The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate

There are other responses too, however, it is quite clear that these answers are not strong. Many of these arguments are based upon the fact that there may be a possible future in which there may be a need for nuclear weapons. The potential solution to a potential problem is not substantial enough to warrant their continuous support, and by keeping these weapons around, the public is constantly living in a state of fear and panic. I believe that all governments in possession of nuclear

Millions of people round the globe are wondering why some nations acquired and acquiring nuclear weapons. Since during the epoch of world II, nuclear weapons have been in existence and has been used by the United States in August, 1945, against the nation of Japan. Similarly, it is one of the central issue and controversial topic for the international security when it was developed and especially in this present time. Five plus one nations (super powers) raised concerns after the cold war that nuclear weapons or nuclear arsenals might be acquired by many number of states Griffith (2005, p.606).

The theory of Realism provides reasons why North Korea has positioned the nuclear weapon debate at the centre of its policy. One of the fundamental assumptions of Realism is in fact that each state, embedded in an international order characterized by a condition of antagonism, attempt to pursue its

Personally, I cannot envision a world with without nuclear weapons. However, I can imagine a world with many more states with nuclear weapons. I think that that is a much more feasible future due to the actions of our past. I support states sharing the technology to create nuclear weapons, so that each state is on a level playing field. If the states that do not have nuclear weapons (or the technology to create them) were hit, they would be devastated with little to no way to retaliate. If the technology was shared, nuclear weapons could act more offensively, in the manner that states would not launch them knowing that once they did they would be hit right back.

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader in 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 of conflict and nuclear weaponry coexisting with humanity, these warnings 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 due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. As Israel and Iran have different religious ideologies, this has created tension and conflict to occur, but more recently, in relation to nuclear weaponry, their conflict has worsened into that, of a modern day cold war.

Nuclear weapons are the most deadly, destructive, and powerful form of technology that the world has ever created. Officially, only 9 states out of 196 in the international arena have possession of them. Although nuclear weapons are being eliminated by states, they still hold a significant value for nations in the IR arena with a nuclear annihilation capacity. States within the international community that own nuclear arsenals are automatically feared and respected because of the status symbol they hold. Conversely, this prestige, power, and influence can also back fire on states and become a disadvantage. States can lose power in the international community by causing tensions and dividing themselves between states who don’t have these nuclear advantages. France is one country in particular that resembles a superpower with nuclear capability. France has gained power in the International community through NATO due to their possession of nuclear weapons. Overall, nuclear weapons still represent a great power in the International Arena today and will continue holding that power.

Since conception, nuclear technology has symbolized an indomitable source of power and wartime security. The repercussions of the irresponsible usage of nuclear weapons and reactors has been crippling to victim nations, destroying urban centers and irradiating whole swathes of land, rendering them uninhabitable. The consensus of hesitation regarding intentionally destructive nuclear technologies has led to the drafting of ample legislation in order to restrict their use and to stop further development of evermore pernicious applications of this technology. Many groups throughout the years have called for total nuclear disarmament, but that is a quixotic proposition now that the cat’s out of the bag. Diplomatic attempts have aimed at preempting the development of more advanced applications and thwarting unauthorized research, but the constant progression of technology often outpaces the speed with which diplomatic agreements can be contrived and enacted. Nonetheless, peace-promoting organizations have worked vigilantly to regulate and control the spread of benevolent nuclear applications while ostracizing and inhibiting states that overstep international precedent and threaten nuclear annihilation. Legislation such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Many international relations theorists have speculated about the effects of nuclear weapon development; while some argue that weapons of mass destruction promote peace, others believe that humanity should not have the capability to cause so much destruction. This debate has been renewed by the Iran Nuclear Deal, which involves western states placing sanctions on Iran to diminish Iran’s nuclear program. I argue that, while constructivist and liberal paradigms may hold some validity, their perspectives are too optimistic and do not consider the root of the problem—power struggle. Thus, analyzing the situation from a realist perspective is the only rational approach.

Initially, it is important to clarify that necessity is an ‘indispensable thing’ , however, that can be down to perception and the rationale of the individual. The author believes the security of any state is the most important reason why a country has a nuclear weapon, this is based on a theory of realism, where it is believed that the international system is anarchic and states will do what needs to be done to protect their security. This reflects a need of being and feeling secure, where a nation will always want to do what is best to guarantee their safety. North Korea is an example of this. They state their reason for nuclear weapons is deterrence due to the threat of aggression from other countries around them, notably USA.

The creation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons has raised many issues over the years. Some include the ethics of making them or when it is moral enough to use them. Another issue is what safeguards a country has that another country will not use these types of weapons on it. This problem can be solved by the idea of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the idea that an enemy is dissuaded to use nuclear weapons on another country because of some action that will happen. There are many different theories of nuclear deterrence. However, this paper will focus on the three theories known as MAD, NUT, and existentialist by explaining them and then evaluating these theories.

As Albert Einstein said in 1946, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” (Harris and Bender, 12). The development of nuclear weapons shook and is still shaking the international system down to its core. Never before has there been a weapon developed that could effectively obliterate if not the world, an entire state, with a few clicks of a button. Above the issues of nationalism and great power conflict, nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to global stability in the near future because of the possibility of accidents and misunderstandings between nuclear states, a deterrence system based on instability and bluffing, and the chance that nuclear weapons will land in the hands of terrorist organizations.

The pursuance of nuclear disarmament is dangerous because of countries’ conflicts of interest. Historically, the United States has had a very difficult time pursuing nuclear treaties because of the failure to pass. Salt II was a nuclear treaty developed to create a nuclear limit for both Russia and the United States, and it failed to pass in US legislation. Another example is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CBNT) which explained intentions for the world’s nuclear weapons, and, also, failed to move into effect. Although a few exist, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would not be safe for the United States to pursue the abandonment of nuclear

To begin, it should be understood that this analysis focuses on alternative possibilities and therefore impossible to prove or disprove. Instead, this should be viewed as a play on facts and behaviors of the states involved and applies arguments made by different theorists regarding nuclear weapons.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has had a major impact on how states operate both domestically and internationally. Moreover, the potential consequences to states possessing nuclear weapons (one of the three types of weapons of mass destruction) have caused a contentious divide between those who support the possession of nuclear weapons and those who are vehemently against it. While some states believe that nuclear weapons pose a lethal threat to innocent civilians and undermine international security. Others argue that nuclear weapons are what ensure international security. In particular, the deterrence theory argues that the presence of nuclear weapons deters states from engaging in war with each other for the fear that the opposing state will retaliate with nuclear weapons (Lindamood, 2016). Thus, states would rather settle their differences than suffer the consequences of a nuclear war. In light of the deterrence theory, one can argue that the world would never be global zero or “a world without nuclear weapons” (Lindamood, 2016). States with nuclear weapons will want to maintain their security and relative power by keeping nuclear weapons while states looking to improve their security and relative power will want to obtain nuclear weapons. For the interests of improving security and increasing one’s relative power, states will continue to possess and proliferate nuclear weapons, making global zero impossible.

Nuclear Weapons and the threat they possess have become a significant part of international relations since the The United States of America used them end to prematurely end it’s war with Japan in 1945. Despite this, in recent times numerous countries have successfully sought to ascertain and develop nuclear offensive capabilities however no nuclear program has received as much international scrutiny as that of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Diamond, 2012: 3). The international community and Iran have been in stalemate for years, in short, due to world powers suspecting that there is a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program (IAEA, 2013: 2). Iran’s claims in contrary to this accusation is that their nuclear program are peaceful and is instead for the purpose of providing Iran with an alternative energy source to gas and oil, (Takeyh, 2003: 21). There are still multiple unknown factors regarding Iran’s nuclear program, with the core divisive issue being uncertainties regarding Iran’s grounds for wanting to produce nuclear offensive capabilities. Different theoretical frameworks are useful for granting unique insight and appreciation of this uncertainty and what is at