The Threat Of Nuclear Weapons

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.

The nuclear bomb has been a weapon in the United States arsenal since the end of world war two, where the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From that day on the way wars were fought has changed forever. Soon after the bomb droppings on the two Japanese cities a race began between the United States and the Soviet Union named the cold war. The two major powers of the world at that time would threaten each other with nuclear war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union could no longer economically support communism. Then latter on the United States invaded Iran under suspicion that they had nuclear weapons. Years later may people have wondered in nuclear weapons are necessity. Is it really beneficial to whatever nation that possess it, or is it a disaster just waiting to happen? Debates continue to this day on whether nuclear weapons should be against the Geneva Convention. Does the possibility of a nuclear winter with the annihilation of all mankind outweigh the reason for keeping them for protection and military dominance?

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

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.

In the later fifties, the fear of the cold war and the use of nuclear weapons were still a common factor in America. With the rise of the space race, the fear of a nuclear attack increased throughout the states. Many Americans wonder if these nuclear tensions could have been avoided by President Kennedy. Regardless, these flare ups of tension continued to occur throughout his presidency.

The United States alone spends billions of dollars a year on nuclear weapons, while other countries do the same. This diverts from more important funds that could be put in effect to help those living in the country. While important human resourcing programs and groups devoted to improving people’s quality of life get less funding, billions of dollars are being used to maintain thousands of deadly weapons not in use. It is not logical for a country to carry thousands of nuclear weapons at a time, because even a couple will have enough effect to destroy countries. One would say that the United States needs to keep this power. The United States alone is the leading country with the largest military expense by a vast margin. Taking away weapons that are able to destroy the planet hundreds of times over will not weaken military power within the country.

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 Cold War was a frightening time for everyone involved, with the threat of nuclear destruction constantly looming over the lives of American and Soviet citizens alike. Since the Cold War ended in 1991, the immediate concern over nuclear war has definitely dwindled, though not vanished. More recently, concern has risen over the few more sporadic and antagonistic countries (mostly North Korea), that do have nuclear weapons. Where the Cold War brought constant tension, the modern nuclear menace brings a constant uncertainty over which small power (or potentially large one) may decide to actually use their nuclear bombs for gain or posturing. Nuclear war was without a doubt a much closer and much more direct fear during the Cold War, but today

Since the nineteen-forties nuclear weapons have been used to help end, or have caused problems between countries. The dangers of using nuclear weapons have increased over the many years since they were first used. Either way, the fight over nuclear weapons have become more and more common because of the new developments in science and technology. The use of nuclear weapons have been used to threaten many different countries around the world which include the United States and many more. Nuclear weapons have become an overall issue in the world today, yet the issue has been ignored. Just recently this issue has been noticed, yet we still ignore the problems that have happened. As the world of technology has become more educated new nuclear weapons have been created, but they have not been tested or used. The United States should aggressively promote nuclear disarmament because of reprocessing, exaggerations, and waste management.

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

This article deals with one of the most debatable discussions of all time. Read on to know more about nuclear weapons pros and cons.

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,

The American doctrine of deterrence stemmed from the development of nuclear weapons. Strategic analysts, using this development as a point of departure, recognized that a nuclear capability established a defense scenario that was, in fact,

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

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