Why do states seek to acquire nuclear weapons? Millions of people round the globe are wondering why

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.

As noted by them, after the successful creation of an invention, it is common to see it be easily replicated at a far lesser cost. The world becomes more dangerous as countries continue to develop their nuclear arms in secret. The country who first brings its nuclear arms into the light will gain the upper hand, even if only temporary. It is best that the information on nuclear arms is exposed in order for every country to be aware of the weapons their neighboring countries hold. The reports that have arrived have also painted a dire picture with their large number of

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 rapid surrender and destruction of Japan was a clear indication that the US had managed to become a global leader in weapons development. However, there was also more reason to suspect the real reasons for the use of nuclear weapons in

Before the weapons had been fully integrated into a comprehensive United States military strategy, there was an attempt to place them under the control of the United Nations. The reality of nuclear deterrence and strategy was based on multiple events which continued to shape and refocus the actions. The continued development of weapons with increasing yields and destructive power was coupled with the development of rockets as well as increasing sophisticated guidance systems.

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.

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

Jonathan Schell’s book The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger gives an in depth look at how the world has been shaped seven decades after the creation of the nuclear bomb. In this book Schell provides a brief history of how the bomb came to be, argues how having the bomb changed the geopolitical landscape of the world, and how the current non-proliferation treaties, and recent government administrations are reviving a danger that has not been seen since the cold war. Schell doesn’t stop there he also provides alternatives ways of how to lower the risk of nuclear war, and a possible world without nuclear weapons.

As Bacevich notes in “The Tyranny of Defense, Inc.”, the “national-security state derived its raison d’être from—and vigorously promoted a belief in—the existence of looming national peril”. The national security threat in the present situation is terrorism. Terrorists could, theoretically, attain a nuclear weapon and use it on United States citizens. The possibility of this, I argue, is due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons stockpiled by many countries during the Cold War, and not necessarily kept under control after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even during times of relative peace, countries have to deal with the possible nuclear capabilities of other countries—the United States is doing so now with Iran. North Korea is also a worry as they continue to test delivery methods for their nuclear

Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaties reproduced attempts by the superpowers to accomplish strategic nuclear expansions in such a way as to calm mutual deterrence. These attempts were, first, ballistic missile defenses were outlawed; secondly, "first strike" weapons were decommissioned, and last but not least, civil defense was discouraged. Nevertheless, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was comfortable establishing their country's defense on deterrence. Moreover, we have seen some have started a movement to fully ban the weapons in non-nuclear states. Stated in the article ‘Humanitarian reframing of nuclear weapons and the logic of a ban’, “ICAN and other proponents

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.

The great harmful power of the atomic bomb persuaded several leaders of the necessity to limit this power. there emerged the goal of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and also the hunt for a regime, a collection of rules, establishments and practices to forestall not only the popularity of nuclear weapons but also the material and power necessary for its acquisition.

The article gives a message that measures taken against nuclear proliferation are insufficient but historical evidence contradicts these claims. Before the publication of the article, nuclear countries had already

As one of the largest economies and a powerful strategic player in the world, the People’s Republic of China has come to be one of the most dominant and successful nations in regards to nuclear power throughout the globe. China’s nuclear infrastructure and expansion has served as a foundation for China’s current nuclear energy industry. What is more, the People’s Republic of China, along with France, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, is one of the five states that are allowed to possess nuclear weapons as stablished by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This paper aims to discuss the history behind China’s nuclear program and the state’s stance on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, followed by the countries position regarding the current nuclear program of Iran.