Nonproliferation Treaty In The Obama Administration

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

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

Margaret Thatcher once said “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” In a way, it is true how nuclear weapons provide the deterrent for disastrous wars, as no nation would dare attack another country if they had a nuclear arsenal.(Bodeen 1).Yet much protest comes against the proliferation of nuclear arms as they are thought to be a threat to global security.Already people have seen the destruction that the atomic bomb created when it first was detonated.However, nuclear technology should be seen as more of a benefit than a negative.History has shown the effects of a nuclear war, as thousands had been affected by such a catastrophe, and no one would like that to happen again. Also, nuclear

Be it resolved that no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons damage the environment greatly. The damage can be long lasting. One may argue that the damage to the environment can be justified by the fact that they can end wars quickly and reduce the number of deaths, but when they are used to end wars quickly, they will still kill many civilians indiscriminately. Radiation can kill many innocent people. However, the people most likely to be harmed by the radiation are the enemy country’s people, so therefore they are not innocent. But many civilians who die from radiation may not agree with what their government is doing and just because they live in an enemy country, doesn’t mean they are enemies or pose any

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

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

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.

I have many reasons on why the United States of America should maintain Nuclear Weapons. Out of these many reason there will be three for this paper. The world is in grave danger by Nuclear Weapons, so it needs to be explained what could happen and more.

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction

Toward Nuclear Abolition - 1971 to the Present- is the third book of the trilogy “The Struggle Against the Bomb” written by Lawrence S. Wittner, which follows the previous two: One World or None and Resisting the Bomb. Throughout his trilogy, the author provides a systematic and comparative study of the way in which countries, governments and especially Nuclear Disarmament Movements have confronted the rising menace of the arms race and the possibility of a Nuclear war. The studies are scheduled on a year by year, and country by country analysis which aim is to define the importance of the Nuclear Disarmament Movements’ pressure, “intelligence, courage and determination” in altering the course of the history.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,