Near the end of World War II, the United States (U.S.) atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated that nuclear weapons can technically be used as a strategic imperative [1]. Nuclear capability, thereafter, was much sought after by states as the basis for deterrence and thus fuelled the nuclear arms race during the Cold War, especially between the U.S. and the Soviet Union [2]. However, several literatures [3] [4] [5] have debated that nuclear deterrence and utilisation of nuclear weapons are morally and ethically unacceptable. Several others [6] [7] argued that nuclear capability is not the be-all and end-all of deterrence. In addition, the existence of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) measures, theoretically, makes it difficult for non-nuclear states to acquire the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons and to do so without being detected [8]. Hence, this essay seeks to examine the viability of non-nuclear deterrence strategies, particularly to address the question – Who are the potential adversaries of non-nuclear states and what are the deterrence strategies that are viable?
Setting the Context
The potential adversaries that non-nuclear states may face will be generalised into three types for the purpose of this discussion. These are nuclear state actors, non-nuclear state actors, and non-state actors (NSAs). ‘Nuclear state actors’ includes the five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT, as well as the three non-NPT and one undeclared nuclear powers [9].
It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.
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 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
The thing I would be able to give back to the Latino community and La Unidad Latina is my support. Support can go a long way if its shower right. I will support every event or occasion occurring in the community or with that fraternity. Any type of help that I can provide that’s what will be given. When you see people that truly support what you do you tend to feel better about it. What is better then a really big outcome on an event that you planned? That’s a great feeling, you feel very successful after that. Another thing that I have to offer is my skill to market things. I feel as though I am really good with getting the word out because I know tons of people willing to come. I am also very good at making flyers with Adobe Photoshop, InDesign,
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.
4.Bell, Mark S. “Beyond Emboldenment. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on State Foreign Policy.” Conference Papers—American Political Science Association, 1/1/2014, pp.
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.
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.
John Bowlby proposed a theory that the attachment styles are learned in our childhood by particular others; he divided them into four categories: Secure, Anxious/Ambivalent, Dismissive, Fearful. Secure attachment style forms as result of consistent and positive communication between caregiver and the child. Parent, who takes primary care of the child, is always responsive to child’s needs and develops positive and strong bond. The child feels secure and can always depend on the parent; he or she can discuss any problems or concerns with this parent. The children with this style, according to the theory, will grow to be a confident, outgoing and loving adult who does not depend on relationships for their self-esteem.
Classical deterrence prevented a nuclear exchange between America and the Soviet Union because both nations had well defined interests, they effectively communicated their intentions and both were willing and able to use the credible threat of mutual assured destruction. This strategy of “deterrence by punishment” made the cost of using nuclear weapons excessive in comparison to the benefit. This strategy cannot be applied successfully against today’s non-state
Throughout history, one of the most prominent competitions between countries revolves around the creation or acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, most countries don’t realize that in doing so they create a greater problem. This problem is that as more countries acquire these weapons they are more likely to use them. The use of nuclear weapons is unethical and wrong whether that country is in a state of war or not. The first utilization of a nuclear weapon was in World War 2 by the United States when they dropped an atomic bomb on Japan in an effort to end the war. The use of nuclear weapons during World War II was unethical because these weapons were developed for the sole purpose of acting as a deterrent, there were other
The presence and development of nuclear weapons dictated a necessary shift to our strategic thinking. There was a necessity for a broader understanding in terms of security, war and deterrence with the rise of new technologies capable to put at risk human safety. The presence of new elements at the time to analyze and direct our strategies, became a clear evidence that our traditional conceptions had change and there was an increasing necessity for new ones to be put in place. The theories of Carl Von Clausewitz's and his views on war such as “a continuation of policy by other means” was no longer our most effective tool, as that absolute war characteristic of previous conflicts such as World War I and World War II, will now represent total destruction.
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
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
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.