The Threat Of Nuclear Weapons

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

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.

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.

Once all the countries of the world knew the power of the weapons they could create, an immediate competition arose to see who could construct the bomb first. America now had a nuclear monopoly over the world, and guessed it would take about twenty years before another country would be able to replicate America’s atomic bomb. In that time, America would be able to construct a hydrogen bomb capable of destruction far worse than a bomb composed of uranium or plutonium. Unfortunately, America’s monopoly was soon overthrown by the Soviet Union, who detonated their first atomic bomb only four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both countries strove to amass the largest nuclear arsenal the world has ever seen, and used them on each other igniting the Cold

The proliferation, or rapid increase in numbers, of nuclear weapons among states, has become an incredibly trying and pressing issue in our world today. Tensions between states that have nuclear capabilities are reaching all time highs and fingers are being pointed in every direction. However, the entire issue regarding nuclear proliferation begins with the United States. In 1945, World War II came to an abrupt halt when, on August 6th and August 9th, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs instantly killed 70,000 individuals, and an estimated 340,000 total died as a result of the fallout (2). As a result of the monumental power and destruction that the United States demonstrated, the world’s reaction was to try and implement a plan that would ban the use of nuclear weapons. The plan would have been regulated by international law, but, unfortunately, no deal could be reached. It had taken another 25 years before the Non-Proliferation Treaty was formed. At this point, five states already possessed nuclear weapons of even greater power and magnitude than the original atomic bombs. Today, America is still dealing with the “fallout” of the United States, a fateful decision to expose the world to weapons of mass destruction (4).

The Cold War was a state of political and military conflict that tested the vigor and fortitude of a multitude of United States presidents. Throughout the Cold War, various different strategies and foreign policies were tried and tested by US presidents. However, the environment in which these policies operated in did not stay consistent. Correspondingly, the Soviet Union’s potency fluctuated consistently, meaning that during some periods the “Red Scare” was not nearly as threatening as others. The ever-changing state of affairs throughout the Cold War was spawned from a number of reasons, including both the belligerency of what was then the current Soviet administration and the acting effects of previously implemented American foreign

“Cold-War Dangers” is about the US losing its grip on Russia because Russians has been doing civil-defense drills and they deployed nuclear-capable missiles to its enclave in Kaliningrad, European. The author believes that President Obama and Putin should get together and “renew dialogue”, so we don’t have another Cold War. The issue is that the Nuclear weapons are more powerful and can destroy the world and there should be a plan to stop nuclear warfare.

Russian Aggression is referenced over 6 times in the National Security Strategy (NSS) dated in February 2015 with similar references being made in the excerpt from Reagan Administration (March 1987) Soviet Military Power (SMP). Two documents with almost 28 years’ time difference show the continued importance that aggression by a Russian element still play in today’s environment. More importantly the method of how such aggression continues towards those states who are struggling to maintain a functioning government. Important similarities to take into account for both time periods are these conflicts are focused around failing states in areas such as the Middle East. These types of geopolitical locations continue to be the outlet where the conflicting ideals from the United States

war I must first look at the causes of the cold war, this would help

The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.

Nuclear weapons, weapons that could potentially destroy civilization, are a new topic in International relations during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. After the United States made a nuclear bomb at the end of WWI, soon other countries followed. By now, there are more than fifty nations intervened with the bomb. A few years ago, Iran and the United States decided to form a deal regarding Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons (Habtoor, 2015). The deal, still in the form of a framework outlining the real agreement, will be ready by the end of June (“The Iran nuclear deal,” 2015). It will be signed by Germany, Russia, UK, US, China, France, and Iran (“The Iran nuclear deal,” 2015). In October 2013, the newspaper Jerusalem Post brought up the point that the United States and Israel do not know for sure if Iran has already started building the bomb or even if Iran already has one (“What does getting the bomb mean?,” 2013). Despite these uncertainties and difficulties to detect Iran’s intentions, in 2013, most of the neighboring nations and the US agreed that Iran currently did not have the nuclear weapon, although it will most likely make one in the next few years (“What does getting the bomb mean?,”).

The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

Just over seventy years ago, there were two cities, both filled with people of differing opinions and ideas. There were many buildings, factories, and families, all interacting and being together, yet in just a matter of seconds, all this life was destroyed. A feat such as this could have only been thought of in fairy tales and legends, but here it found itself in reality. Two small objects filled with plutonium 239 and uranium 235 incarcerated two whole cities almost instantly. This was known as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was forever ingrained in human history. Ever since political figures and government leaders have been trying desperately to make sure a devastating event like such could never happen to their country. It has been successful so far, but the general consensus is that nuclear weapons should never have been an option. Of course, to uninvent nuclear weapons is impossible, so different theories and opinions on how nuclear weapons should be handled were formed. One main strategy, called deterrence, is the idea that the threat of destruction from nuclear weapons is so frightening that they, themselves can be used to discourage countries from using them or even going to war with each other. The other main strategy is called non-proliferation. This is the effort of destroying all nuclear weapons, thus destroying the chance of such mass destruction. This idea, while optimal is not probable, and so

Hope, as an idea, is a very powerful psychological booster. It creates a mental narrative which makes human actions based on the idea that things eventually do get better - if one attempts to try just one more time. Hope, as a concept, can also be a charming deceiver and has an unassuming ability to hide certain undeniable realities on the ground especially when dealing with the realities of geopolitics. When hope replaces the reality of geopolitics and territorial domination; it just prolongs the magnitude of a disaster. It does not eliminate it. Hence, when one must assess the durability, credibility and effectiveness of the recently concluded Persian nuclear deal, one must look at the geopolitical realities of the Mid-East and the role outsiders and those within the region, play to mutate those realities. That is a tough analytical order to conduct. But, it must be undertaken in order to provide a credible assessment of this diplomatic venture. A simple approval or disapproval - eloquent or otherwise of the nuclear deal, is a shallow response to a very serious and complicated matter in a very volatile region. A serious and solemn assessment always avoids an ideological lens. Additionally, the ideological rhetoric regarding the Iranian nuclear issue obscures and trivializes the broader issue of nuclear proliferation especially in the Middle-East.

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