Nuclear Weapons And Its Effects On The United States

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.

In the later fifties, the fear of the cold war and the use of nuclear weapons were still a common factor in America. With the rise of the space race, the fear of a nuclear attack increased throughout the states. Many Americans wonder if these nuclear tensions could have been avoided by President Kennedy. Regardless, these flare ups of tension continued to occur throughout his presidency.

With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

The world nowadays is hectic and chaotic, there will always be issues that seem to never stop. The issues that have caught a great deal of attention are the ones in the Middle East. There one can see almost anything and everything, from: displacements, killings, bombings, terrorism, blood, and war. During the strenuous days, one country started to take the initiative to make themselves better. The country of Iran has been developing a nuclear system, for some time now and the United States of America feel that it’s time to start putting sanctions on their program. After the past thirteen years of limited restriction, the government is arguing about what leniency they should have and how much. Allowing such a deal to get approved would only, delay the inevitable. Iran shouldn’t have such a loose-running program. Having a country that is known for so many heinous activities. Does it make sense to allow them to continue on this path, towards nuclear weaponry? The United States government knows this and found numerous ways to cut Iran off enough to prevent this scenario.

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.

The Iranian nuclear deal and sanctions is a very convoluted and confusing dilemma. Thomas Friedman a foreign affairs, globalization and technology correspondent for The New York Times, wrote the article titled, “Look Before Leaping” in which he writes about the basic ins and outs of the Iranian nuclear deal. He discusses the most probable possibilities of the deal going into depth about the likelihood that Iran is a potential economic and social ally in the sense that “Iran is a real country and civilization, with competitive (yet restricted) elections, educated women and a powerful military. Patching up the US-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria” (Friedman). He also goes into the possibility that Iran could, once the nuclear sanctions are lifted, attack Israel and lead not only the region, but also the globe into absolute and complete disarray. The complexities of this issue stem all the way back to 1979, when Iran revolted against its Shah and transitioned to “its ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps — to gradually move Iran from being a revolutionary state to a normal one” (Friedman). For far too long Iran has been involved in

The Iranian nuclear project has been certain since its inception with the new regime, and Iran has one specific objective to achieve, it is to produce a nuclear bomb. Iran 's leadership has fully convinced that the quest to build Iran as the leader at the regional level will not be achieved without having a military nuclear capability. Iran is considered to have a nuclear weapon is very important in Iranian strategy based on the adoption of the fierce policy of intervention in the affairs of the regional countries and expanding the circle of influence. The Shah 's dream before his fall is the same as the dream of velayat-e faqih at the current time, which the Iranian regime coveted in controlling over the most of the countries of the region. As a part of the Iranian strategy is launching public threats which confirms Iran 's diverse capabilities and potential to inflict great damages in any of the countries in the region that dare to threaten or challenge its interests. Iran used the media as an element of national power by continuous launching news of achieving big successes in the development of weapons and military equipment and the growth of military capabilities that will be used to punish enemies To spread fear and terror in the region. It turned out the Iranian regime continues to pursue an expansionist policy in the region after the completion of the nuclear agreement, Iran caused in escalating the

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced back to the 1980s when it was at war with Iraq. It sought develop a nuclear program as an anticipatory move that would defend against Saddam’s Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran’s government, which was then in favor of the US due to its alignment to US policies was developing a nuclear program, but it was annulled as a result of the revolution. The US, along with its allies, is wary of the current nuclear program in Iran. There have been many approaches to curb this threat from Iran’s nuclear program. The most recent and notable one is the Iran nuclear deal, which will inevitably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The main US allies who are against the Iran

As Shakespeare prophesied with satirical accuracy; “Ancient grudge breaks forth to new mutiny, and civil blood makes civil hands unclean.” This ancient grudge has always been simple: The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to continue it’s peaceful nuclear program, and the rest of the world doesn’t trust them to tell the difference between ‘peaceful’ and ‘nuclear threat.’

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

Throughout history many progressions in science and technology have set us ahead of other nations both scientifically and militarily. The use of new technology to set us ahead of other nations was imminent. With the creation of planes and tanks in the First World War the advancement of new technology and nation destroying weapons were not far off. With the threat of the Germans creating Wonder Weapons which could win them the war and the world we enlisted the help of defected German scientists and Americas greatest minds scientifically and military alike. With the fear of losing hundreds of thousands of troops in japan we used the first atomic bombs setting a new world standard for warfare and changing the way our nation was viewed. The

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

On August 6, 1945, the first of two atomic bombs used during World War II was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Some 70,000 to 80,000 people, of whom 20,000 were soldiers or around 30% of the population of Hiroshima. Nuclear warfare is a very dangerous threat to the human environment and to the humans who inhabit the land. Nuclear weapons are just to show other countries and people how strong you are. Nuclear warfare can claim millions of lives, millions.Nuclear weapons are for terror and mass destruction and have no legitimate military or strategic use and are useless in right now addressing today's situations, such as terrorism, climate change, and poverty. Nuclear warfare is the unethical thing to do, nuclear warfare affects the environment, affects the health of the animals who inhabit the planet, and costs a great deal of money on the government.

Nuclear power has the potential of being used for weapons of mass destruction that can wipe out an entire civilization with one shot. This is why making sure no country; especially Iran, has enough nuclear material to where they pose a threat on other countries is very important. Countries throughout the world have expressed concern about the amount of nuclear power Iran is in possession of. The Iran nuclear program has been a real worry for many years because enriched uranium might be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Over the last few years, many steps have been made to restrict the amount of nuclear material that Iran has in their possession. The P5+1 countries, made up of the United Nations’ most robust countries: United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and China, as well as Germany, came together to resolve the issues involving the Iranian nuclear program. The P5+1 and Iran came to agreement with the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, which would limit the amount of nuclear material Iran would be allowed to have at any given time. The expansion and development of Iran’s nuclear program and its unpredictable government are perceived as threats by other countries around the world, which has led them to place limitations on Iran’s supplies of nuclear material.