The Threat Of Nuclear Terrorism

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.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

Terrorism is the most concerned conflict the United States has on its agenda today. On September 11th of 2001, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, killing over 2,000 people and causing the buildings to collapse. This horrendous event caused the U.S. to start research, prepare, and prevent the terrorist attacks. It was discovered that the planes were hijacked by a group of militants from al-Qaeda (terrorists associated with the Islamic Extremist Group). Although the United States has recovered, the Middle East is continued to be left corrupt and unstable. The U.S. stresses that the Middle East will strike again, especially because the rise of power that terrorists have gained over the past years. Since most countries in the Middle East are unfortunately experiencing such low conditions, terrorism has created a large impact on it.

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.

With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

The event of September 11, 2001 has left Americans afraid and the government on edge when it comes to our national security. Many individuals are wondering how individuals could use themselves as human bombs or would want to sacrifice themselves to kill thousands that they have never met or talked with (Post, Ali, Henderson, Shanfield, Victoroff & Weine, 2009). Since 9/11 happened, there has been an emotional change in the American public, which results in long term effects of mental illness. While dealing with the reaction of the American public, the government had to also think about the security of our citizens that has led to individuals being labeled as terrorist or being watched for terrorist activities. Therefore, this essay will show reasons why the United Sates should not negotiate with terrorist. By discussing how freezing the funds of terrorist, understanding the use of laws and security, and by noticing the emotional effects that terrorist and terrorist activities has caused the American public.

It is the fear that sticks in the back of many national security and policy planners minds: What is the potential devastation if a terrorist organization was able to get their hands on and detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. For decades, experts and analysis have debated the possibility of these threats and the magnitude of their impacts. Brian Michael Jenkins' book, Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?, explores the fascinating history of nuclear terrorism and dives into the potential motives of nuclear inclined groups and details the probability of an actual terrorist nuclear attack. According to Jenkins, the concerns of those that foresee a nuclear terror attack on the US homeland are actually overblown. The history and analysis of terrorist attempts and ambitions to go nuclear reveal a complex yet clear picture of hype, fearmongering, and anxiety that illustrates the unnecessary fascination with anticipating a nuclear calamity that will not come.

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

war and terrorism are equally alarming, however, the ambiguity affiliated with terrorism generates continual fear and uneasiness. The map displaying countries with and without nuclear capabilities provided thought-provoking knowledge. I was especially surprised to learn that the number of countries which have either eliminated any and all nuclear material, or were non-nuclear altogether. Learning that Pakistan, China, and India are expanding their nuclear armory, was chilling. Viewing the graph which presented the number of Americans who lost their lives fighting in wars, put everything in perspective. I certainly understand the reason why the United States possesses nuclear weapons, but I cannot declare the same for some of the other

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced back to the 1980s when it was at war with Iraq. It sought develop a nuclear program as an anticipatory move that would defend against Saddam’s Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran’s government, which was then in favor of the US due to its alignment to US policies was developing a nuclear program, but it was annulled as a result of the revolution. The US, along with its allies, is wary of the current nuclear program in Iran. There have been many approaches to curb this threat from Iran’s nuclear program. The most recent and notable one is the Iran nuclear deal, which will inevitably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The main US allies who are against the Iran

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

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party

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.