Nuclear Weapons Theory

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

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.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

The development and use of nuclear weapons in 1945 changed not only warfare, but how countries approach warfare as a whole. As Andrew Heywood notes in his book, Global Politics, says that there’s a tendency “for any weapons to proliferate” or spread. With that knowledge it should be assumed that many nations would want to obtain nuclear weapons after seeing what the power that they hold. A state being in possession of a nuclear weapon can deter potential enemies and make them a power on the global scale. The Cold War era and post- Cold War era both saw an in increase in the spread of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, after the US first used a nuclear weapon in 1945, states that gained nuclear capabilities were the France, the UK, China and the Soviet Union. Post – Cold War era India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all gained nuclear weapons and shows the problem with proliferation of them. India and Pakistan are neighboring states and rivals which can lead to the possibility that they could be used at any moment. North Korea is a dangerous militaristic state that constantly threatens other states. This illustrates that the spread of nuclear weapons is a global problem because nuclear proliferation can possibly put WMDS, weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of rival states or extremely dangerous nations. There’s also the possibility of them falling into the hands of non state actors such as terrorists groups. Nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament/arms

The Cold War was the greatest example of Nuclear Deterrence in history. The U.S. and Russia, had threatened nuclear war as a deterrence for almost fifty years. Next, we will evaluate logical fallacies, inform what it means to be a Strategic Airmen as well as how this course maintains my strategic focus in the conclusion.

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

A nuclear weapon is one that possess enormous destruction power derived from nuclear fission which is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay that eventually lead to a massive release of a large amount of energy. Throughout history many nuclear weapons have been developed and used. Over time a simple scientific discovery has manifested itself into a massive and destructive yet very important piece of history that has greatly affected the world today.

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

Warfare has been used by rulers throughout the world since the beginning of time. From making knives out of rocks to using gunpowder as an explosive, the world of weapons has greatly evolved. Nuclear weapons, more commonly known as nukes, are the most destructive instruments known to mankind. With one bomb, millions can die. With one bomb, the natural environment is greatly jeopardized. With one bomb, future generations will suffer. And yet, the world may have become a different place without them. The Cold War was a series of indirect conflicts between the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Rising to become the world power after Europe was crushed politically and economically, the two nations

“That’s when we heard the loud aircraft noise. At that time, we were very aware of the noises different aircraft made. I stood up and said it could be a B-29. We heard the noise fade. Suddenly there was a moment of blinding light with intense heat. I couldn’t see anything. There was a strange reverberation, a noise that’s impossible to describe, followed by a bang. Then the house, the ceiling, everything collapsed. We were buried and in complete darkness. That’s when I thought ‘I’m going to die’. I repeated to myself, ‘I’m going to die, I’m going to die’. The third time I said it, I must have lost consciousness.” These words come from the mouth of Junko Morimoto, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bomb who lived 1.7 kilometers from ground zero.

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

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

The American doctrine of deterrence stemmed from the development of nuclear weapons. Strategic analysts, using this development as a point of departure, recognized that a nuclear capability established a defense scenario that was, in fact,

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.