Nuclear War : A War Confrontation Strategy

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

Starting in the 1949 with the explosion of an atomic bomb(RDS-1) in Russia and ending with the dissolvement of the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race was an extremely tense few decades that forever changed the United States in many ways. The Arms Race is exactly what it sounds like; a race to amass more advance weapons. During these four decades, the Nuclear Arms Race affected Americans socially through instilling a variety of emotions ranging from fear, to awe of the power of the nuclear weapons, economically through enlarging governmental role within the economy and mostly importantly, the political impacts were more involvement required by the U.S government in world affairs and as a force against Russia.

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.

In the mid-1960s, a doctrine was created officially accepting that the Soviet Union and the United States of America could completely destroy each other by means of nuclear warfare. This doctrine was labeled as Mutually Assured Destruction, or Mutual Assured Destruction, A.K.A MAD. The meaning of this term defines the fact that any and all parties involved with nuclear war would be utterly obliviated, therefore deterring countries from partaking in such an event.

Throughout all of history, humans have been creating weapons for waging war against one and another or to protect something that is important to them. Over time, the weapons that humans use have gone from just a simple wooden club, to a forged sword, and to high power firearms. However, throughout history none of the weapons created led to a stalemate among any of the world’s super powers until the mid twentieth century with the development of the atomic bomb by the United States and the Soviet Union. The reason why the development of the atomic bomb led to a stalemate has to do with the idea of mutually assured destruction. The idea behind mutually assured destruction is that if one-country attacks with atomic weapons then the country being

Instate violence has decreased in recent decades when it comes to nuclear war, but small arms war is still wide spread. More "wars" have had the use of guns than the use of nuclear weapons. More people have been killed in "wars" because of guns than because of nuclear weapons. However, more people can be killed in an instant by nuclear weapons whereas when you use a gun, more people can be killed in a span of a few months. It is also easier and cheaper to get a gun than it is to make and use a nuclear weapon. Terrorists are scary with a gun or a box-cutter, but imagining ISIS or Al Qaeda with a nuclear weapon would cause the utmost terror across America.

MAD is a theory that means that two sides have nuclear weapons and they do know the dangers of using them. Neither side uses them, because they know if one side sets of a nuclear strike the other side will strike back. If this does happen both sides would be destroyed. But unfortunately this cannot work for Ahmadinejad. The reason for this is that it would be an encouragement to do this. For the Mullahs, they will not care about killing their own people or having their people being killed. It would send them to God and they would enjoy life in Heaven. In the past United States has seen this idea of mutually assured destruction that cost millions or even billions of dollars and millions of lives on both sides of the

Deterrence: Deterrence, as the name implies, is the idea to imply a strategic concept to bring a battle to a stalemate. This psychological power would prevent the enemies from striking each other due to the fear, or otherwise known as, MAD. This mind-game remains a major part of defence policies in Russia and the United States. Moreover, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States each constructed an accumulation of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union believed that in a nuclear war, that they could succeed and win.

After reading more of the book: Schlesinger dives deeper into the nuclear arms race and the effects. As seen when he states, "Under the hypnosis of dogma, ideologues in Washington today see an unlimited nuclear arms race not as an appalling threat to all humanity but as a neat way to do the Russians in." (Schlesinger 64) The nuclear arms race being a threat that affected many people throughout the cold war the peak of it being in the Cuban Missile Crisis. After that Americans wanting to limit nuclear arms as seen through the SALT talks in the 1970s. I find this book very interesting and informative as well and how American policy has been shaped by the Nuclear arms build up, throughout the 1940s up to the 1980s.

In a world that is capable to destroy itself, thinking about a nuclear war is probably one of the most disheartening feelings a person can feel and this is due to the fact that it is a reality, meaning nuclear war can happen at any time. The world today has progressed so far in technology that now, nuclear devices are far more powerful than the two atomic bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities in 1945, which caused mass destruction. That being said, it is extremely important for the world to keep nuclear stability, merely to avoid an event similar to Japans in 1945. This is where the M.A.D. doctrine comes in place, the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine is where two countries are employed in nuclear scaled

By definition Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which full-scale use of nuclear weapons by both sides would effectively result in the destruction of both side. It is not a complicated concept. An elementary school child could understand that the two biggest kids in the class don't openly brawl because both would suffer unacceptable damage as well as put third parties in the danger of the crossfire. The concept of MAD is not the complicated part; it is everything else that pertains to it that has baffled policy makers and theorists for generations. Mutually Assured Destruction is a complex but precarious balance that dominated the Cold War Era. The stability can easily be disrupted by actions taken by

For Mock Congress I had to research bill number eleven. Bill number eleven wanted to find a resolution to decrease our nuclear arsenal. Since I was on the maroon party, I was trying to find a way to stop this bill from getting passed. At first, I had a horrible time at trying to find data and examples to use in my speech to persuade people to chose not to pass this bill. There is a lot more information and articles on how we should decrease our arsenal, because we have such a great amount, than information on the opposite side. Then I took a minute to just think of reasons why people would want more. Protection was the biggest reason I could think of. So from there I looked up how many nuclear weapons other countries have. I found that

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

With keeping the above description of nuclear effects in mind, one can see the driving force behind the concept known as mutually assured destruction, or MAD. As a doctrine, the concept of MAD revolves around the notion that nuclear exchange, in a world with second-strike capability, means that neither side could emerge the victor; only that each sides would be destroyed by the other. With MAD, no side has anything to gain by attacking the other as it would likely result in an un-survivable counterattack; concurrently, no side can eliminate its nuclear weapons because it could then be overpowered by the other. Simply put, if there is no expectation of survival by counterattack, there is no reason strike period. Over the years, this balance and stability has been challenged by developments that skew the possibility of post-nuclear war survival. Ballistic missile defense or even conventional weapons that can achieve strategic effects break down the foundation of MAD by reducing successful strike possibilities; if one side can shoot down some of the other side’s missiles before they become a threat, then the chances are in favor of the side with that capability. (Bradley, 2015) Further, the concept of MAD seemed to lose the potency of truth recently. As the United States has reduced focus on its nuclear weapons programs since the Cold War ended, other states have increased the focus on theirs. The Russian Federation, as well as the rest of the world, has born witness to the