Nuclear Weapons And Its Effects On The World

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

“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign

Nuclear weapons show power. The cold war ended over 25 years ago, but over 17,000 nuclear weapons still exist (Helfand, et al.). Nuclear weapons are said to show the power of a country. Putin has “…boasted about the size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.” (Schlosser). Putin claimed that Russia was, “the only country in the world capable of turning the USA into radioactive dust” (Schlosser). Statements such as these leads to countries battling over who has the most nuclear weapons and who has the greatest nuclear weapons.

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

By the 1970’s and 1980’s arms control became an urgent concern, consequently, stabilization of the superpowers became priority. The result was the “bilateral Strategic Arms Limitation Talks had resulted in the SALT Treaties of 1972 and 1979, both aimed at regulating the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union.” (Hanson 201)

Amid the Cold War, the danger of atomic weapons put the destiny of millions in the hands of a couple of individuals. Be that as it may, reacting to today 's difficulties, the dangers of terrorism and normal debacles requires the wide engagement of common society. The terrorists ' picked battlegrounds are liable to be possessed by regular folks, not warriors. What 's more, more than the loss of honest lives is in question: an atmosphere of apprehension and a feeling of feebleness despite misfortune are undermining confidence in American goals and powering political demagoguery (van Rensburg, Pearson & Meyer, 2015). Maintaining the United States ' worldwide administration and financial aggressiveness eventually relies on upon reinforcing the

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.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT 1 & 11) was an arbitration in which the US and the Soviet Union pledged to maintain productive compromise on strategic aggressive weapons. There were two individual consultations, SALT 1 & 11, both were approved by the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1972 and 1979. The original set of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT 1) launched in November of 1969 and ended in May 1972. The following set of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT 11) was introduced in November 1972. SALT was first proposed by U.S President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. In this presentation, I will explain several different angles on my opinion of the SALT Talks. Towards the conclusion of the 1960s, the United States

Why do some leaders want to blow each other up? In the past, the present, and hopefully not in the future and when leaders wanted to prove how powerful they were they used nuclear weapons.  The harm they cause to the people, plants, and animals around the explosion site is unbelievable. To launch nukes just to terminate a enemy that can be dealt with without using weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous. The effects of using  nuclear weapons has changed the world but if we keep using them we put our future at risk!

The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.

Nuclear weapons are the most deadly, destructive, and powerful form of technology that the world has ever created. Officially, only 9 states out of 196 in the international arena have possession of them. Although nuclear weapons are being eliminated by states, they still hold a significant value for nations in the IR arena with a nuclear annihilation capacity. States within the international community that own nuclear arsenals are automatically feared and respected because of the status symbol they hold. Conversely, this prestige, power, and influence can also back fire on states and become a disadvantage. States can lose power in the international community by causing tensions and dividing themselves between states who don’t have these nuclear advantages. France is one country in particular that resembles a superpower with nuclear capability. France has gained power in the International community through NATO due to their possession of nuclear weapons. Overall, nuclear weapons still represent a great power in the International Arena today and will continue holding that power.

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

Radioactivity has been around for as long as this earth has been in existence, and it’s not going away anytime soon. It’s been 228 long years since the discovery of Uranium, and in that time period we have learned how to enrich it, how to manipulate, and to use it for strategic purposes (Hardy 1). Of course, I’m talking about nuclear weapons. The destruction, the aftershock, and the necessity that they are to the world. These weapons of mass destruction aren’t being built in silos to collect dust, and make the world seem unsteady, they serve defined purposes. Nuclear Weapons go hand-in-hand with nuclear power, Nuclear weapons gives the United States populous a feeling of security, and Nuclear weapons have been, and are continuing to be, the number one deterrent of war. There is no denying the role that nuclear capabilities will play in the near future, and where this world goes. This is important to get right, and until we can, as a world dismiss the destructive capabilities of this power, we, as a nation, must be prepared for anything.

Mark Z. Jacobson once said “Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.” Nuclear energy is caused when power plants split uranium atoms inside a reactor in a process called fission. At a nuclear energy facility, the heat from fission is used to produce steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.