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.

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

The top “contributors” of nuclear proliferation include countries like the United States and Russia (formerly Soviet Union). These two countries were the first to obtain and test nuclear weapons. They are responsible for more than 93% of all operational nuclear warheads. United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea all created nuclear arsenals to attain these weapons of mass destruction. The United States currently possesses approximately 7,650 warheads, Russia has

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 all this fear and conspiracy flooding the world, Nations have made efforts to bring down the number of active nukes. A movement known as “Global zero” has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of January 2007 newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, william Perry, and Sam nunn, Advocating a nuclear free world (O’hanion 2).

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

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

The nuclear arms race involving both the Unites States of America and the Soviet Union will forever be part of the foundation of what we know emergency management to be today.

As the past affects the present, and the present affects the future, it has become excessively apparent how devastating war on this world is, was, and can be. Nuclear weapons not only provides the protection The United States needs, but leads the world in world peace. In the world today nine countries have nuclear weapons. (Robinson) These nine countries are; the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea, also which are leading countries (lerner) . Those nine countries have protection for themselves, thus making them leading. Ultimately, protection is the necessary for power. The United States has to protect itself, and remain powerful. Nuclear weapons

The classical nuclear deterrence strategy used during the Cold War would require some modifications in order to be effective against non-state actors in the 21st century. The United States and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons between the two superpowers that deterred both from using. This was because it would not be beneficial socially or economically for either in the long-term. Non-state actors are not equal in most respects to state actors and sometimes considered “not deterrable” , so therefore a modified approach may prove more effective.

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

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

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

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.