Summary Of Are We Too Casual About Nuclear Arms Threat By John Crisp

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 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.

This is demonstrated in the idea that the most harmful effects could be prevented by hiding in concrete bases. As a result of being in the dark about the power of nuclear weapons, people were constantly in fear. This lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons and the amount of planning in preparation of deploying a nuclear weapon along with the constant fear also caused people to be irrationally fearful about “willy nilly” deployments of nuclear weapons on the US such that schools even would hold nuclear war drills like schools hold fire, earthquake, or lock-in drills today to prepare people for such an event when the time came. This fear was multiplied by the successful string of launches of multiple generations of Sputnik by the Soviet Union which reinforced Americans’ fears of imminent nuclear

Atomic bomb and nuclear war have been in the minds of the American citizens, ever since the Cold War with Russia began. For several occasions, the world was brought to the brink of a total nuclear annihilation. In response to the fear of destruction, popular culture had altered the portrayal of the Atomic Bomb throughout the 2 most prominent periods when the opinions are the most contradicted: 1950s and by the end of 1950s, leading up to the 1960s, with the youth being the most affected.

Throughout history, the countries of the world have had such distinct border lines that there might as well be a twenty-foot tall fence besieging each country; disembodying the world into puzzle pieces. However, one particular topic has vaporized these imaginary barriers and aided the bond between the world and her people. This topic is the imminent fear of nuclear weapons. No matter which land is set foot in, the fear of nuclear disaster is prominent among almost every citizen of every town or city. Traveling back to the 1950’s, the fear of nuclear attacks almost became a horrible reality. To emphasize the paranoia most American’s had during the 1960s, author Pat Frank created a science fiction novel titled Alas, Babylon, which tells of a story of a family who lives through post-nuclear war. When reading this captivating novel, it becomes quite clear that Frank is con-technology; letting the world know that technology -like the nuclear bomb- is ruinous to mankind rather than prosperous.

The nuclear arms race involving both the Unites States of America and the Soviet Union will forever be part of the foundation of what we know emergency management to be today.

There was an unintended nuclear attack that could be claimed as failure of positive control because according to the positive control of nuclear system means those weapons shall always be deployed according to the legitimate order if the attack is attempted without a legitimate attack then it reflects the failure of positive control of the nuclear weapon.

Why do some leaders want to blow each other up? In the past, the present, and hopefully not in the future and when leaders wanted to prove how powerful they were they used nuclear weapons.  The harm they cause to the people, plants, and animals around the explosion site is unbelievable. To launch nukes just to terminate a enemy that can be dealt with without using weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous. The effects of using  nuclear weapons has changed the world but if we keep using them we put our future at risk!

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

The debate that nuclear weapons kept peace through mutually assured destruction is still quite controversial. Though some historians do not believe this. Eric Hobsbawm states this, “both sides thus found themselves committed to an insane arms race to mutual destruction.” The interpretations A, B, C, D both agree and disagree with this point and each historian has their on views. Interpretation A and D disagreed with the question however also had a different view and since it was more revisionist blamed America. On the other hand B and C saw nuclear weapons as a deterrent and agreed with the question. However B state they knew about mutually assured destruction.

The Cuban Missile Crisis had a huge impact on society even years after it was resolved because the incident had brought our nation and the world so close to the brink of nuclear war. Before the Cuban Missile Crisis had occurred, many other factors had been piling up and building undesirable tensions between many countries. Along the way new allies and enemies were made causing more stress to the Cold War. The new bonds that formed after Cuba was taken over by Fidel Castro pushed nuclear war to the very edge.

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