The nuclear stockpile residing in Pakistani creates a potentially devastating threat to the

History of terrorism in Pakistan goes back to the time of Russian capture of Afghanistan. Pakistani powers have long had binds to residential aggressor amasses that help propel the nation 's center outside strategy engages. India and Afghanistan have blamed Pakistan 's security and discernment administrations for playing a "twofold amusement".

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.

Canada currently does not, nor have they ever indicated at creating a nuclear weapons program, this is due to their status as a non-nuclear weapon state by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as the reliance on the United States for nuclear defense. The following paper will detail Canadian nuclear energy and weapons policy, beginning with a description of their nuclear program. The next section will discuss the reasons for Canada’s avoidance of a nuclear weapons program and the current policy behind the nuclear program. Following will be a discussion of Canada’s nuclear weapons program and the policy on nuclear weapons. The paper will conclude with Canadian concerns over the current nuclear program of Iran.

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

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.

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.

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction

As time has passed since the end of WWII, several nations have shown that they no longer need to keep their nuclear arsenals, and they can still be secure on a foreign and domestic level without them. These countries that deactivate their stockpiles are only going to help make the world a more safe and more secure place to live in, without the threat of a global nuclear war. With the establishment of organizations such as NATO and the UN, the threat of global nuclear war has diminished. These organizations can find alternative ways to deal with severe

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.

The world has slowly been transforming into a hostile environment, especially with the growing threat of nuclear attacks. To create a foundation for the understanding of the global issue, one must comprehend that nuclear proliferation is the spreading of nuclear research, materials, and weapons to Non-Nuclear Weapons States. Many world leaders have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will lead to unavoidable tensions and conflicts. As a result, countries signed the non-nuclear proliferation treaty in 1968, which came into force in 1970 (“Nuclear Weapons Timeline”). One of the countries that luckily took charge in the movement, was the United States. From the signing of the treaty to present day, the U.S. has strongly opposed nuclear

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.