The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

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 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

With the events that happened on September 11, 2001, the American people and all government leadership realized that the U.S. was fight a whole new other type of war. The U.S. has dealt with foreign terrorist networks abroad and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. With the tragic event of 9/11, it became something of a nightmare because no American in history had the knowledge to deal with this kind of attack. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) wants nothing more than to destroy America and the threat of another attack is imminent but, when? Every year these FTO’s will evolve and want to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.”

The United States has used weapons and mass destruction (WMD) to combat the war on terror. WMD’s are weapons that can either be chemical or mechanical that’s used to kill a large population. In one article by Scott J. Glick, a Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, says “a violent extremist group may wish to use a WMD, including: (a) the psychological impact that such a weapon would have on the American public; (b) the economic, political, and social instability that would reasonably be expected to follow the use of a WMD; (c) the physical destruction that could be caused to critical infrastructure, loss of life, and contamination to vital areas;...”(Glick 27). In another article the author John D. Negroponte is the Senior Research Fellow in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in International Affairs at Yale. The other author, Edward M. Wittenstein, is the assistant to the President of Yale and used to work as the executive assistant to the director of National Intelligence (2006-2008). The article goes into saying “and the decision to invade Iraq without adequately questioning the widespread assumption that it possessed WMD…” (Negroponte Wittenstein 6-9). The use of WMDs in any country causes international intelligence to examine those countries. They do this to see where they are, if a country is going to launch, and who is responsible for this. Intelligence doesn’t have an accurate data to say that there definitely is a WMD in an area. This has happened in the past with the Soviet Union and today with North Korea. International Intelligence has spread into different branches and has given those branches certain jobs to watch for both terrorist attacks and

The nuclear bomb is an interesting phenomenon that has captured the fascination of scholars, academics, politicians, and the media to bring curiosity and fear together. The first and only use of nuclear weapons occurred in 1945 during the Second World War, wiping out over 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear bombs, were now viewed as the number one threat that could potentially destroy our planet and the human race. Since 1945 nuclear weapons have since been a strong threat that has imposed a psychological anxiety for world leaders as this threat has expanded to fifty countries with the

There are three major types of weapons of mass destruction and those are nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, and chemical warfare agents. These weapons share their potential for large-scale destruction and the indiscriminate nature of their effects, notably against civilians. WMD’s challenges our peace and security here in the United States. There is a strategy for dealing with weapons of mass destructions, and it is the three pillars, which are counter proliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management. The United States has tried to stop other countries; however, it has gotten to a point that if the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons, then the U.S. will use WMD as a response to the attack. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction in the possession of hostile countries and even terrorists, it is one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. The first strategy to combat WMD is counter proliferation to combat WMD use, counter proliferations are fully integrated into the basic doctrines, in trainings, and even equipping of all forces, since it is important for the U.S military and appropriate agencies to be prepared to deter and defend against any possible WMD event. With strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, in order to prevent states from acquiring WMD and missiles, we must enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral agreements, threat reduction assistance, and export controls. That is to slow and make it more costly to access sensitive technologies, materials, and expertise.

Terrorists today are more than unlikely to use WMD in the future as they fear retaliation from the target country, also states that supply and train. terrorist groups cannot completely control them and they have no guarantee that a terrorist group would not use WMD against them. This article analysis shows that there is a need for more research that will explain how events and situations will make an impact on a terrorist group's decisions about using WMD. Only then can we appropriately analyze the threat of the future use of WMD by terrorists. To continue to prepare for the future use of WMD, governments should boost the training of efficient response personnel and increase funds to proliferation, research and development programs such as

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

1. There are three defined intelligence approaches to WMD/Terrorism. These are the Strict Constructionist approach, the Unilateralist Approach, and the Reasonable Necessity approach. Those who believe in the Constructionist approach believe in “...non-violent methods of conflict resolution” and they are “...skeptic of military force and intervention...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 483). People that are into the Unilateralist approach are completely different from those in the Constructionist approach, in which that they believe that “...states have a right to use self-defensive force against some states that have, or will soon have, WMD capabilities-even absent identifiable plants for imminent attack...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 485).

Ever since World War two we have feared destruction and what could be the aftermath of nuclear bombs. We had a whole era in history to dedicate being terrified of weapons of mass destruction. We had bomb drills, duck and cover drills. The United States had TV drills if an attack were to happen on United States soil. For many Americans this was not hysteria, but a reality that could happen.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that the use of other types of controversial arms is not prohibited under international law. For example, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 1996 claimed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited under international law, even though it is extremely difficult to imagine a situation where the use of nuclear weapons might respect the principles of distinction and proportionality and not inflicting superfluous injuries or unnecessary

Weapons of mass destruction had been one of the fundamental arguments about the conflict. It was argued through the U.S and the British regimes that Iraq was in possession of weapons that were an extremely big risk to the security of western international locations and the security of the international locations within the area. They argued that intervention was to forcibly disarm a state that was no longer complying with the policies of the global community and which they argued became a massive danger. another goal of the battle of Iraq turned into to increment the security of america by abstracting a regime that posed a threat through contempt for the global network(Clark

Weapons of mass destruction might be described as “weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat”(WMDC, 2006). Most weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, biological, or chemical. The term is a relatively new one, as it first appeared in December 1937 in an address by Archbishop Of Canterbury. Weapons of mass destruction may also include fierce fighting machines such as tanks and atomic missiles. These arms can cause massive damage to physical structures such as buildings, roads, and bridges (Graham & Talent, 2008). However, the meaning of the term was quite different from the way it is used in the contemporary international law. “Weapons of mass destruction” appear in the document signed by Harry Truman in 1945. After that, the term “weapons of mass destruction” was included in the titular resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations (WMDC, 2006).