The Problem Of Nuclear Warfare

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.

There have only been two instances in world history of nuclear weapons being used against another nation during a military conflict. In both instances the bombs were dropped by U.S. forces on Japanese soil during WWII in hopes that it would generate fear within the Japanese people, and finally break the government into submission. Since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, no other nation has employed the use a nuclear weapon against another country, so why is it that the United States still possesses a stockpile of nearly 5,000 nuclear warheads if they are not being utilized? The United States has long held the strategy of deterrence, meaning that the purpose of the U.S. arsenal is intended to deter other states from attacking with their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, the United States’ has been taking steps towards reducing its nuclear arsenal and declaring to end developments on new warheads.

Now when one country gets involved in War, multiple are pulled in causing a global catastrophe, this ultimately crippling many countries

Nuclear war has not been far off from happening, and nuclear fallout scares are no surprise to world leaders. In 1999 Pakistan mobilized nuclear weapons while at war with India, making it the most significant military conflict between two nuclear-armed countries. Pakistan and India have other triggers such as attacks by Islamist militant groups, such as the attacks in 2008 on Mumbai (Helfand, Ira, Junkari, et al.).

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 Cold War was the greatest example of Nuclear Deterrence in history. The U.S. and Russia, had threatened nuclear war as a deterrence for almost fifty years. Next, we will evaluate logical fallacies, inform what it means to be a Strategic Airmen as well as how this course maintains my strategic focus in the conclusion.

Amid the Cold War, the danger of atomic weapons put the destiny of millions in the hands of a couple of individuals. Be that as it may, reacting to today 's difficulties, the dangers of terrorism and normal debacles requires the wide engagement of common society. The terrorists ' picked battlegrounds are liable to be possessed by regular folks, not warriors. What 's more, more than the loss of honest lives is in question: an atmosphere of apprehension and a feeling of feebleness despite misfortune are undermining confidence in American goals and powering political demagoguery (van Rensburg, Pearson & Meyer, 2015). Maintaining the United States ' worldwide administration and financial aggressiveness eventually relies on upon reinforcing the

In Korea, the U.S. found itself unprepared to fight a conventional war having put far too much stock and time into the creation of nuclear weapons. Up to that point, two dominant views had prevailed in the U.S in regards to the future of war. One view held that the threat of a nuclear war would abolish warfare altogether through mutually assured destruction while the other reaction was that any new war would be a nuclear one and would lead to the destruction of the human race. The Korean war illustrated to Americans their previous miscalculations regarding the new face of war and also affirmed their fears of an inhuman and cruel communist enemy. It drew the Americans attention to the Soviet-Chinese-Korean effort that seemed to signal the drive

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

The development of nuclear weapons helped to end World War II, but in turn created their own war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of modified military missiles such as the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM, by Americans and the Soviets, had an impact on the struggle of power of the Cold War. The importance of military involvement in the creation of modified missiles and engines were critical events of the Cold War. Additionally, the steps taken to get to space were a byproduct of this Arms Race and the Cold War. Because the United States and the Soviet Union feared what the other country would or could do with weapons of mass destruction and the thought of the opposing country being able to control

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

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

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