The Success Or Failure Of Arms Control Efforts

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

Whatever danger proliferators pose today would be far greater in a disarmed world, even though the previously nuclear states would eventually be able to rebuild nuclear weapons, they would be unwilling to accept a period during which a proliferator enjoyed a nuclear monopoly.”

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.

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

The end of World War II had many nations shocked and pondering in 1940’s. Thoughts of a weapon that can erase an entire populous in a short amount of time prompted many nations to consider nuclear armament. This originated from the devastating events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought the world somber, and fearful. Some individuals recognized this and did take measures in order to regulate and prevent future use of these weapons. The Acheson-Lilienthal Report was a document that took a stand against national independent control of atomic weapons by proposing compromise between the U.S, and U.S.S.R., the failure to secure the document prompted the Cold War era and Nuclear Arms race, this became a foundation for further agreements and

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

1- Containment was a strategy applied by the US and its allies during the Cold War, according to some analysts, some aspects of it are still applied today. Comparatively assess the successes or failures of this strategy before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we were to find a determiner of success and failure of strategies, then it is nothing but time. Time corporates it all. In a world driven by self-interest, in time interests change, and stances change, shaping the circumstances that are able to promote or prohibit the application of strategies.

Given the progress of globalization, international security has become an entailment that all countries must work on in order to guarantee the perennity of world peace. However, this quietude is threatened by the growing menace of nuclear proliferation. Canada, as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1969, leads anti-proliferation campaigns to ensure global disarmament.

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

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 big question for scholars may not be whether deterrence helped to prevent World War II but why leaders and lesser officials in both superpowers and so many scholars thought it was so necessary, and how, until the advent of Gorbachev, they repeatedly confirmed this belief tautologically. Such behavior has not stopped with the end of Cold War. Reputable scholars routinely claim that nuclear weapons have kept the peace between India and China and that American intervention in Iraq brought about an about-face in Libyan foreign policy. With the possible exceptions of Israel and conservative British defense analysts, the United States appears to stand alone in the faith it places in deterrence and the credit it gives it for preventing war.

Through times of conflict and hostility rash decisions are usually made. This has been known throughout the course of history from events ranging from the decision of Napoleon invading Russia to the national prohibition of alcohol in 1920. What has come to be seen of some of these decisions is the imminent fact that most was not needed or didn’t work. Some think one of these hasty and rash decisions as using nuclear weapons to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This action was taken for multiple reasons, including to responding to the adversity of the attack on Pearl Harbor and to ending the war at the earliest possible moment. This deleterious attack, though, annihilated the lives of approximately 66,000 in Hiroshima from the acute effects of the “Little Boy” bomb and about 35,000 more in Nagasaki from the “Fat Man” device on impact and thousands more due to the effects of radiation and wounds (Miller, 2012). Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t resilient of the destruction caused back in August of 1945 and still aren’t 67 years later. All that was taken from the attack were the lives of thousands of innocent people and the ruination of a once healthy land. This point in history also marked the first and only time nuclear weaponry has been used in combat. Seeing as though nuclear weaponry hasn’t been active for over six decades now, the idea of nuclear disarmament should be taken into high consideration and implemented throughout the globe and the political aspect and what

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.”