Viability of Non-Nuclear Deterrence Strategies

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 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

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 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.

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.

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

Having adopted the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, as well as keeping in mind the New START treaty in the Obama administration, the leaders of America and leaders around the world has come to the consensus that it is best to ban the use of nuclear weapons. As the public opinion of nuclear technology is usually negative, many would agree that a nuclear war could be dangerously fatal for lives world wide, therefore our group agrees that it is wise to be wary of powerful nations in possession of such hazardous and forceful arm, including our very nation, the United

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.

Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.

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

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, questions have arisen regarding the legitimacy of forward-deployed US nuclear arms as a necessary and continued form of deterrence; Parliamentarians in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have all expressed their desire to rid nuclear weapons from their states.

The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty signed by one hundred and ninety states used to slow down the spread of a large number of nuclear weapons while promoting the use of nuclear technologies in peaceful ways such as energy. Its purpose is to keep nuclear technology in “Nuclear States” or trusted countries until a long-term goal of total disarmament can be reached. Even though it tries to bring about nuclear disarmament, the NPT is a threat to the modern world. It is currently speculated that the United States has the most stockpiled Nuclear weapons with Russia being a close second. Each of these countries has “thousands of known stockpiled nuclear weapons with the next closest state having just a few hundred” (Rising Powers

The Non-Proliferation established the theme, however today's reality threatens its stability and effectiveness. solely measured to strengthen the link between verifiable demobilization by the prevailing nuclear powers and non-proliferation in non-nuclear states will strengthen cooperation and produce larger security to all.

However whether this was down to effective nuclear deterrence or other factors such as war weariness or economic concerns, is difficult to determine. In addition, the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons makes nuclear deterrence a risky strategy. One that not only effects a single nation state, but the world as a whole and global population at large. While on closer inspection the effectiveness of the strategy of nuclear deterrence is not as clear cut or as easy to assess as it may first appear.

The struggle for nuclear power has been a problem since the dawn of the nuclear age. Governments continue to use the threat of a nuclear attack as a deterrent. However, small terrorist groups may not feel threatened by a nuclear attack due to their mobility. Thus, the question remains; are nuclear weapons a necessary safety, or a danger. The solution is therefore to observe the pros and cons of nuclear capabilities, and to look at some precautions that can be taken to help protect people.