Nuclear Weapons Should Not Be Made

There are seven key points in this nuclear deal: Iran has to reduce their centrifuges, reduce their uranium enrichments, they can’t over produce anything nuclear for at least two months, their Fordow Facility has to stop producing uranium for fifteen years, they can keep doing research and development but can only do it with a break of three months, they will have inspection by the U.N., and we have to lift our sanctions that we have on Iran. President Barrack Obama said this deal, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” (Cato Institute 1/3) This applies to the quote by Barrack Obama wanting to make history. He wants to ensure the safety on America by declining the top producing nuclear war-heads country in the world, their production of nukes. President Obama will go into the books by already stopping a future nuclear

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

enemies to scare them into not continuing the battles that they are taking place in. They rhetorically strategized to scare the enemies into thinking that they were not bluffing and would use the weapons if the task presented itself. Bush even said that even if matters did go worse that he still most likely would not have used the nuclear weapons that he possessed. Also the statement made that if a president looks at using nuclear weapons lightly that it should be an embarrassment to them shows that even when they threaten using these weapons they are most likely bluffing. It appears that as time goes by people do not want nuclear weapons around especially our president. He also sees the huge damage that it can cause and is also trying to make it impossible for Iran to obtain these weapons as he is also working on trying to remove our nuclear weapons from Europe and other parts to not have the option of obtaining nuclear weapons in the future. This matter is super important for Americans to know about because nuclear weapons can be very catastrophic if they are used, especially by an enemy to the United States. The questions that need to be asked are is there ever going to be an end to nuclear weapons? Will we ever find the peace and security that Bush talks about? Will there

First item was to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities. It was a consensus across the board that a nuclear Iran was a destabilizing force.

On the White House website, a 112 pages’ document called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gives some detailed about the deal with Iran. It says that the deal:

When the deal was signed on July 14, 2015, it successfully achieved the limitation the aforementioned threats, as Iran will have no nuclear weapons and be subject to intense U.N oversight for at least ten years. This oversight, sanctioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), consists of stringent daily facility and centrifuge inspections, with a clause that states “the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). To quote President Barack Obama, the Iranian Deal “is not built on trust; it is built on verification” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). Lifting sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for these allowances is not a difficult decision. A deal that restricts and checks enrichment, and also renders Iran a non nuclear- weapon possessing country is a good deal that allows states around the world to sigh a breath of relief.

By aiming precisely with the right bomb they could create a massive explosion that would destroy Iran’s missile dreams, and with the right amount of luck cause a massive

This means that there can not be any bombs tested or dropped at the time that the treaty was signed. In 1991 president bush signed a arms reduction treaty meaning that they have to carry less weapons or bombs or anything That is considered a weapon so anything over the limit they can get into some trouble. Also bush signed anouther treaty missile defence treaty witch this means that they have to have a missile defence of some sort i have know idea what would happen if they didnt have one.In the early 2000s russia and the netherlands sign a cooperative agreement for disarming any nuclear warheads5 this means all of them and the same things happens if you dont follow what you signed then you can really get into big trouble like could possibly get killed.And in are current time we have not been in a nuclear war we have been close but nothing has happend north korea was claiming they were going to but never did we were going to fire one if they did but we were waiting on them but they never did so 5

The democrats in the U.S. Senate block a Republican attempt to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, handing President Barack Obama a major victory. Senate Republicans do not have enough votes to end a Democratic filibuster on the resolution of approval. Iran's highest leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says there will be no further negotiations with the U.S. beyond the nuclear deal. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate attempt to stop the nuclear deal by pushing through a resolution rejecting it. In the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, place two-thirds of their installed centrifuges under international supervision, give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permanent access "where necessary, when necessary",

During the Cold War there was a great deal of tension between the United States and the USSR. Both sides competed in arms race that is, equipping their arsenal of nuclear weaponry. Both sides realized how big of a danger these weapons possess and what destruction they might cause. People on both sides lived in a constant fear of nuclear war. For example, North Korea has developed an unpredictable character by testing and launching nuclear weapons. The same fear which was common during the Cold War is present today but on a bigger. Thus, in 1963 the Kennedy administration was able to pass the Limited Test Ban Treaty “which stopped above-ground nuclear tests” (Sagan, p.23). The 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) that countries agree to disarmament and arms limitation (Sagan, p.23). Without implementing these treatiesthe number of nuclear weapons would be very

Why Iran and United States have been in the cold war for a long time? Why Iran nuclear program still is a problem? Why it took long time to make an agreement? Iran's growth in nuclear technology dates to the 1950's, when the Shah of Iran began paying attention, assistance over the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. Although Iran signed the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a nonnuclear weapon attitude in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, the Shah take care of have had nuclear weapons ambitions. However, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and planned Iran-Iraq war tentative the nuclear program's expansion. In the 1990's Iran began coming after a national nuclear fuel cycle power by developing a uranium mining the common people and

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

According to the official White House website, Iran currently has two means to produce a nuclear weapon, which are highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Assuming there are no other secret facilities, uranium is currently produced at Natanz and FFEP, while plutonium is produced at Arak. The website also mentions that Iran currently possesses enough HEU to produce eight nuclear bombs, and that it possesses 20,000 centrifuges between the previously mentioned Natanz and FFEP sites. The deal requires Iran to reduce its HEU levels by 98% and maintain the levels at or below the 3.67% while reducing the number of centrifuges to 6,104 for at least the next 10 years. Additionally, the deal addresses concerns about future secret facilities, specifying that Iran is subject to exceptionally vigorous monitoring, verification, and inspection measures as well as allowing the IAEA access to any suspected nuclear

When it comes to nations conflicting with each other nowadays, the first thing that comes to mind is North Korea and nuclear war. Using nuclear warheads should not be even thought of when trying to settle a conflict or conflicts. There are other ways to settle conflict, and if the nations do go to war, then there are ways to end the war without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Yes, the United States used nuclear warheads to end the Second World War, but the Axis Powers were killing millions of innocent people. The United States had to put a stop to it somehow. But anyways, the nations can try to settle conflict by negotiating with each other to stop any problems they have with each other. Nations need to learn to do this instead of using nuclear warheads because the nuclear warheads can bring major harm to humanity and nature.

Iran’s nuclear program is very debatable and has been even more debatable ever since they started enriching their uranium that can be possibly become a nuclear weapon. This gives the west and Israel a reason to be more worried about the issue. However in all of this there is an admission lately because Iran and the P 5 +1 have reach a nuclear deal in order to loosen the harsh sanctions they have received resulting in billions of dollars back to the Iranians in return for shutting down the program for half a year. However if this politeness and skill with people fails then it is time for crime-prevention method to go into play here and possible military action. There are other nations that have nuclear weapons like India and Pakistan without a permission slip. So all in all it seems to be unfair that Iran is being discriminated in all of this but there are clear differences between Iran and Pakistan or even India. Now some political scientists believe that Iran independent power is being violated if they have to sign a permission slip to make legal their nuclear program according the IAEA. This would have been a good argument if Iran didn’t accept the deal. But Iran did and they agree to the UN that when the parts deal demands the Iranians to reduce their purity on their uranium to a lower percentage where it is suited for nuclear power only to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. So in terms of a nuclear program the Iranians already accepted to do this directly or indirectly even