Nuclear Atomic Facilities And International Security

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

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.

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

Maslow’s law of the instrument states that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but what if it works alongside a sickle? As a key player of the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States (US) has had a dual role in the nuclear proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consequently, this conflict of imperialism has had major implications for Iranian relations to the present day. Even with the support of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU); Iran’s path towards peaceful nuclear energy still faces opposition from the US. In summation, from the nativity of the Second Red Scare in 1947 to the present day, a mix of political and strategic interests has lead to the formation of the Joint

As you are all too aware, the United States and its Allies have faced troubles in the Middle East for many decades. Much of this is due to well-funded and well-protected terrorists operating in the region under the protective umbrella of participating countries, including Iran. Understandably, the thought of a nuclear capable Iran is terrifying to many of you. I wish to propose a different option than the current economic sanctions that have been taking place, one in which Iran becomes both more powerful and aligns it’s views with that of the United States.

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.

Within our global political arena, many parties have varying motivations keen on improving their national repute and military ability, but it essential to the preservation of ourselves and our planet to think objectively about the consequences of uninhibited and ever-advancing military possibilities. We must learn from the past to be able to better prepare for the future. We have witnessed the pervasive harm that has come from the irresponsible use of nuclear arms. This has instilled in modern cultures worldwide a wariness about these weapons. We recognize the importance of keeping military technology in check in order to prevent another arms race and to mitigate current rivalries and instabilities within the global political arena. Treaties such as the NPT demonstrate the unanimous consensus of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and the CTBT emphasizes the stark contrast between states which have little interest in ever conducting nuclear weapons research and those which view their ability to test nuclear technologies as essential to remaining global military and political powerhouses. All states, however, regardless of their ambitions with nuclear technology, are aware of the repercussions of the proliferation and use of these weapons, and recognize the importance in continuing to regulate both peaceful

Nuclear weapons have provided states with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Nation-states with the abilities to develop such weapons have solidified themselves atop the global hierarchy. Since few states have such weapons, it is naturally attention grabbing when a nation is revealed to be in the process of developing them. Iran began a nuclear program in the 1950’s with the help of the United States, who subsequently suspended aid after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (Breachy and Sinha 1-3). After the monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a clerical Islamic government, many nations, especially the United States, began to fear that Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers have crippled Iran’s economy. After the 2005 election of former President Ahmadinejad, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth (Vick), many great powers have begun to work with Iran in an attempt to retard its nuclear capabilities in return for a reduction of international sanctions. Many actors in these negotiations want different things. Iran’s ideal agreements have the sanctions against the country lifted while still maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the

Iranium (2011), directed by Alex Traiman, covers Iran’s evolution and relations between Iran and the United States from 1979 to 2011. The documentary discusses the possible repercussions of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The first critique will consider whether the featured commentators and actors were appropriate. The second critique will examine the bias of the documentary. The third critique will review the factualness and quality of the film. While the documentary was slightly one-sided, the thoroughness of analysis made for an effective and fear igniting film.

The U.S. should prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a bomb as it would pose a specific security threat to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which are important strategic allies of the U.S. The ultimate goals of U.S. policies towards Iran are to limit Iranian uranium enrichment program, to relieve sanction and to ensure inspections conducted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through new sanctions against and diplomacy with Iran. Liberal institutionalism provides the best approach for dealing with security issues regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran because diplomacy would satisfy both Iranian and U.S and its allies’ interests. This memo explains the assumptions of liberal institutionalism, introduces the Iranian nuclear program background, provides liberal institutionalism diplomatic options, and offers specific strategic options with recommendations.

The Iranian nuclear program has been one of the most challenging issues in the world for more than a decade. The struggle was mainly between Iran and six of the world’s most powerful countries, which included China, the U.S.A, the U.K, France, Germany and Russia. What’s really worth noting is that this controversy was not solely about Iran 's willingness to have a nuclear program, which to its own merits was completely peaceful, but it was about who got to have more influence and control in the Middle East as a whole. Both sides of the conflict took measures to further their goals. Iran put whatever resources needed into developing its nuclear program, and the world’s powers (P5+1)

Due to the Iranian Nuclear Test Crisis, issues on security have risen. First off, this crisis is not just a threat to the US, but also a threat to multiple countries in the Middle East as well as throughout the world. Choosing the best strategy is important because Iran may have up to six nuclear warheads that could be used with their ballistic missile fleet and Iran has already stated that "any US-led offensive would result in Iran retaliating accordingly."5 Even though the US has not prevented Iran from achieving

Carl Sagan very memorably likened the nuclear arms race to “two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline – one with three matches, the other with five.” This scenario underscores the false sense of security, the fallacy of nuclear superiority, and the danger posed by the proliferation and mere existence of weapons capable of achieving nuclear holocaust and widespread destruction. This essay will analyze and acknowledge the grounds for supporting/tolerating nuclear proliferation using the cases of Israel and Iran as examples, while arguing that theoretical grounds for proliferation do not outweigh the actual and potential risks of escalation to nuclear war, nuclear miscalculation or accident, or nuclear technology falling into the hands of increasingly sophisticated terrorist groups.

It became known in the 1990’s that Iran had certainly renewed their civilian nuclear projects, and Western tension continued to increase following 2002 and 2003 reports that Iran began clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion. This sparked international controversy over the intentions behind Iran’s nuclear program beyond civilian or peaceful purposes. For example, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center is suspected to house Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, and is also the alleged location of Iran’s uranium-conversion efforts.iv It is estimated that as many as 366 tons of uranium hexafluoride has been produced since 2004. This is then fed into centrifuges at another key site: the Natanz enrichment facility.