Non Proliferation Pros And Cons

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 power to destroy a civilization with a single weapon surely should not exist; however, nothing can fully prohibit all nuclear weapons. The high casualties that Japan had encountered were a loud message to the whole rest of the world portraying that exact statement. The diseases and hardships that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had dealt with are situations the world fears; therefore,

Whatever danger proliferators pose today would be far greater in a disarmed world, even though the previously nuclear states would eventually be able to rebuild nuclear weapons, they would be unwilling to accept a period during which a proliferator enjoyed a nuclear monopoly.”

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 end of World War II had many nations shocked and pondering in 1940’s. Thoughts of a weapon that can erase an entire populous in a short amount of time prompted many nations to consider nuclear armament. This originated from the devastating events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought the world somber, and fearful. Some individuals recognized this and did take measures in order to regulate and prevent future use of these weapons. The Acheson-Lilienthal Report was a document that took a stand against national independent control of atomic weapons by proposing compromise between the U.S, and U.S.S.R., the failure to secure the document prompted the Cold War era and Nuclear Arms race, this became a foundation for further agreements and

The seekers of great power are not noted for their rationality. Nor is the vast destructive potential in the present and prospective atomic stockpiles any more of an assured war preventative than was the lesser power of conven-tional weapons prior to World War II. Some major elements of the old plan of atomic energy control now appear to be obsolete. ( ICNW Page 25)

In addition, when one country obtains nuclear weapons, it’s neighboring country argues for their right to protect their citizens with their own nuclear arsenal. The decision of dropping the bomb in 1945 accelerated a rising fear and led to further conflict as countries chased in the pursuit of dangerous nuclear weapons. In addition, it drastically weakened the United States. According to Truman, even though the Japanese leadership was ruthless and merciless, the United States being known as the “leader of the world for common welfare” (Truman) should not have dropped the bomb in the first place. The use of nuclear weapons diminished the trust between the United States and other nations and it could ultimately create an environment that may lead to many irrational decisions with extreme consequences. “If we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced” (J.R. Oppenheimer). Having the reputation of using nuclear weapons and bombs put the United States in an uncompromising and very vulnerable

Canada strongly recommends enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as related treaties and amending them to fit the rational requisites of hesitant non-signatory states. Furthermore, Canada believes that the negotiation and elaboration of the proposed FMCT agreement is necessary, as it would restrain the spread of nuclear weapons. Canada also urges the International Community to establish a coalition fit to mediate talks between the DPRK and concerned countries, in order to find a solution that would be advantageous to all

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

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.

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

Controlling both the horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons has always been a subject of international concern since nuclear weapons began being developed in the early 20th century. There are three main types of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear. Although all three types may be proliferated and present a serious threat to international security, the focus is placed on nuclear weapons because of their enormous destructive capacity. In today’s modern international system, the concern is centered on the spread of nuclear weapons to international terrorist organizations and unpredictable rogue states. If actors such as these were to acquire nuclear weapons, the damage that they could potentially enact on

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.