Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
threat of nuclear proliferation
the role of the united peacekeeping force
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: threat of nuclear proliferation
One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a state, one cannot formally declare war on a terrorist group, thus causing difficulties in regards to concerns of specific conflicts or targets. It is not as if one could penalize a terrorist group with economic sanctions or any other means states employ to deter threats from and intimidate one another. The globalized world has created a form of terrorism that knows no borders, and it would be very difficult to exert one’s will on a terrorist group, at least on a large scale. The coinciding fact that terrorists do not conduct warfare in the same manner as states do makes them increasingly unpredictable. A terrorist employment of a nuclear arm would not occur during an organized conflict; rather it would be used in a terrorist attack without warning. And due to the growing fervor of fundamental religious terrorism, there is a greater willingness among terrorists to sacrifice their own lives in pursuit of their goals. These combined elements create a frightening world in which today’s most astounding new threat possesses weapons of the most awesome power.
The key to identifying the threat posed by a particular terrorist group is its basic tenets, and the level of violence thereof. “Groups that model themselves on an avenging angel or a vindictive god…are more likely to lash out than those whose core myth is the suffering Messiah,” (Stern, p.72). For example, the element that may be both the most prevalent and violent in the world today is fundamental Islamic extremism. With its emphasis on violent martyrdom and conquest on “infidels,” Islam is a religion based on values that are easily twisted to an extreme. Due to their religious ...
... middle of paper ...
...ain such a weapon. Terrorists will not acquiesce to the terms concerning possession and production of nuclear weapons handed down by an international organization, regardless of its power. The best we can hope for is a level of regulation among the nuclear-capable states of the world that is strong enough to remove the possibility of any terrorist acquisition of nuclear materiel.
The inherent lack of rationality in the mind of a terrorist is the quintessential factor behind the frightening prospect of nuclear proliferation among radicals, whether they are fundamental religious extremists, or political radicals. The globalized world of the 21st century has seen the threat of politically driven state ideology fade out and give way to the new threat of terrorist ideology. The dangers of such illogical principles are only compounded when on considers the nuclear element, and its significance in the hands of those who seek solely to harm others. The interconnectedness of the modern global community has compounded the threat of worldwide terrorism, and with greater nuclear proliferation, the potential for a devastating nuclear terrorist attack should shock and awe civilians everywhere.
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
An idea that has not sunk into the politicians and generals of the nuclear powers skulls is the fact that nuclear weapons are expensive. In 1983, a missile submarine cost more than the education budgets of twenty-three 3rd world countries. A comparison for nuclear weapons would be akin to that of computers: It becomes obsolete very quickly, and the state of the art technology used is astronomically maintenance expensive. Building nuclear weapons is like dumping your money in a hole: It is not going to be coming back.
...r weapons that would give him the leadership in Arab world and he could organize and lead an alliance against Israel. The increasing proliferation of nuclear technology in areas of simmering regional conflicts increases the probability of nuclear war. During the 50 years of existence, the real function of nuclear power was changed from direct use as a weapon of war through deterrence tool to the ticket to nuclear club that means the sing of superpower.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
Terrorism has been significantly on the rise over the past several years, making it one of the major concerns for governments and security organizations. The identity of terrorists and the activities perpetrated by them have been associated with certain races, religious affiliations and other geographical parameters, with little concern to understand the development of these characteristics among humanity. Most individuals have classified terrorists as being members of specific races and hence developed fallacious theories that associate terrorism with genetic makeup and other mental problems.
Throughout the entirety of the twentieth century, the most disputed topic of discussion has perhaps been that of nuclear weapons. Some people argue these weapons of mass destruction are vital to the survival of order and decency in the world, while others contend that nuclear weapons will bring an end to civilization as we now know it. Regardless of both of these arguments, there are two things that just about nobody can deny – nuclear weapons are extremely expensive and enormously destructive.
During the 21st Century acts of domestic and international terrorism have significantly increased. Thus the international community of nations has the challenge to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime. The challenge at present is for the international community of nations to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime (Lawless, 2008). In fact, terrorism is an international crime it requires the international community to act in the prevention of terrorism and the sanction of individuals perpetrating acts of terrorism(Lawless, 2008). The September 2011 attack on the United States has presented an opportunity for the internationalist forces to come to the forefront of the global political agenda. ...
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
... terrorists’ groups and networks and that have become a challenge for the intelligence agencies of the world. At present in numerous nations terrorists have made a state of lack of determination and repulsive fallings in the personalities of billions of individuals, particularly with the terrorist assaults of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Building in the United States of America. The pure individuals keep on suffering wretchedness and restraint because of these barbaric demonstrations of terrorism. The merciless and explicit terrorism constraint both by people and at a few places the state supported terrorism acts against honest men, ladies and kids have few parallels in the archives of history. Because of these unlawful and repulsive acts, numerous spots of the world have gotten rotting bruises
...that it will not accept a future in which Iran--its Shiite, Persian rival--has nuclear weapons and it does not” (Allison). If many more countries create nuclear weapons, the world could be in danger of a nuclear war just like it was during the Cold War.
There are several controversial and significant treaties that try to control the issue of nuclear weapons such as, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and START II). Although we have these treaties, nuclear weapons continue to be developed and pose threat to all humankind. For example, in the beginning of this year, President Trump and Kim Jong Un went back and forth threatening each other with nuclear
South Africa is the only country in Africa to successfully develop nuclear weapons, and then to voluntarily dismantle them. To start Africa’s affiliation with nuclear weapons’, South Africa signed 50-year nuclear collaboration agreement with the U.S. in 1957. A nuclear weapons program was then started in1970 with scientists that were instructed to build various nuclear weapons. By 1990, the president of South Africa, F.W. de Klerk, ended the program with the aim of joining the NPT as a state without a nuclear weapons capability. In 1991 they then joined the NPT and came to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). This was an organization that promoted peace, which they also performed, safeguard inspections. South Africa thus submitted its declaration on facilities and nuclear material inventories, and the IAEA then had to verify the completeness of our inventory.
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.
Governments from other countries should be able to work things out and settle business without fearing that someone will be threatened with a nuclear war. These weapons have a very high percent of total destruction, other countries do not think about when they use these fatal weapons as an excuse, of what they will really do when sending the bombs off. They are only thinking of defending themselves no matter what the consequences are, little do they know that it could come back and bite them in the butt. Nuclear weapons will not only cause destruction to one country but all of them. Banning these dangerous weapons will make sure that these excuses will no longer be a problem to the world, countries and nations will not have to fear if they are putting the entire world in
Since the early 1940’s, two world powers, the U.S. and USSR (currently Russia), have been increasing their nuclear weapons arsenal. In recent years, many other countries, such as: India, Great Britain, France, China, Pakistan, and Israel have begun nuclear stockpiles. Since the Cold War has ended and the USSR collapsed, nuclear weapons have been left unguarded or missing. The effect of this lack of security has raised the world’s awareness on attempting to control nuclear stockpiles. Also, there are concerns of nuclear power plants producing uranium and plutonium as a by-product; the two fuels are used in producing nuclear devices. Although these nuclear power plants were never meant to produce uranium and plutonium, countries have left it available to civilians for research and testing.1 Nuclear bombs can be a result of this experimenting, which is why some form of disarmament and a system of verification on nuclear control needs to be implemented by government officials.