioning of nuclear weapons. The first step to decommissioning is to remove the warhead from the delivery system. From there the warhead will go to a special treatment (Or in the United States the pantex plant in Texas) and the cover of the warhead will come off. Then there are many safety checks and inspections. After passing inspection the warhead goes through a disassembly process which takes about a week. Afterwards, the material is either buried,burned or stored until there is no radioactivity. Everything else is recycled. All countries with a certain amount of weapons should disassemble them. Every country should have a close amount of nuclear weapons. This will help prevent over spending and arms races. If everyone has a similar amount of weapons then each country is just as powerful. If one country is too powerful it can result in war. If the amount of weapons is balanced equally and monitored then terrorists will have a harder time getting weapons. It is important for there to be a balance of power because it will ensure world peace. Arms control can also relieve tensions caused by nuclear weapons between two or more countries because it will set them equal and reduce possible

In the case of Iraq, the Nonproliferation Treaty of 1967 should have prevented acquisition of nuclear material intended for their WMD programs. Essentially, this treaty contained two key restrictions, which prevented those countries that already possessed the technology from sharing it, and those that did not possess technology from acquiring it. Although any country can acquire U235 (enriched at three to four percent) if declared to the IAEA for peaceful purposes, dual use loopholes allowed Iraq to

The intention to disarm is alarming because no logical superpower, like the United States, will dismantle their warheads knowing Soviet Union has theirs, to the extent that they are asking. There is no way to enforce this because the superpowers involved in making the treaty are also the ones with the stockpile of nuclear weaponry along with no agency to enforce these rules. They claim that their intention is to "facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery... And complete disarmament under strict and effective international control"(Treaty). One logical explanation to this statement would be that it serves the purpose of deceiving the public into thinking that this is happening , but in reality every superpower that signs has not been dismantling their weapons entirely. Although the bulk of this agreement has reached its goals and drastically limited the amount of nuclear weapons and is also responsible for preventing a nuclear war, it has also allowed states to ignore its guidelines. "The nuclear club has added a few members who defied the treaty's restrictions (including South Africa, India, Pakistan, and now North Korea, and unofficially Israel) (Bunn, 2003). The distrust leads to more nuclear weapons being built in fear of becoming overpowered by a state that may be hiding thousands of

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.