The Sixth Decade : The New Shape Of Nuclear Danger Essay

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.

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

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.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 to foreshadow the end of a long and bloody war. It killed an estimation of eighty thousand people with its detonation; one of the finest instruments of murder humanity has managed even to this day. Its presence was a catalyst. Decades after its first showing, World Powers across the globe continue the escalating stockpilation of their nuclear arsenals. In 1978 however, Canada came to an executive decision to rid itself of its nuclear weaponry. Canada acknowledged the mounting tensions of the nuclear competition and its potential to lead to war, as well as what the ramifications of such a war could mean for earth’s inhabitants—extinction—and decided, with its reputation and connections,

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.

Having adopted the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, as well as keeping in mind the New START treaty in the Obama administration, the leaders of America and leaders around the world has come to the consensus that it is best to ban the use of nuclear weapons. As the public opinion of nuclear technology is usually negative, many would agree that a nuclear war could be dangerously fatal for lives world wide, therefore our group agrees that it is wise to be wary of powerful nations in possession of such hazardous and forceful arm, including our very nation, the United

Toward Nuclear Abolition - 1971 to the Present- is the third book of the trilogy “The Struggle Against the Bomb” written by Lawrence S. Wittner, which follows the previous two: One World or None and Resisting the Bomb. Throughout his trilogy, the author provides a systematic and comparative study of the way in which countries, governments and especially Nuclear Disarmament Movements have confronted the rising menace of the arms race and the possibility of a Nuclear war. The studies are scheduled on a year by year, and country by country analysis which aim is to define the importance of the Nuclear Disarmament Movements’ pressure, “intelligence, courage and determination” in altering the course of the history.

“The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown” (H.P. Lovecraft). There is a common phenomenon that humans tend to fear the unknown. This occurrence is human instinct. Humans like to know what, when, and why something happens. Often this fear drives everyday lives. Technology is a major unknown. Self-driving cars are an astounding invention; however, The thought of being in one is terrifying. No one can fully understand the depths of technology because it is constantly evolving, and that is scary. In Spencer R. Weart’s work, The Rise of Nuclear fear, He discusses the need for trust in the officials who control these unknowns. Without trust, fear will only rise. This is

With all this fear and conspiracy flooding the world, Nations have made efforts to bring down the number of active nukes. A movement known as “Global zero” has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of January 2007 newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, william Perry, and Sam nunn, Advocating a nuclear free world (O’hanion 2).

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

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 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,

This project will discuss nuclear weapons technology and its impact on the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty). The Treaty covers three main pillars: disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It was signed in 1968 due to concern that the safety of the planet was at risk by having a high number of nuclear weapon states. After the United States bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki using vastly destructive nuclear fission bombs, it became apparent that the States and possibly other countries could divert resources towards weapons rather than peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thus, nuclear weaponry prompted the creation of the Treaty.

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