Taipei Times, 04 may 2010. Web. 21 Feb 2014. Spring, Baker, and Kathy Gudgel. "The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century."
Albert Einstein once said, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” (Krieger 4). The debate over the moral and life threatening potential of nuclear weapons has been in question since the first bomb was detonated almost eight decades ago. Nuclear weapons seem rightly owned by the world’s superpowers in order to ensure protection, yet it is feared that nuclear weapons are the horrible remnant of the Cold War that may still potentially cause unilateral destruction. It has been proposed by several benevolent world powers, that nuclear weapons should be banned from the arsenal of all countries who own them, and any country that does not contain nuclear weapons should cease martial nuclear research immediately. In banning nuclear weapons, one beneficial factor would be the elimination of the immense cost that comes with them.
Though most people have never thought much about it, mankind nearly became extinct in a war that had no actual fighting; this war got the name the Cold War (SV; SV). The Cold War was the building tension between the United States and the Soviet Union some years following WWII. Nuclear weapons had a substantial influence on the Arms Race during the Cold War. At its peak, the two super-powers had enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on Earth! Though the Cold War had many different aspects during the stockpiling of weapons, the most influential was the invention of nuclear weapons.
The arsenals of these countries would soon number in the tens of thousands. Recently there have been pushes to rid the world of these weapons that can kill an entire city with a single push of a button. Although these weapons are in the eyes of several governments a necessary tool to have, the public, however, disagrees. The Americans in particular have been debating the issue for several years. But for America to still pose a threat to other countries, the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America should not be completely depleted but upgraded and decreased to where our enemies still fear us.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation within the International Arena: An assessment on major solutions from both a realist and liberal perspective As defined by Christoph Bluth from the Political Studies Association, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is “widely perceived by political leaders as one of the major problems of global security in the contemporary era” (Bluth, 2012). This is clear by the catalog of concern and actions taken by governments around the world to address the issue of nuclear weaponry. With more than 22,000 nuclear weapons in existence today, international law must try to unite with nations in order to control, constrain and potentially eliminate nuclear weapons (Bluth, 2012). The following essay will examine nuclear non-proliferation within the context of both a realist and liberal view in international relations as well as examine potential solutions to the problem. Before discussing both standpoints on the issues, it’s important to look at the backstory of nuclear weapons.
If two countries were to go into Nuclear Warfare and 100 Hiroshima sized bombs were used, we would create climate change like none ever experienced before. There are things we could do to stop this. Armed Warheads are a constant danger and threat for everyone everywhere. They are constantly causing mistrust between governments and causing fear to its civilians. These weapons of terror and mass destruction have no legitimate military or strategic utility.