Mongolia´s Stand on Weapons, Disarment and Outer Space Essay

As in any other Treaty a verification and transparency regime was set up to have compliance by both the United States and Russian administration to meet the treaty’s limitations. Verification control included in site inspection, data exchange, maintain records of location, numbers and characteristics of the weapons that is limited by the treaty. The purpose of in site inspection of the nuclear facilities, weapon arsenal storage and sharing of the data recordings as indicated in the Treaty is to place a transparency and establish trust in the intentions between the US and Russian governmental parties. This would show willingness that both parties working to comply with the Treaty and carry further progress in reduction of the nuclear weapons stock.

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

The Cold War was the start of the major changes in human history. Two important events that occurred were the arms race and the space race. “An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime. A close examination of the historical evidence reveals a different picture. Political purposes almost always drive and govern arms races. It is common for a major race to be initiated by a state interested in changing the political status quo” (Arms Race). The arms race was a major rearmament between the USSR and the United States. Each country was producing new weapons at an alarming rate to be better than the other. The newly created nuclear weapons were a major playing force for the arms race. Each country

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.

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.

Since 9/11 attacks, the counter terrorism and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become the top national security priorities. The Obama administration has exercised prodigious efforts to fight with terrorism, stooping Iran Nuclear programme and drawing red-line for Syrian use of chemical weapons. To safeguard the security of US citizens, it is most important

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.

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

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was confronted with questions about the meaning of ‘threat of force’, it concluded that a threat of force is illegal when the actual use of force threatened would itself be unlawful; the ICJ rejected to identify that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was an unlawful threat of force. This suggests that the mere possession of nuclear weapons, despite their extremely threatening appearance, cannot be an actual pending threat, in the case of Iran,

The Department of State, as the force political arm of the United States, is accountable for the trading of atomic arms control understandings, amidst which it works practically, if not in light of current circumstances warmly, with the main up to now conferred Defense Department and military forces. Inside of the Department of State is the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, which has essential commitment with respect to the trading of assertions convincing or banning certain sorts of

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.

Targeted News Service Retrieved from http:// search.proquest.com/docview/1676045422?accountid=44871 Secretary-general, in message, says kazakhstan's closed nuclear weapon test site now powerful symbol of hope, tells us 'world free of nuclear weapons achievable'. (2010, Aug 26). Targeted News Service Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/751224366?

Primacy pays much attention to identifying potential threats to American interests and measures to contain them. A rising China and a resurgent Russia top the list of potential challengers to American preeminence. We as primacy advocates are also concerned with non-traditional military threats from non-state actors such as terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction. Also, fear that a rogue state like North Korea may try to strike the American homeland is the rationale behind primacy’s call for the continued strong support for the development and eventual deployment of ballistic missile defense. Meeting all potential threats to America’s preeminence will not be cheap however it will be needed.

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.