The Treaty 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 dropping of the atomic bomb was the first of many nuclear projects. The first project was called the Manhattan project. Three bombs were created, one was a test, and the two others were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities in Japan. These bombs created mass destruction for the two cities; buildings were obliterated, fires erupted, and radiation spread for miles. After foreign countries saw what the United States was capable of, countries all around the world started to develop their own nuclear weapons, creating a surplus of weapons of mass destruction. “Today, eight countries in the world have nuclear arsenals (weapon supplies). The United States and Russia (formerly part of the Soviet Union) have most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Other countries with nuclear arms include China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom” (Kroenig). Following World War Two, the Soviet Union and the United States were leaders of nuclear weapons. This period was called the Cold War. Forty-five years of potential nuclear destruction loomed over the Soviets and Americans. It wasn’t until after the Cold War that diplomats created the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, or NPT for short, recognizes the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom as nuclear weapon states. Nearly every country in the world is a member of the treaty, even if they do not possess nuclear weapons, by law they state that they are a nonnuclear

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

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

The third and final proposal is taking greater action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to confirm all nations are on the same playing field to dismantle nuclear weaponry. I plan on providing updated analysis in these issues as well. The Seventh Decade was written in 2007 and a lot has gone on since then in regards to nuclear activity and I plan on making it clear to the reader where the U.S. and the rest of the world stands.

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

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

During the Cold War there was a great deal of tension between the United States and the USSR. Both sides competed in arms race that is, equipping their arsenal of nuclear weaponry. Both sides realized how big of a danger these weapons possess and what destruction they might cause. People on both sides lived in a constant fear of nuclear war. For example, North Korea has developed an unpredictable character by testing and launching nuclear weapons. The same fear which was common during the Cold War is present today but on a bigger. Thus, in 1963 the Kennedy administration was able to pass the Limited Test Ban Treaty “which stopped above-ground nuclear tests” (Sagan, p.23). The 1968 Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) that countries agree to disarmament and arms limitation (Sagan, p.23). Without implementing these treatiesthe number of nuclear weapons would be very

A treaty was signed that prohibited the creation of defenses for nuclear weapons due to an advantage they might have if a nuclear war was to start. “The ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, prohibits the use of defensive systems that might give an advantage to one side in a nuclear war”

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

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.

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.