The Issues And Resource Implications For The Private Sector

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.

In the hopes of keeping us safe we’ve developed stronger, better weapons. Whether it’s to protect us from each other or from others, safety has always been the number one concern. Yet, with the use of nuclear weapons our safety is no longer ensured. “A thousand times a thousand, times a thousand is a billion; in less than a century, our most fearful weapon has become a billion times more deadly” (Sagan 656). As said by Sagan, our weapons have become exponentially stronger in such a short amount of time. We’ve done this under the belief that it’ll make us safer when, in fact, we don’t really possess the knowledge to use such a destructive force. When it comes to nuclear weapons there is no going back. After the damage has been dealt it can’t be undone. “Some of them had an explosive yield equivalent to ten million tons of TNT; enough to kill a few million”(Sagan 656). We hold the power to kill a few million people, when less than a century ago we only had enough power

The various miore events of invasion and prevention of expansion had sharpen the Cold War to become what it was. The various events in question mostly involved the United States and Russia arguing over territory. Although these events influenced the outcome the Cold War, undoubtedly the formation of the Soviet sphere, the Truman Doctrine, and the attack on Afghanistan prolonged tensions during the Cold War. During the span of a few years, the demand and production of nuclear arms was increased significantly.

“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign

After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers and subsequently a period of tension and hostility arose, known as the Cold War. During this time, a new possibility of complete nuclear destruction that would claim the lives of many emerged, therefore “the easing or relaxing of tensions” on both sides was needed, this period would be known as detente. Both countries had been guaranteed mutually assured destruction as they had both managed to stay ahead in the development of nuclear arsenals. By the late 1960s the Soviets had surpassed the United States in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) by 1,300 to 1,054. Although the U.S was still

Nuclear weapons provide a great and purposeful value clearly worth the time and money spent on them in the 1940’s. The research in nuclear weapons has lead to many discoveries and ideas that still influence the world today. These ideas have led to the

The first part of chapter 15 discusses the action and reaction to the development of new weapons. When one succeeds in doing so, its enemies are strongly motivated to develop new weapons that can neutralize this new threat. The process is one of constant action and reaction, as rival nations thrust and parry, each seeking to neutralize their opponent’s capabilities, while at the same time augmenting their own.

In his speech of March 23, 1983, President Reagan presented his vision of a future where a Nation’s security did not rest upon the threat of nuclear retaliation, but on the ability to protect and defend against such attacks. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) research program was designed to tell whether, and how, advanced defense technologies could contribute to the feasibility of this vision. What is a national missile defense (NMD)? A NMD is in theory “a technological shield that could destroy

As we begin the twenty-first century, an increasing number of states around the world are acquiring nuclear capabilities. The sense of insecurity by individual governments is driving many states into developing and testing ballistic missiles. In the mean time, the United States finds itself in a position to develop new technology that will protect themselves against these potential missile strikes. The development of a national anti-ballistic missile defense system has sparked many controversies around the United States. Advocates of the system argue that it is only a defensive measure, but they fail to see the

For example, President Eisenhower limited the amount of money being spent on defense by forty billion and instead, he put that money towards having a large amount of nuclear weapons (Hagan). The theory caused the idea that neither country would feel safe knowing that the other has the power to destroy them to develop. Several moves were made towards both improving both offense and defense during the years to improve the safety of the civilians in the country. This included when in the early 1960’s the U.S deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles guaranteed retaliation in case of a first attack (Ball). By 1964 the U.S, the continuous buildup of nuclear weapons left America with enough to to destroy both the Soviet Union, China, and the Soviet union's satellite nations. Russell Weigley stated, “A strong strategy of annihilation could now be so complete that the use of.. atomic weapons could no longer serve ‘for the object of war’ unless the object of war was to transform the enemy country into a desert”

Nuclear weapons are a threatening war tactic that has become more frequent in the new media, especially in the past few weeks after Hillary Clinton released an updated version of the “Daisy” ad inferring that if elected, Donald Trump will misuse the nuclear weapons of the United States. Nuclear power is a big responsibility and since the start of its use, scientists and politicians have tried to separate weapons and nuclear power. However, one must first understand what a nuclear weapon truly is to understand how they can be a threat. Nuclear weapons are devices that are “designed to release energy in an explosive manner as a result of nuclear fission, nuclear fusion or a combination of the two processes” (Norris).

The missile defense system (MDS) provides a sort of protective shield against any possible missile attacks. Our generation is living in a world where a mass destruction is unavoidable. Technology has gotten overly advanced that a single nuclear missile could destroy a small nation and instantly kill millions of people. Therefore, missile defense system could play an important role in limiting damage and casualties since it could destroy a missile before it causes any harm. Even though there are significant reasons for developing missile defense system, this is still an area of controversy. This essay will give background information on the technology, potential risks, and potential benefits on developing MDS.

Nuclear weapons are the most powerful and destructive technology ever created. From the first notion that nuclear technology could be harnessed to create a bomb, massive amounts of time and energy (as well as government funding) have been invested in further increasing the destructive yield of nuclear weapons. The process of development was carried out independently by governments worldwide. Despite the segregation of groups of scientists and secrecy surrounding their discoveries, design strategies and problems remained basically the same in all development projects with similar solutions being realized more or less concurrently. The first and most basic fission bomb quickly evolved to produce higher and higher yields. Through

Yet, with changing times, technology also changes and becomes more sophisticated. Along with the implementations that come in regards to atomic energy, the atom bomb has also been revamped. In 1961the Soviets detonated a hydrogen bomb with a destructive power of fifty megatons. In a span of just over 15 years the power of the original atomic bomb that took out Hiroshima had been outdone, three thousand fold. Currently, the United States and other world powers have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) in their possessions. The difference between a standard atom bomb and an ICBM is that the latter is designed to travel much farther distances with its own navigation mechanism. By the 1970’s it was possible to load two warheads on an ICBM and designate each one a specific target. It is imperative that the destructive power of these weapons be managed accordingly and with the utmost

The roles of the private sector and partnerships continue to gain recognition in the context of development strategies and international policy-making. Agenda 2030 (SDG 17 “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership of sustainable development”), the report of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, and UN agencies’ strategies for partnership with the private sector provide a clear call to action for delivering global partnerships for sustainable development. The HLPF’s modalities reinforce this by encouraging the private sector and civil society to report on their progress in helping to achieve the SDGs.