Generally, international regime is successful in maintaining the world out of the risk of Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) attack. After the war on terror, no country is suffered from the attack of WMD. However, the existence of WMD is still a potential risk and should not be overlooked. In the following paragraph, concept of security, issues of conventional and nuclear arm proliferation and the function of international regime will be mentioned. Change of the concept of “Security” Characteristics of new security concept (200) Old concept of security Before war on terror, concept of security is still traditional. It refers to security of monopoly of violence. As the condition for a state to survive is a state has power to maintain effective monopoly on the use or licensing of violence within its territory. Great powers believe occurrence of internal conflict is not possible. Conflict among states within the international system is rather common. In other words, security is a concept about the protection of independent sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is related to domestic affairs. It is related to state survival. Usually, conventional war will be used as a way to maintain security when there is no peaceful way to achieve the goal (Chung, 2013). New concept of security After war on terror, concept of security is not only about maintaining independent sovereignty and territorial integrity but also protecting systems of food, health, money and trade within the society. This is related to September 11 attack in 2001. Small group of terrorist launched suicide attack by hijacking a civil plane as weapon to hit the world-class financial centre and Pentagon. More than three thousands of people dead (BBC, 2001). The world is s... ... middle of paper ... ...antee not to export nuclear weapon or techniques to non-nuclear countries while non-nuclear countries need to guarantee not to pursue nuclear weapon. Nuclear disarmament will be enforced over the world (UN, 2014). Above all, it is believed that international regimes ensure the world out of the risk of WMD. These years, no countries use WMD on conventional war. However, there is still some limitation for the international regime which allows the possibility of WMD attack. For instance, NPT Treaty has no sanction on those who violates the treaty. Commitment of the treaty is not guaranteed (Chung, 2013). Also, response of international regime is still focus on state level. There is little effort on eliminating underground market of nuclear weapons. These makes the risk cannot thoroughly eliminated. Therefore, great effort is needed for permanently solve the problem.
Nuclear weapons are a problem that the world is facing today as countries want to have their
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
The Korean peninsula has gradually been attracting international attention because of North Korea’s refusal of access for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection of its nuclear facilities. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed on July 1, 1968 by USA, USSR and UK. Subsequently, the NPT was opened for signature by other countries and enacted on March 5, 1970. Till date, except India, Pakistan and Israel, all the other 189 member-countries of the UN have signed it. However, North Korea withdrew from the treaty on April 10, 2003. (Jayaprakash) After the collapse of USSR, independent post-Soviet countries started to abandon their nuclear weapon capabilities and decided to cooperate with the international nuclear disarma...
At this time treaties and laws between the United States and other countries exist in order to prevent a nuclear war. The Limited Test Ban treaty, otherwise known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty, was first signed in 1963 by the U.S.S.R, United Kingdom and the United States. The treaty prohibits testing of Nuclear Weapons in the atmosphere, space, or even underwater. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, adopted in 1996, “bans all nuclear explosions in environments for military or civilian purposes.” Since 2007 only three-fourths of the countries with nuclear reactors or generators have acknowledged the treaty. The treaty will not come into effect until every country with a nuclear generator approves it. Although Barrack Obama has promised in his presidential campaign that the United States would approve the treaty as soon as possible, The United States has yet to ratify the treaty. Although several of these bans have been put in place, these weapons are obtained by various countries illegally through secret sources such as the Black Market. Nuclear terrorism ...
A legacy of aggression exists between the United States and Libya which pervades every facet of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the non-proliferation arena. The absolute distrust of Revolutionary Leader Colonel Mu'ammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi and his government expressed by U.S. officials has prompted the United States to play the role of policing non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), in Libya. As Libya is a party to the Pelindaba Treaty for the establishment of the African nuclear-weapon-free zone (ANWFZ), it is bound to a commitment of nuclear non-proliferation. However, this treaty places no restrictions on the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. In 1988, the United States Central Intelligence Agency revealed evidence that Libya has produced chemical weapons at the Rabta facility and, in 1996, had made plans for similar production at a clandestine facility near Tarhunah.1
Nuclear weapons are the safest defense mechanism in the world. Although nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction and the loss of thousands of lives when detonated, they are the optimal solution to the conflicts between countries in the future. The actual use of the nuclear weapon is not the deterrent, but rather just the mere fact that a country could use it against another country which avoids the large scale conflict. Thus, nuclear deterrence presents itself as a preferred security option. Firstly, based on deterrence theory, nuclear weapons will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that if nuclear weapons are used in warfare, either side will not be able to succeed in winning, as the destruction caused by the weapons will be too much for either side to recuperate from. Since the detonation of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare again. The world saw the destruction which a nuclear bomb could have. Ever since, this has driven fear to never use nuclear weapons. Although many countries possess nuclear weapons today, they have yet to engage in a nuclear war. This has so far maintained “a tense but global peace” (Mutual Assured Destruction, 2014). As the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the ultimate destruction of humankind, nuclear deterrence is a viable security option as shown by the MAD principles, the application of the MAD doctrine throughout history and the current global stability.
The arrival of nuclear weapons transformed the international playing field permanently and new threats such as non-state actors have immerged as a result. Initially, only superpowers with nuclear arsenals had a global role as was evident during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union, but nuclear proliferation triggered a race to possess this power in the last 60 years.
...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.
Strict laws against the development and production of nuclear weapons--The possession of biological weapons, chemical weapons, and landmines is prohibited by global treaties to which most states are parties (the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty). The possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
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.
The dynamics of the post-cold war global situation has cause a shift in the perception of threat, which was originally oriented to be a military threat, becomes multi-dimensional threat that includes aspects of political, economic, social and cultural, which then led to revolution in the nature of security. Besides that, with the risen of terrorism activities that began a few years ago as part of changes in generation warfare, many states has change their concept of security in order to protect and secure their nation. In short, security becomes national interest and scholars start to make another adjustment or changes on the concept of security. The changes was originally more state-centered security becomes people-centered security.
Mongolia is committed to its declaration for nuclear-weapon-free status, internationally recognized since 1992 through its adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution 55/33S. Mongolia declared that it has fully complied with its commitments as a non-nuclear-weapon state under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and with its own domestic laws. Those laws prohibit various activities relating to nuclear weapons, including developing, manufacturing, or otherwise acquiring them and stationing, transporting, or testing them. Mongolia continues to oblige by the rules of the CWC, ratified in January 17th, 1995, which instructs that States Parties are required not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone; not to use chemical weapons; not to engage in military preparations for use of chemical weapons; not to assist, encourage, or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under the convention. Pursuant to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Mongolia has consistently condemned all terrorist activities and has adopted legislative, administrative, and organizational measurements against terrorism. This is demonstrated through our 2004 ...
These efforts include the Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Both of these treaties have been proposed to countries with nuclear weapons but have not made enough changes to the countries and their stance on having the weapons. As the Nuclear Threat Intiative states “The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits its non-nuclear weapon state parties from developing nuclear weapons. The treaty, however, exempts five de jure nuclear weapon states (NWS) (France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from this ban.” This is signifigant because these countries hold the most nuclear weapons among the others. Another example of the treaties not doing enough is shown by how the current president of the United States wants to increase the nuclear arsenal. He states that “ We’re never going to fall behind any country even if it’s a friendly country, we’re never going to fall behind on nuclear power”(qtd in Trump: US must lead in nuclear weapons capacity) . This proves that the U.S has no intent on getting rid of their nuclear weapons despite treaties and its precautions. It can also mean that because the U.S is increasing their arsenal, other countries may also follow resulting in something like a second cold
Seidenstat argues that security is a relative thing and that no set of policies or measures can eliminate all terrorist acts (Seidenstat 2009 ,4). Terrorists will stop at nothing to foil our defenses. They are very patient and creative in planning their attacks. Terrorists will continue to invent ways to defeat our security measures while we are busy with our lives and forgetting about the last attack. Sometimes they don’t need to do nothing but wait for us to let our guard down so they can easily slip passed security measures.
The world and its people have been witnessing very painful misfortunes that have gripped the biosphere and its inhabitants for several years. Nuclear weapons are those armaments which have convoyed humans, since the Second World War until the days we live, in peace and in secure world. Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the world and its beings, which have a tremendous role in the improvement and fruition of life on earth. The history of nuclear weapons proliferations begins with the stressed political situation between the United States of America and socialist Russia, recognized in the world literature as the Cold War. This anxious political situation among United States, Russia and their allies, made the world to introduce for the first time with the destructive weapons that man has ever encountered. As Jim McCluskey argues that there are not any weapons that can homicide millions of people for a short period of time apart from nuclear weapons (McCluskey 1). Indeed, the proliferation and the usage of nuclear weapons have changed the world political leadership's, in order to get the world safer for people and the environment in which they live and function. McCluskey goes on to allege that the peace and security in the world would not prevail if nuclear weapons are existing (McCluskey 2). However, such individuals should be set to throwaway the usage of nuclear weapons, in order that life in this planet will continue even after our death, enabling other generations to live in a safety world. Several individuals and critics claim that the proliferation of nuclear weapons threatens the life of human society, and in meanwhile violating the human rights to live in a safe and peaceful world. Nuclear weapons are proficient of doing mass...