Smuggling Of Nuclear Material Essay

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.

The dropping of the Atomic Bomb changed not only warfare forever, but also all international relations. With that being said, the decision to do so was one of the biggest decisions made by any government in the history of time. Nuclear warfare was way more destructive and way faster than any other form of warfare preceding. With the United States seemingly always viewed to be “the good guys” it is puzzling that this country is the same one who killed hundreds of thousands of people all at once and essentially ruined not one but two entire cities within minutes of dropping two single bombs. This decision was not taken lightly, and with basically two schools of thought, liberalism vs. realism, insisting to do so or not to do so, and realism won out. Realism and the many counterparts that strengthen this school of thought is what drove the decision to go ahead and drop the atomic bomb.

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.

     When the first atomic bomb was detonated in Alamogordo New Mexico on June 16, 1945, all the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project understood the great destructive power of radio-active isotopes. Although the atomic bomb was a very destructive force our world would not be as good without it. Because of the government funding involved in the project coupled with the need for an atom bomb, much research that otherwise may not have occurred took place in the US. The Manhattan project opened the door to nuclear advancements and applications.

The Atomic Bomb was the deadliest weapons in the history of war. Throughout World War II one of the most stubborn countries to surrender was Japan who relentlessly fought against the United States of America. After failing to defeat America, Japan was overwhelmed by allied forces. Staying with tradition however, Japan would rather die in battle than to surrender. The Soviet Union also fought against America but that was towards the end of the war. The United States dropped both of the Atomic Bombs in order to intimidate the Soviet Union and to make Japan to surrender unconditionally.

In ww2 , the atomic bomb was dropped on japan to put an immediate end to the war and not draw other countries (i.e. the soviet union or china) into fighting combatively against the U.S. As far as foreign relations go, it proved to the world that the U.S was the most powerful country in that time ( superpower) . This also relates to several years later during the cold war. It prompted the Soviet Union to develop their own nuclear warfare. (i.e us comes out with hydrogen bomb and a year later USSR develops one). It's also the first introduction of Nuclear weapons to the world

World War II ended suddenly as America destroyed two Japanese cities not with traditional strategic bombing, yet with the extremely powerful atomic bombs. As a result of dropping the atomic bombs, the world was thrust into the nuclear age. Just a few short years after World War II, the Korean War started. The Korean War challenged many assumptions held about war within a nuclear era. Three of the assumptions challenged were that nuclear weapons would deter war, that war would not be limited, and finally, that the Soviet Union would be America’s next military enemy.

On Monday July 16th, 1945, a countdown for the detonation of the first atomic bomb took place near Los Alamos, New Mexico. This atomic bomb testing would forever change the meaning of war. As the atomic bomb was detonated it sent shock-waves all over the world. There was endless research done on the bomb in the United States. The research was called The Manhattan Engineer District Project but it was more commonly known as "The Manhattan Project."

In early August 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end of American involvement in World War II. By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of perhaps as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens1. The popular, or traditional, view that dominated the 1950s and 60s – put forth by President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson – was that the dropping of the bomb was a diplomatic maneuver aimed at intimating and gaining the upper hand in relations with Russia. Today, fifty-four years after the two bombings, with the advantage of historical hindsight and the advantage of new evidence, a third view, free of obscuring bias and passion,

An atomic bomb is a bomb whose violent explosive power is due to the sudden release of energy resulting from the splitting of nuclei of a heavy chemical element (as plutonium or uranium) by neutrons in a very rapid chain reaction —called also atom bomb. 2 : a nuclear weapon (as a hydrogen bomb)

The North Korean government continues to financially fund the research and testing of nuclear and ballistic missiles. Little information is known about the North Korean nuclear program and has been made available to foreign nations due to the secrecy and isolation of international affairs. The threat of a nuclear strike from North Korea has become an increasingly serious matter for many nations including the U.S. and its Asian allies, Japan and South Korea. Currently, there are only nine nations known by intelligent analysis that possesses the resources to manufacture nuclear weapons which do include the U.S. However, North Korea is the only nation in the 21st century to conduct a nuclear missile test that has been reported by North Korean

August 6th, 1945, 70,0000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue whether or not the U.S. should have taken such a drastic measure. Was it entirely necessary that we drop such a devastating weapon? To answer that first we must look at was going on in the world at the time of the conflict. The U.S. had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Moral was most likely low, and resources were at the same level as moral. Still both sides continued to fight and both were determined to win. Obviously the best thing that could have possibly happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end with a minimum of allied casualties. Harry Truman’s decision to

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)

It became known in the 1990’s that Iran had certainly renewed their civilian nuclear projects, and Western tension continued to increase following 2002 and 2003 reports that Iran began clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion. This sparked international controversy over the intentions behind Iran’s nuclear program beyond civilian or peaceful purposes. For example, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center is suspected to house Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, and is also the alleged location of Iran’s uranium-conversion efforts.iv It is estimated that as many as 366 tons of uranium hexafluoride has been produced since 2004. This is then fed into centrifuges at another key site: the Natanz enrichment facility.

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