Political Scientist Kenneth Waltz in his article of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better have said that the spread of nuclear weapons is not such a bad thing. How this statement by Kenneth Waltz can be true? This question is a fundamental things to take in to account in order to accept or reject the statement brought by Kenneth Waltz. First of all, things that need to be discusses by Kenneth Waltz is “the spread of nuclear weapons” and not the use of nuclear weapons. Misconception in other ways will lead to other meanings and consequences. The spread of nuclear weapons does not mean the weapons will be used. But the danger and the threat are becoming extremely high. As in facts, the member of countries that possess nuclear weapon …show more content…
For offence, the use of nuclear weapons are less likely to be chosen as the results of the war will brings more obsolete results than the countries will gain and the war of nuclear are more likely to be avoid by members of nuclear states. But the use of nuclear weapons will not be neglected because of the power that it possess that can help nuclear states to acquire victory in the war and also to protect the security of the states. The use of nuclear weapons for defense is one of the best strategies. To dissuade another state from attacking have two strategies that are to counter the attack by building a strong defensive wall and to muster forces that look forbiddingly strong (Waltz, 1981). By building a strong defense that no one will try to destroy or overcome them would make international life perfectly safe. On other way, nuclear weapons also can act as to scare that country out of making them by threatening to visit unacceptable punishment upon it. This is best called as ‘to deter’ or in simplest word to stop someone from doing something by frightening him (Waltz, 1981). Deterrence is achieved not through the ability to defend but through the ability to punish. Other than that, states may also uses force for coercion. Coercion is not to deter but more to compel another state from taking an action and the strategy of blackmailing by using the nuclear threat is the most effective strategy of coercion. The use of nuclear weapons according to the four reason given above can make the spread of war is not such a bad things because, the nuclear states member will thinking twice or more before the decision to use the nuclear weapons are made. In additional, the presence of nuclear weapons make states extremely cautious with their actions. It is because, one wrong action can trigger the war that most likely in this century, the war of nuclear. The question arise, why
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat." our enemies, as we would want to be treated. " If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified, and if you do provoke a nuclear war, you should be punished. That brings me into the second reason why countries retain nuclear weapons and that is a threat. It is a way of protecting your country, but you will protect yourself and retaliate if provoked.
Nuclear missiles can be launched at our capital and major cities any moment without us knowing it. The only thing is that the countries don^t have missiles that will travel this far.
A single deadly weapon that could destroy the whole world was successfully developed during World War II. This weapon was no other weapon but the atomic bomb. Under the cooperation of the major powers in the Allied forces, the atomic bomb was produced. Soon after the success of the production of the atomic bomb, the major powers in the Allies agreed to use the atomic bomb. Due to their hatred against the Japanese, the Allies dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and showed no regrets for carrying out the plan. The United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and China are among the major powers of the Allied Forces that unanimously agreed to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
Nuclear Arms, as opposed to conventional arms, generate their destructive force from nuclear reactions. The issues that are related to the use of nuclear weapons is also far different than the issues generated by conventional bombs. The long term
According to Merriam-Webster, nuclear fission is defined as “the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy” (Nuclear Fission). In the book Remembering the Manhattan Project: Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy, Richard Rhodes, an American journalist and historian, states that fission was essentially discovered by accident. On December 21, 1938, German physicists, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, were performing an experiment in which they bombarded uranium atoms with neutrons (Rhodes 17). They saw that this procedure created mutated atoms that had strange characteristics. Hahn and Strassman found that the neutrons split the nuclei of the uranium in half producing radioactive barium and krypton (Rhodes 18). Rhodes explains that the physicists observed that the reaction was extremely exothermic, producing about ten times the energy needed for the fission to occur. After publishing their findings, physicists all over the world recreated the experiment. After conducting his own fission experiment, Enrico Fermi, an Italian physicist at Colombia University, said, “A little bomb like that and it would all disappear” (qtd. Rhodes 19). Many of the world’s physicists came to the same conclusion; this reaction could be used to develop an atomic weapon. According to Rhodes, this discovery made the development of atomic weaponry seem essential to many countries because the only way to defend themselves against atomic weapons was to have similar weapons of their own.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
Also today is the danger that life is extinguished on earth through such a horrible weapon , not over. Many states are in possession of nuclear bombs , because that means for them power. Even dictatorships and unjust regime like China and North Korea have nuclear weapons.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.
In 1962 nuclear war seemed inevitable to the world, it was the first time nuclear war was hanging on a thread. The Cuban Missile Crisis presented a threat to the world, in which the USSR planted nuclear missiles on Cuba. America’s response was to threaten launching nuclear missiles at the Russians. This incident launched the world into a new time, which presented nuclear weapons as a source of power.
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
A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but does not actually need physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analyzing the power of a state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau goes onto his third method of analysis, which is reviewing a state’s usable and unusable power. The most popular example of this is the possession of nuclear weaponry. Nuclear capabilities and their threat to their use is a form of useable power for states like the US and Russia, but not for states with underdeveloped nuclear programs....
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...
It is a well-known fact that the dropping of the two atomic bombs near the end of World War II in 1945 ushered in the dawn of the Atomic Age. For the first time in human history, the world was introduced to the awesome power of nuclear weapons. Since that time, there have been several different nuclear threats to the world, and one of those threats can be found along the Pacific Rim, in the country of North Korea. Like the dropping of the atomic bombs, it is also known that the North Korean government has admitted to possessing nuclear weapons, and in doing so, it stands as a silent, potential nuclear danger to the rest of the world.