The And Non Proliferation Education

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.

After World War II, tensions reached a new high in the United States. The American people experienced Cold War fears, which changed the way they lived, and acted politically. The U.S. was at ends with the Soviet Union, and this tension manifested itself into the population through the fear of nuclear missiles, and communism, and thanks to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his administration, many of these fears were resolved, or at least minimized.

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

Hamilton, Nora .. "Mexico." Politics of Latin America: the power game. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 337-369.

Mexico, much like the United States, is composed of free states that add up to thirty one in total. The people of Mexico trace their heritage to that of multiple nationalities that range from Native American indigenous to individuals with ancestry to European nations. This fact maybe due to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the shipment of ethnicities that are not usually endemic to the region making Mexicans what they call “mestizos.” Again like the United States, Mexico has a presidential system with legislative, executive and judicial branches. Differences arise from the length of terms of office such as the President of Mexico is elected for six years with only being able to serve one term instead of the usual four years in office in the United States and the possibility of re-election. Mexico has a bicameral legislature made up of senators and deputies like the president they are prohibited to be re-elected to the same government position but they are able to be put in office for the other opened government positions. For example a deputy may not be elected twice to be a deputy but can be elected to be senator or president of Mexico. In terms of economy Mexico has entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, a legislation implemented between Mexico, Canada and the United States that removes most tariffs on trade between its members. NAFTA looks to increase trade within all countries involved. Since this trade agreement Mexico has been oriented towards manufacturing becoming United States second largest source for export and the third largest for imports. Though Mexico has made large strides toward becoming a developed nation there remains substantial income inequality that affects the Mexican citizen’s opportunity for getting health care. In an article in the World Health Organization website it describes

Since its primary colonization by the British during the 1600’s, America has struggled with the concept of freedom. Some people came for political or religious freedom and others were brought and servants and fought for freedom. (Wallach 2010). In the 1700’s colonists openly sought to sever their ties with England and to govern themselves. July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence showed the world that America was free from someone else’s rule. As a result, democracy spread around the world as a government by the people, for the people, with America at its forefront as a world rolemodel and superpower.

Regional countries such as the United States of America should use their influence within the Pan American

Mexico promotes greater equality in their economy, but they believe they have difficulty reaching it due to big businesses controlling everything. Mexico joined NAFTA on January 1st, 1994 hoping it would lead to economic growth and social equality but that did not happen. Mexico has many state-owned monopolies like Pemex, which is an oil company and Telemex which is a telecommunications industry. Many powerful groups benefit from these monopolies making it difficult to promote change. Pemex is the greatest source of tax revenue for the state. However, it lacks capital and expertise to explore the Gulf of Mexico deep water oil. Due to lack of capital and lack of expanding where they can retrieve oil has led to a production decline leading to higher prices. There has been a trend in persistent increasing debt to GDP over the last decade, which came from the combination of failing oil revenue and fragile situation with Pemex (“Mexico Overview”) . By ending this monopoly, it would lead to competition in the oil industry and hopefully expansion of the capital. However, 40% of the federal budget comes from direct control over Pemex. “None of these groups are satisfied with the status quo, but what brings them together is the section that basic change could eliminate the benefits and privileges they have enjoyed for many year” (Malkin). Fear about change and losing benefits leads to why it has been difficult for

Illicit drug trade between Mexico and the United States, estimated between $17 billion and $38 billion a year in 2009 by the Drug Intelligence Center, has a long and storied past. Cartels operated with relative impunity from government prosecution during the seventy year reign of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, (PRI). The movement from an authoritarian government system of the PRI to the liberal democracy initiated by the election victory of the National Action Party, (PAN), candidate, Vicente Fox, in 2000, disrupted the status quo. Election gains by PAN Representatives disrupted long standing agreements between the cartels and government officials which led to the increased violence that

The first source which will be evaluated in depth is an article called, “Mexico-United States Relations” written in 1991 by a publishing group called Houghton Miffin. The origin of this source is valuable because Houghton Miffin is an educational and trade publisher and publishes educational resources for teachers, students, and parents specifying that they are an expert in the educational field which increases the reliability of the

The article “Changing Lenses: Conflict Analysis and Mexico’s ‘Drug War’” states the different approaches of the Merida Initiative in Mexico and in Central America (Carpenter, 2013). Arteaga writes, “Merida Initiative, whose objective is to establish a mechanism of cooperation between the United States, Mexico and Central America, with the goal of

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

Mexico’s pursuit of free trade agreements with other countries is a way to bring benefits to the

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