Npdt 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.

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)

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.

Throughout history, one of the most prominent competitions between countries revolves around the creation or acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, most countries don’t realize that in doing so they create a greater problem. This problem is that as more countries acquire these weapons they are more likely to use them. The use of nuclear weapons is unethical and wrong whether that country is in a state of war or not. The first utilization of a nuclear weapon was in World War 2 by the United States when they dropped an atomic bomb on Japan in an effort to end the war. The use of nuclear weapons during World War II was unethical because these weapons were developed for the sole purpose of acting as a deterrent, there were other

The atomic bomb was developed in an effort to counter proposed technologies by the Nazis in Germany, who were trying to develop superweapons in their effort to conquer Europe. Top physicists like Albert Einstein warned that nuclear reaction would release enough energy to level an entire city. By mid-1945, U.S. military leaders were presented with a few options regarding how they should approach the end of the war with Japan. Solutions included mounting a joint invasion with the Soviets, creating a naval blockade, allowing the Japanese to retain their emperor if they surrendered unconditionally and created a cease-fire, and dropping the atomic bomb. However, they needed to take into account many variables that would affect their decision. The U.S. should have dropped the bomb to impress the Soviets, to prevent the need for a possible land invasion, and to end the war sooner; therefore, the U.S.’s use of the atomic bomb only served to heighten the Cold War between the Soviets and U.S.

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

The world was thrust into an atomic debate when, on August 6th and 9th of 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman authorized the first and only use of nuclear weapons against Imperial Japan. This debate over the use of atomic power was solely focused on military applications of atomic energy until U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower restructured it to include the peaceful use of nuclear energy in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly “Atoms for Peace” in 1953. Eisenhower’s speech set the stage for a worldwide change of opinion on the possibility of peaceful nuclear power, that culminated with the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and new U.S. directives on atomic technology. The effects of this new opinion on nuclear energy can be clearly seen by Japan’s quick adoption of atomic power after 1953, where Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech and subsequent Atoms for Peace program opened the floodgates to the establishment of Japan’s vast nuclear power industry by bringing the peaceful uses of nuclear power to the public’s eye, allowing civilians to participate in nuclear research, and permitting the sharing of U.S. nuclear technology with Japan.

Soon after the Second World War, the two emerging super powers being the United States and Soviet Union began a 50-yearlong hostility known as the Cold War. The Cold War was simply a state of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union over issues of political influence and economic policy. A big characteristic of the Cold War was the arms race it caused. Initially, after the Second World War, only the United States had atomic bombs. But, in 1949, the Soviets successfully tested a bomb of their own, and the race began. Both sides began making more and more bombs, to the point of absurdity. Many people in the scientific community feared that this proliferation of these weapons could result in a thermonuclear war that could wipe mankind entirely. A noted figure in this fear was Albert Einstein. He was convinced that the only way to stop the risk of war and destruction was the act of nonproliferation and disarmament. He was quoted as saying “The war is won, but the peace is not”, (American Museum of Natural History). Within the context of geopolitical competition and tension, a claim can be made that previous decisions to stockpile nuclear weapons are disastrous in nature, and that these decisions ought to be reversed to protect the world from the risk of

Nuclear weapons have been used for intimidation and power amongst countries around the world. Even till this day, there is news of tension and oppression between countries for power and use nuclear weapons in order acquire the upper head. But in reality, if the world ever goes on the brink of an all out nuclear war, everyone would be dust flowing in the wind. Author Arthur C. Clarke speaks against nuclear weapons in his book 2001: A Space Odyssey. In his book, the message that he tries convey is that technology is advancing rapidly, and the use of it could be either beneficial, or can ultimate be the cause of the destruction of the human race. Its where have to look at our priorities and see what can be used for the greater good.

Nuclear deterrence was a key component of American security during the Cold War. The nuclear stockpiles accumulated by the United States and Soviet Union throughout this time period produced a situation of mutual deterrence. The catastrophic risks of a nuclear strike kept the countries from all-out war. In the aftermath of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union took steps to reduce their nuclear arsenal, first in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty (INF) then with START I (Pifer, Bush, et al, p. 8, 2010). New START, like its predecessors continues the bipartisan process of reducing U.S. and Russian strategic arms. In doing so, the Treaty presents several key benefits to U.S. national security.

After World War II, countries raced to develop and hoard nuclear weapons. Seemingly learning nothing from the atomic bombs detonated on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons became necessary for smaller countries to have when their larger neighbors, like Soviet Russia and the United States, had enough to kill the world a few times over. America began to understand the gravity of nuclear arms when less predictable countries became armed similarly. In 1968, the nuclear Nonproliferation Act was signed by many nations, but through the decades violations of the treaty have been common .

Nuclear weapons were a crucial aspect throughout the history of the Cold War. Scientific and military development in the early 20th Century had demonstrated the potential of atoms and other properties to create large-scale nuclear weapons. The developments of the arms race within the context of World War I and World War II further led to the emergence of nuclear weapons for combat. Countries such as the United States, USSR, and Britain also sought to create effective nuclear weapons. Subsequently, the major application of nuclear weapons emerged when the US dropped two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Whereas President Truman mainly sought to protect Americans from further deaths by launching atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USSR posed a different question. Did Truman consciously drop the bombs to intimidate the USSR? Therefore, the Soviet Union interpreted the use of these nuclear weapons as an anti-Soviet move. This further set the basis of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race between the two countries. In this case, the United States use of nuclear weapons in the Second World War was crucial to intimidate the USSR and its emerging global dominance to set the foundation for the emergence of the Cold War.

During the mid 1950’s, society began having further concerns. The United States had produced ultimately the most destructive bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and it was becoming public knowledge that radiation was released into the atmosphere in the testing of new weapons. By 1964, both the united States and Soviet Union populations were considered vulnerable because "assured destruction" (Pazulla 46) was the central idea to the nuclear strategy. By the 1970’s, many policies, strategies, etc. had been put into effect, helping decay the nuclear rage. The world powers began to behave with enhanced logic by not producing ridiculous amounts of nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), for instance, is a well-versed piece that covers these risks. Within the treaty, enacted in 1970, each state subscribed is responsible for the disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The first Articles disavow any acceptance or transfer of weapons between nuclear or non-nuclear states, followed by Article III which mandates safeguards that must be followed by all participating members. While maintaining the ability for each state to conduct research on nuclear energy peacefully, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ensures that each country signing (a total of 190 have signed), is monitored for the improper use of nuclear energy within the country. This treaty was made in light of the truth of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, such that it requires the international cooperation and participation -- a cooperation of industry, civility, and security to further the safety of nuclear energy for the public. The countries possessing nuclear weapons during the treaty’s conception (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S), are all committed to the steady reduction of weapons stockpiles in their own countries; all signing countries are not permitted to produce nuclear weapons

Various non-damaging assessment (NDE) tests for solid individuals are accessible to focus in-situ quality and nature. Some of these tests are exceptionally valuable in appraisal of harm to RCC structures subjected to erosion, substance assault, and fire and because of different reasons. The term 'non damaging' is utilized to show that it doesn't impede the expected execution of the auxiliary part being tried/explored. The nondestructive assessment have been comprehensively characterized under two general classifications viz 'in-situ field test' and 'lab test'. These tests have been put under five classifications relying upon the reason for test as under: