Kim Jong-un, Ali Khameni, Vladimir Putin, These men are of different religions, different races, different nations, but they all share two key characteristics, they wield weapons capable of ungodly destruction, and they only understand force. Nuclear threats remain in the post-cold war world, and despite any moral quandary, the only action available to the United States is to maintain its nuclear arsenal and continue to rely on its policy of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the only way to protect America from foreign threat. North Korea, a crumbling nation kept in constant poverty and famine by the ineptness of its leadership, a nation that retains its status via constant threats of nuclear attack. Iran, a land of zealots …show more content…
Iran, Pakistan, India, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, these are a few of the nations that up until recent years were unable to develop nuclear weapons. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has made it’s status as a threat very clear as mentioned by pollard in his article, “it warned that "the moment of explosion is near" and said its army had been instructed to ready itself to attack the US using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons” (Pollard). Such a statement can only be described as an overt threat to American national security and can only be met with a retort threatening an equal if not greater retaliation strike should Korean leadership make such an attempt. Iran is another nation that has presented a threat to American foreign interests, but recently it has been developing the ability to threaten American soil. United States intelligence services claim that whether or not Iran will develop nuclear weapons is not a matter of if it can; it is a matter of sheer political will (Rozen). The fact that a nation that has held American citizens hostage has the ability to develop weapons that could kill millions from across the world is truly terrifying and only through strength can America ever wish to maintain control over rogue states such as this. Pakistan and India are also exceedingly worrying with their growing
Kim Jongun, has mentioned before that he wants the world to look up to his strong country as a nuclear power, rather than just a mere country with multiple sanctions shouting big words. This in the past has led to various consequences from hegemonies all around the world who feel threatened by the implications of a young tyrant in charge of ICBMs. This is a clear example of the security dilemma in which the entire world, the anarchy that it is, has to control minor nations that strive for hegemony at the expense of the larger nations’ security and loss of leverage. Unfortunately, it seems that despite the clear warnings from the superior nations, the North Korean dictator has no interest in abiding by international rules and is far more fascinated with realist ideologies of projections of power.
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.
With sources dating back to the late 1960s, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has expanded to be a useful instrument of the government’s security. Its principal motivations for developing the nuclear weapons are as follows: to block foreign pressure, create an international impact and preserve the terms and conditions of the DPRK (ruling party of North Korea). In contrast, Iran 's motivations to develop strategic weapons appear to be more complex than that of North Korea. Iran 's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and
There have only been two instances in world history of nuclear weapons being used against another nation during a military conflict. In both instances the bombs were dropped by U.S. forces on Japanese soil during WWII in hopes that it would generate fear within the Japanese people, and finally break the government into submission. Since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, no other nation has employed the use a nuclear weapon against another country, so why is it that the United States still possesses a stockpile of nearly 5,000 nuclear warheads if they are not being utilized? The United States has long held the strategy of deterrence, meaning that the purpose of the U.S. arsenal is intended to deter other states from attacking with their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, the United States’ has been taking steps towards reducing its nuclear arsenal and declaring to end developments on new warheads.
Since the 1950’s North Korea has posed as dangerous threat to The United States and its allies. With North Korea development of Nuclear arms and its consistent hostile rhetoric and actions towards the United States. With the North Korea’s development of a long range ICBM, more now than ever the United States has been put into a position where its and many of its
August 6, 1945. The day the world and warfare were changed forever. After the first nuclear warhead was dropped, humanity was, and will forever be on the brink of destruction. A single press of a button could end humanity as we know it, bringing total chaos and destruction to the earth. Nuclear weapons are considered to show the power of a country, have nearly been set off due to a false alarm, nuclear weapons are vulnerable to cyberterrorism, and if set off will surely bring an end to the world as we know it.
In the article “Should the United take more aggressive action to prevent North Korea from building a nuclear arsenal?”, it explains how the power of possessing lethal weapons can affect international affairs, and this is a concern that U.S. wants to prevent a war. The article describes how this became an issue after the Korean War; U.S. tried to prevent communism to spread, so in order to do it, the Peninsula of Korea was divided in the 38th parallel, making North Korea communism and South Korea democrat supported by the U.S. Furthermore, the article argued about the nuclear arsenal that North Korea possess since the early 2000’s and U.S. tried to stop them to develop such weapon. In order to make them stop, U.S. and many other countries tries
There is no disbelief that the United States has had historical conflicts with North Korea’s dictatorial leaders. Currently there have been passing threats from North Korea’s dictatorial leader Kim Jung Un to US president Donald Trump. Using current international approaches to the North Korean nuclear problem-solutions are based on the logic of crime and punishment. “According to this approach, North Korea’s crimes – possession of nuclear weapons and violation of UN resolutions – must be punished through forceful, comprehensive sanctions. Such sanctions, the thinking goes, will cause so much discomfort in the North that the regime will be at risk of collapse and Kim Jung Un will be compelled to choose denuclearization (Moon, 2016, pg. 343).” Policy makers ideally want to ensure that foreign policy is perfected to the best of their knowledge and that national security is performing to the best of their ability. “America’s main motive has always been denuclearization in line with its nonproliferation policy, especially after post 9/11 security concerns (Petrželová, 2017, pg. 10).” To avoid similar events to 9/11 posed by North Korea, policy makers should allow counterterrorism tactics to be executed as thoroughly as possible. The protection and safety of US citizens should always be a top priority for government agencies and policy makers. Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s
The United States’s nuclear umbrella should not be withdrawn from foreign countries because of the risk of more nuclear weapon development. The United States can not keep world peace by dominating every country's decision on WMDs but the ones that are under nuclear umbrella protection can be prevented from creating more. A favorable reason the United States should be allowed to intervene is the country of North Korea. The North Koreans are not afraid of the U.S and their policies, indicated by North Korea's actions of nuclear missile tests. Republican candidate Donald Trump, has expressed his extreme dislike for nuclear weapons throughout multiple interviews. Trump said that the world's enemy is not global warm, but nuclear
Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.
Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction
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
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 previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)
One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a