Nuclear Proliferation Among Great Powers Is Not A Top 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

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

There are three major types of weapons of mass destruction and those are nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, and chemical warfare agents. These weapons share their potential for large-scale destruction and the indiscriminate nature of their effects, notably against civilians. WMD’s challenges our peace and security here in the United States. There is a strategy for dealing with weapons of mass destructions, and it is the three pillars, which are counter proliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management. The United States has tried to stop other countries; however, it has gotten to a point that if the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons, then the U.S. will use WMD as a response to the attack. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction in the possession of hostile countries and even terrorists, it is one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. The first strategy to combat WMD is counter proliferation to combat WMD use, counter proliferations are fully integrated into the basic doctrines, in trainings, and even equipping of all forces, since it is important for the U.S military and appropriate agencies to be prepared to deter and defend against any possible WMD event. With strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, in order to prevent states from acquiring WMD and missiles, we must enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral agreements, threat reduction assistance, and export controls. That is to slow and make it more costly to access sensitive technologies, materials, and expertise.

Security is based on military strength. The chief purposes of the nation’s foreign policy are protection of America’s security in an often hostile world. Today, American security policy is worried not only with the procedures of the other nations such as Nazi Germany 1940, soviet Russia 1980; but also with activities of terrorist groups and other hostile non-state actors. To defend the nation and to achieve this goal, united state has built a huge military

As Bacevich notes in “The Tyranny of Defense, Inc.”, the “national-security state derived its raison d’être from—and vigorously promoted a belief in—the existence of looming national peril”. The national security threat in the present situation is terrorism. Terrorists could, theoretically, attain a nuclear weapon and use it on United States citizens. The possibility of this, I argue, is due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons stockpiled by many countries during the Cold War, and not necessarily kept under control after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even during times of relative peace, countries have to deal with the possible nuclear capabilities of other countries—the United States is doing so now with Iran. North Korea is also a worry as they continue to test delivery methods for their nuclear

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

In order for the United States of America and its allies to live a life free of terrorist threats, they need to counter violent extremism and terrorism with swift and deliberate prevention efforts world-wide.

As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism..   The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon.  In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors.  Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.

Amongst the numerous reasons for Iran’s desire to have nuclear weapons is the innate insecurity and fear of possible attacks by the neighboring countries and their allies. An illustration

Since the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the international world has become increasingly concerned with the development and potential use of destructive nuclear weapons. The Cold War-era saw these concerns at their height, as the US and the Soviet Union vied for superiority in the international system. The fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s seemed to mark an end to the most concerning chapter in the history of nuclear proliferation. However, nuclear weapons have once again come to the forefront of international concern specifically regarding regions like Iran, Pakistan, India, and China. The article “Living with a Nuclear Iran” by Robert D. Kaplan and “America’s Nuclear Meltdown towards “Global Zero”” by

Near the end of World War II, the United States (U.S.) atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that nuclear weapons can technically be used as a strategic imperative [1]. Nuclear capability, thereafter, was much sought after by states as the basis for deterrence and thus fuelled the nuclear arms race during the Cold War, especially between the U.S. and the Soviet Union [2]. However, several literatures [3] [4] [5] have debated that nuclear deterrence and utilisation of nuclear weapons are morally and ethically unacceptable. Several others [6] [7] argued that nuclear capability is not the be-all and end-all of deterrence. In addition, the existence of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) measures, theoretically, makes it difficult for non-nuclear states to acquire the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons and to do so without being detected [8]. Hence, this essay seeks to examine the viability of non-nuclear deterrence strategies, particularly to address the question – Who are the potential adversaries of non-nuclear states and what are the deterrence strategies that are viable?

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

Unfortunately, some of these nations are not in concert with the goals and vision United States has for world peace. In fact, they oppose United States’ growing influence in their region and view the presence of United States an obstacle to fulfilling their own regional agenda. They harbor anger and contempt towards the United States for its role. Furthermore, today’s environment provides increasing accessibility to technology, information and expertise to design, build and deliver weapons of mass destruction that can threaten our security. There exists an immediate need to address our nation's capability to defend itself competently in the event of a missile attack from these nations.

Nuclear Terrorism has created fear, concern, lack of protection, and distrust towards the USA government (Muller & Stewart, 2016). Since history, the USA and Iran