Nuclear Weapons Should Not Be Made

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.

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

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

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

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

Arguments supporting the likelihood state that though it is not easy to make a nuclear bomb, it is not as difficult as one might believe, as long as essential ingredients are in hand. Also, since gun-type bombs are comparatively easier to make and less likely to require testing, they possess a real threat. Arguments questioning the likelihood include the modern safety precautions securing the nukes, making it impossible for terrorist organizations to steal and bypass. Also, most of the nuclear weapons require continuous maintenance, and thus if any nuclear weapon is stolen, it will soon be noted. Moreover, getting the fissile material is expensive and it is highly risky to smuggle them along the international borders. Lastly, the organizations need blueprints or additional information to successfully assemble a nuke, just the information is not enough; since the uranium is difficult to

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

For this, they could go one of two different ways in acquiring the bomb itself. They could buy it from Pakistan or the black market without having to actually build it within their own country and have it be ready for use. Or they would have to go on to create the bomb and get it to work through testing. TO create a bomb, it takes three very difficult steps, according to Fuhrmann. The first step, as I mentioned before is acquiring the fissile material to put inside of the bomb. (FUHRMANN 2012) The second step is the actual assembly of the bomb, “To convert the enriched uranium or plutonium into a weapon several components are needed including electronics to trigger chemical explosives and a neutron generator to start the nuclear detonation at the appropriate time.” (FUHRMANN 2012.) The final step, is to make it be able to be delivered to its detonation area, this could be done by putting it in missile form (maybe an ICBM) or putting it into a vehicle and detonating it when appropriate. (FUHRMANN 2012.) Doing all of this creates already very heavy complications for Saudi Arabia to get their hands on a nuclear bomb. The only way they could go around having to spend the massive amount of money to get their hands on the material to create this weapon and find the specialists needed to construct it for themselves, is to buy an already constructed, working, and tested nuclear bomb from a

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

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.