The Nuclear Paradox

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

The United States is currently spending $35 Billion a year; which is 14% of the defense budget, or it is $96 million a day, because of the nuclear efforts of which about $25 million goes for operation and maintenance for the nuclear arsenal. The rest of the money is spent on cleanup, arms control verification, and ballistic missile research, which all of that, just adds to the cost greatly. President Obama revealed a budget that includes more than $220 million in cuts for nuclear security programs in the next fiscal year. One of the largest reductions is going to come to the International Material Protection and Cooperation program, and which it works to secure and eliminate the vulnerable nuclear weapons and materials. President Obama

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

The third and final proposal is taking greater action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to confirm all nations are on the same playing field to dismantle nuclear weaponry. I plan on providing updated analysis in these issues as well. The Seventh Decade was written in 2007 and a lot has gone on since then in regards to nuclear activity and I plan on making it clear to the reader where the U.S. and the rest of the world stands.

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

Sirens wail, a baby cries in the background and the sky starts falling...DUCK AND COVER. Nuclear revolution is approaching and the time to prepare is now. As nuclear weapons should be feared, the should be an immediate caution but also should be regarded as a fact of security. This will be examined through the numerous nuclear weapons that the world owns; the acceptance that revolution is upon us, and finally an example pain that has striked perseverance in nations.

Nuclear deterrence was a key component of American security during the Cold War. The nuclear stockpiles accumulated by the United States and Soviet Union throughout this time period produced a situation of mutual deterrence. The catastrophic risks of a nuclear strike kept the countries from all-out war. In the aftermath of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union took steps to reduce their nuclear arsenal, first in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty (INF) then with START I (Pifer, Bush, et al, p. 8, 2010). New START, like its predecessors continues the bipartisan process of reducing U.S. and Russian strategic arms. In doing so, the Treaty presents several key benefits to U.S. national security.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, questions have arisen regarding the legitimacy of forward-deployed US nuclear arms as a necessary and continued form of deterrence; Parliamentarians in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have all expressed their desire to rid nuclear weapons from their states.

As time has passed since the end of WWII, several nations have shown that they no longer need to keep their nuclear arsenals, and they can still be secure on a foreign and domestic level without them. These countries that deactivate their stockpiles are only going to help make the world a more safe and more secure place to live in, without the threat of a global nuclear war. With the establishment of organizations such as NATO and the UN, the threat of global nuclear war has diminished. These organizations can find alternative ways to deal with severe

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

The American doctrine of deterrence stemmed from the development of nuclear weapons. Strategic analysts, using this development as a point of departure, recognized that a nuclear capability established a defense scenario that was, in fact,

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,