India and Nuclear Disarmament

2412 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: China and United States relations

India and Nuclear Disarmament Works Cited Not Included India’s stronghold on their position about nuclear weapons and disarmament has been a major issue for the United States and Chinese governments for the past 50 years. Their history with Pakistan has been far from peaceful. Many events and policies have led up to their current state. The nuclear testing in May 1998 has only escalated the situation. " India is alone in the world in having debated the available nuclear position for the past 35 years." Why should India be denied the right to own nuclear weapons? The question is does India really want nuclear weapons and if so what would be their objectives? Throughout their history India has strongly been opposed to a nuclear nation. From the time when India became a free nation until now their policy has been unchanged. It still remains " the countries national security in a world of nuclear proliferation lies either in global disarmament or in exercise of the principle of equal and legitimate security for all." When India entered the world as a free country in 1947 the nuclear age and the Cold War had already begun. India decided to reject the nuclear policy. They believed that nuclear disarmament would increase their security as well as the security of the world. Who knew it was going to be such a struggle and as of now one of the most important issues on the nations agenda. India has had many continued attempts at achieving this goal, but have all come and gone with little impact. The 1950’s began this string of unheeded calls to nuclear disarmament. Who would have thought that the halfway point in a great century would be known as the " mushroom cloud era"? This was due specifically to the dozens of nuclear weapon... ... middle of paper ... ...ts were simply to reassure the people of India with confidence of their capabilities. The country is still fully committed to the promotion of peace. Despite the sanctions the U.S. is still a supporter of India and China is an avid supporter of Pakistan. The U.S. was either unable or unwilling to restrain China in its proliferation to Iran and Pakistan. This made things even worse for India. I think India was smart to become nuclear. They had to, to stay safe. Right now we are close to nuclear disarmament. All the powerful countries have nuclear weapons, but no one in their right mind is going to use them. It would bring the world into a nuclear holocaust. As long as everyone follows the rules and plays it safe we should be trouble- free for a few years anyway. Obviously there are going to be small battles and disagreements. It is what makes the world go round.

Show More
Related

  • Nuclear Power Essay

    1281 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are many developing countries also looking into nuclear energy because of all the benefits nuclear power has to offer. As of right now between sixteen and thirty nuclear power plants are being made in developing countries like China and India. Both of these countries are moving towards nuclear energy for many reasons like its reliability and amount of energy it producing. It is very beneficial because it only takes up a small amount of space to make one of these nuclear plants and the amount of energy they produce is substantial. Both of these countries are looking into h...

    Read More

  • Nuclear Weapons in Iran and North Korea Should Be Ended

    545 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nuclear weapons are a problem that the world is facing today as countries want to have their

    Read More

  • Crossing the 38th Parallel

    800 Words  | 2 Pages

    This resolution made by the United Nations states that it might be necessary to repel the attack made by North Korea and unite the country creating stability.... ... middle of paper ... ... In regard to the low risk of Soviet and Chinese intervention, it should also be known that due to the desire to not start another World War, and the lack of indications of actual intervention from China, these risks are worth it. If America was to proceed in such a way as to never take risks, then America would never move forward.

    Read More

  • This House would Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Have you ever thought of nuclear weapons being a threat to you? If you have never taken this into consideration; think again. Yet some people believe nuclear weapons should not be abolished and therefore every country should own them. Points that support this side of the argument are; nuclear weapons are required for deterrence, thus abolishment is an unrealistic goal and that abolishment would be counter productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare. I understand these points, but I do not take this side of the argument as these reasons are not enough to convince me to keep nuclear weapons.

    Read More

  • Nuclear Weapons As a Defense Mechanism

    1888 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • WWII

    3527 Words  | 8 Pages

    ...b. Although it served to force the Japanese’s hand in surrender as well as a tool in which to tell smaller countries around the world to not mess with the US, when the USSR saw this, they immediately thought we have to have this. And they got it, issuing in the conflict known as the Cold War.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Subs

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nuclear weapons are a key device to show off to the world that their nation has the capabilities of economic stability and money to produce weaponry to hold against the world. These devices guarantee security as it is the final stage of veto towards of aggression (Miller 1). A country that is able to provide security, guarantees the ability to ally with other countries, protecting a non-nuclear state giving the ability to provide economic and military assistance. To own nuclear weapons shows that a nuclear-armed state has some value of economic stability. For example, if the Pakistani State were to crumble, the worst series of development imaginable would be terrorists abducting nuclear arsenals. As the terrorists would use to threaten other countries instigating chaos; however, safety is assured to the people that nuclear arsenals are easily disabled. Including the constant checkups, an arsenal needs require excessive knowledge about it. Thus, if one were to steal one from a manufacturing site, would be difficult to go unnoticed (Tepperman 2). Therefore, economic stability is necessary for a nuclear state like Pakistan or North Korea because when stability is lost, control of weapons is lost as

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Non Proliferation

    1521 Words  | 4 Pages

    Non-Proliferation Debate in World Politics Non-multiplication is one of the primary verbal confrontations in contemporary world governmental issues which is the fundamental plan on which states figure their security approaches. Civil argument of non-expansion began in 1945 when United States utilized atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Distinctive respective and multilateral exertions were made to attain the goal of demobilization on the planet. Atomic non-expansion bargain was the primary achievement of the world which was marked in 1968 and entered into energy in 1970.but from the first day it was consistently censured on account of its own dialect and prejudicial demeanor towards the non-atomic weapon states. An alternate essential

    Read More

  • Cold War Containment

    707 Words  | 2 Pages

    The US was helping Iran with westernizing their country. With all of the new developments, lifestyles changed drastically from what they were before. If the US had not helped out, the lives of Iranians would not have changed. The communists affected daily lives in situations such as the Cuban missile crisis. This caused many people to take action because of the prospect of nuclear war.

    Read More

  • The Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons for Deterrence

    810 Words  | 2 Pages

    'Nuclear weapons protect our country. The very fact we have them means no-one will ever use them' In this account, I am going to discuss the diverse arguments which concern the issue of nuclear weapons, and whether or not their ownership actually voids use. Exploring both contrasting arguments, I will discuss both sides to the subject; arguments which support this statement contrast a great deal to those who rebut it, yet both sides have their valid reasons to their case; those who favour the statement believe that the weapons are somewhat of a taboo, however, those who support the opposing view look at the matter a lot more practically, after all nuclear weapons are extremely destructive. Supporting arguments have a legitimate cause to believe that their theory is right; there is a profound degree of responsibility which goes in hand with owning a weapon of this calibre, which taking into account the potential destruction they can cause extinguishes any possibility of usage. In support of this is a substantial measure of evidence, the cold war, for example.

    Read More

  • Imperialism In China Essay

    659 Words  | 2 Pages

    Although it made China live in the threat of being invaded, it also helped China to quickly revolve from a new-born country to an important force in the world. By helping in the Korean War, China made an impression to the world that although it was a new-founded country, it would not bear imperialism. It would help the world to anti-imperialism. Moreover, when successfully tested the atomic bomb, China not only gained the power to confront with America, it also encouraged other countries that were oppressed by American imperialism to stand up, and China will be their ally to protect the peace of the world. Thus, China won the recognition in the world as being a country that advocates peace and despises war fair.

    Read More

  • The Cold War: The Second Half Of The Twentieth Century

    640 Words  | 2 Pages

    The world first witnessed the power of these modern weapons of mass destruction, and after two successful bombings, forced Japan to surrender. This forced the world into a nuclear arms race, which resulted in the Soviet Union to develop an atomic bomb four years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings. The arms race continued through the Cold War, creating the term mutually assured destruction, “MAD” until both superpowers had enormous nuclear stockpiles. After the conclusion of the Cold War in the 1990’s, both sides still contained large nuclear stockpiles with five other countries possessing nuclear weapons. Looking at the present day, is there still a need for nuclear weapon deterrents in the Twenty-First Century? Both James E. Doyle and Seth Cropsey agree that nuclear weapons will not protect the United States from the threats that face it today. One major point is Nuclear Weapons show their limitations when deterring or preventing terrorist attacks from occurring. James Doyle explains (2014), “ US nuclear weapons do not deter terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda has attacked the United States, Great Britain, Pakistan, several NATO members, and Israeli… All these states possess nuclear arms or are in alliance with nuclear powers”(16). In the Twenty-First Century technology and changing climate is also decreasing the need for world powers to use nuclear weapons as deterrents. Doyle raises an uncommon point on the effects of a nuclear explosion and its effects on the environment during a period of increase temperatures. In the future, “Threats to use nuclear weapons will lack credibility because carrying them out would greatly worsen global environmental damage and its consequences for all states, including those who used nuclear weapons”(Doyle, 2014, 25). In addition, Seth Cropsey proposes an idea to replace nuclear weapons with technologically advanced conventional

    Read More

  • Suez Crisis Research Paper

    1257 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Soviet Union, desirous of gaining a foothold in the Middle East and supporting Arab nationalism, financed the construction of the Aswan Dam in Egypt, an endeavor previously promised by the United States. The Soviets employed the use of hard power, providing armaments to the Egyptians from Czechoslovakia as well as the threat of nuclear missiles to the region if British, French, and Israeli forces refused to withdraw. The United States, however, employed publicly the use of soft power, encouraging diplomacy, and economic sanctions to end the conflict. Also unlike the Soviet Union, who tended to react strongly and with threats rather than negotiation to conflict, the United States employed flexible deterrent options in the conflict, which provide escalation options during the initial stages of conflict (Pike, 2000 – 2016, para. 1). The United States employs flexible deterrent options for three principle purposes: to fortify affiliates, dissuade prospective antagonists, and expand influence. In the Suez Crisis, the United States dissuaded the Soviet Union from further involvement in the conflict; indicating nuclear assault provided irredeemable escalation and threatening economic and diplomatic sanctions on England, France, and Israel. France, with other conflicts brewing on their horizon and England unable to overcome the United States’ international power in the post-World War II era, backed down from the conflict. Two days later, Israel withdrew troops from Egypt, also unwilling to lose the United States as a political ally. Both hard and soft power as well as flexible deterrent options exhibit facets of instruments of national power, which utilize diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME) tools to achieve a desired result. In coexistence with the United Nations and the United States’ allies around the world, instruments of

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Proliferation

    694 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to some scholars continuing nuclear proliferation could eventually have a stabilizing effect on international politics. This was said in a book called “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate by Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz”. One author said that it could eventually stabilize while the other author stated that it would be extremely dangerous to keep up with proliferation because there is a large chance that an accident will occur with a country that could not control the power of a nuclear weapon (Good Will Blogging). In this book both sides of the argument is partially seen. Proliferation is seen as a bad thing and that does have some truth behind it but there are other parts that make this a more elaborate debate of if places should just get rid of nuclear

    Read More

  • Causes Of The Iran-Iraq War

    1343 Words  | 3 Pages

    As reported by graduate Mr. Jacek, Iran was left to defend itself economically and militarily. The other superpower at the time, the Soviet Union, had a positive relationship with Iran in the beginning. The Soviet Union had been supporting Iran in the beginning of the war. The Soviet Union then carried out an invasion of Afghanistan, and Tehran opposed the Soviet role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Iran’s relations with the Soviet Union became problematic, which negatively affected Iran (Karsh).

    Read More

More about India and Nuclear Disarmament

Open Document