The Issue Of Nuclear Weapons

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.

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.

Ukraine has been an independent state since 1991 and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two nations continued to hold close ties. In the past two decades, there have been several significant events affecting the balance of power between the two nations. One of the events was in December 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up its substantial nuclear arsenal at Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance. The condition of this agreement being Russia and other signing countries would issue an assurance against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. Just a few year later Russia also signed the Charter for European Security, the action “reaffirmed the inherent right

In present day, the U.S. nuclear weapons and DCA (dual capable aircraft), which is used to deliver the weapons, are currently deployed in five European countries (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey). In order to maintain the credibility of its assurance and deterrence, the U.S. should not withdraw its own DCA (dual capable aircraft) and its nuclear weapons from Europe. In the past years, Russia became significantly more aggressive politically and militarily. The annexation of Crimea and the “upgrades of its nuclear and conventional capabilities” are a few examples of Russian’s aggression. Sustaining the DCA and nuclear weapons is a visible demonstration of the U.S. commitment to the security of the transatlantic region and its allies.

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction

When the topic of nuclear weapons, stockpiles, or power plants comes to the forefront, many people automatically associate nuclear materials to terrorist. Because of that association, people automatically think the only dangers faced are when nuclear materials are in the hands of the terrorist. However, that has been proved to be a false assumption as accidents at nuclear stockpiles and power plants pose a far greater danger to American security than the deliberate use of nuclear weapons by terrorist. Throughout the paper, arguments will be constructed backing up the previous statement. The paper will start with a basic understanding of fission and radiation to set the foundation of the basic knowledge of the science behind the subject. Then

Evidence: The Trident missiles can be given an extended life span, which will provide a massively capable and cost-effective platform for the decades to come. . . Our nuclear submarines are undetectable and cannot be taken out by a pre-emptive strike. That is why they provide the best form of nuclear deterrence available to us. (Hutton, 24, 26)

Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.

The first thing that comes to mind at the mention of Nuclear Warfare is the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. These two major global powers fought for dominance on the global stage for what purpose? They fought to ensure that neither side’s values and structures could dominate the world at the cost of the other’s destruction. At its peak, in the 1950s and 1960s, the Cold War represented a way of life for many Americans and Russians. The constant fear and belief that we could be bombed at any second seriously impacted the standards of living in both nations. Comparable to the fear of terrorism in the in the 21st Century, the Cold War dominates the history books during this period of time. At the same time, during the 50’s, in a different field of study, the concept of the prisoner’s dilemma and game theory were being developed. That reason, may explain why this particular dilemma is associated with nuclear decisions.

The world’s first nuclear explosion was made by plutonium. Plutonium is a man-made element that is produced in nuclear reactors. Plutonium is created when an atom of uranium-238 absorbs a neutron and transforms into plutonium-239. The reactor then generates the neutrons within a controlled chain reaction. For the neutrons to be absorbed by the uranium, their speed must be slowed while passing through a substance that is a moderator. Graphite and heavy water have been used in the past as moderators in reactors fueled by natural uranium. For graphite to be successful as a moderator it must be remarkably pure or else the corruption could stop the chain reaction. There is heavy water that looks and tastes like regular water but contains atoms of deuterium instead of atoms of hydrogen. For heavy water to be successful as a moderator, it has to be pure, it must also be clear of significant contamination by regular water, which it is mixed in nature.

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)

In recent weeks/reports, North Koreas leader has threatened to wage war against the Americans. He made the statement “We will tear Americans to pieces, I don’t care what it takes even we will use nuclear weapon’s”. This brings alarm to the United States Nuclear policy and how they tolerate nuclear weapons from other countries. Should the United States tell all the countries who currently or are researching nuclear weapons dispose all their research. The debate continues as Prime Minister of Israel came in to talk to the congress about Obamas nuclear policy again. Should we keep our nuclear weapons or dispose all of them by making all the other countries who have these weapon’s to dispose theirs too. The

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 a surplus 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 prevent war by offering a means of “Mutually assured destruction.” (Ward Wilson). “Mutually assured destruction, or “MAD”, is a conceptualization that says, should a war occur, both sides would most definitely have the capability to apply an inadmissible level of destruction to each other. The United Sates bombing of Hiroshima on August 6th 1945 and the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th 1945 is a prime example of the pure destruction that these bombs can do. The Estimated population of Hiroshima was 330,000; after the bomb was dropped, it killed anywhere between 90,000 – 120,000 people by December of 1945. The Estimated population of Nagasaki was 250,000; after the bomb was dropped, it killed anywhere between 50,000-80,000 people also by December of 1945 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll). Two assets unique to nuclear weapons make “MAD” possible. First, the likeliness that one country would be