The Problem of Proliferation
There is a controversy as to the meaning of proliferation. Proliferation is the process of deadly weapons being bought and sold in the market place of corruption and greed. Government leaders are playing a deadly game by implementing creation of foreign policies that are set to obtain goals, yet sponsor actions that contradict those goals. The chapter argues that we must be able to evaluate the facts and separate them from our emotions concerning the situation.
The Problem of Defining Proliferation
Henry Sokolski stated in 1993 that even the intelligence community has not been able to define the term proliferation adequately. The military, intelligence agencies, terrorist organizations and diplomats will all define the term differently because of their different perspectives. Although there is controversy in the exact meaning, I feel that the basic meaning is evident, which is nations who do not possess the deadly weapons of mass destruction attempt to obtain them by illegal methods.
The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear proliferation is the most feared form of proliferation, while terrorism is the most feared force that is suspected of having the ideological motivation ant the ways that the knowledge and resources are obtained to make it a real threat. A non-proliferation treaty was signed by a group of nations whom called themselves the “Nuclear Club.” This group considers themselves as being the arbitrators of the control of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. There are states who argue this saying that they have the right to possess the weapons for their security. Scott Sagan argues this idea fearing that it may cause a chain reaction with other nations obtaining and even making their own nuclear weapons. Proof of this theory was made clear when explosions occurred during testing of weapons by Pakistan and India in May of 1998.
The contradictions have been made evident and public in several articles and reports. In in 1995 the United States Department of Strategic Command suggested that the U.S. should give, as part of it’s persona that it will become “irrational and vindictive if it’s vital interest are attacted”. USA Today, in 1997 contained two articles in the same paper that contradicted each other. One of the articles stated that Chinese Military is developing high-tech weapons to win a war against the United States and the other was the US may sell nuclear technology to China. In 1998 Joseph Douglas Jr.
Seventy-one years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear power is rarely recognized as a solution to the energy crisis. Instead, it is associated with the most violent pits of Hell: warfare. The demands of warfare exhaust the scientific community and deplete its resources, as well as decimating the human population.
Nolan, Janne E. 1999. An Elusive Consensus: Nuclear Weapons and American Security After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Nuclear weapons are a problem that the world is facing today as countries want to have their
Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.
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.
A nuclear weapon in current society places great danger and risk on our states, even though the creating and usage for a nuclear weapon at the time was to ultimately uphold state security for the duration of the cold war, by states keeping nuclear weapon was a way of assuring security. After the cold war, the idea of having security ‘Nuclear Weapon’ decreased chances of getting threats from other states this installed confidence amongst states, nevertheless dependence on the nuclear weapon for protection is gradually becoming dangerous.
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.
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 nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950’s with the help of the United States (Roe 2007). Iran’s first nuclear power plant, Bushehr I, was initiated with major assistance from the Russian government in 2006. Moreover, Iran has also indicated that it will seek to establish additional nuclear power plants and uranium mines in the future (RIA Novosti 2011). Following this announcement, the United Nations Security Council imposed legally binding sanctions on Iran and froze the assets of those heavily involved with the development of the nuclear program. Over the years, these sanctions were expanded and reinforced by those of individual nations, such as the United States(BBC 2012). While Iran claims that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, such as energy production, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) November 2011 report acknowledged the opposite. This report details Iran’s research directed towards the development of nuclear weapon capacity and nuclear payload integration into missile delivery systems (IAEA 2011, 8), supporting the United States and European Union’s fears. Tensions have run high in the world after this announcement, leading to even more crippling sanctions against Ira...
This statement was made to advocate for ratification of the new START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), a treaty between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the reduction of strategic, and offensive armaments. The USCCB has urged Administration, and Congress to view the armament control treaties as “steps along the way to achieving the goal of a mutual, verifiable global ban on nuclear weapons” -- USCCB. The key moral question of the Catholic Church has been, and still is today: “Is it preferable to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiation, or to resort to coercion and armed force?” In my personal opinion, I believe that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty parties should be more open to allowing more militaries to have access to nuclear technology and armaments. There are regulations on nuclear proliferation that make up a system called the International Safeguards
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
Nuclear proliferation is seen as a growing problem in the United States. Some people think that it is fine to ignore the proliferation while others want the solution that comes with the nonproliferation agreement. There is some debate between whether nuclear proliferation is a negative thing or if nuclear weapons can be used for peace. While nuclear proliferation is a negative thing there is people on the other side of the argument who say nuclear weapons are needed in order to find peace (Good Will Blogging). Nuclear proliferation can be solved by the nonproliferation agreement but there are more than one way to solve a problem.
... of other powers did so too.The Non-Proliferation treaty was created to diminish nuclear weapons from the five original states (United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom), and prevent other states to acquire them. Realists belief that there is no above power that should control or regulate a state, ironically the U.S. promoted the development of the weapons and is now focused in preventing it. The Japan bombing attack open a pandora box and a fear outlook of the future. The NPT goes against rational actors, if one state seeks nuclear power why others should not have the same level of defense mechanism? At least, the NPT allows the nuclear energy enrichment. Japan is…
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...
On the morning of March 20th 1995 a terrorist group used unconventional tactics to attack a civilian population in a clandestine attempt to overthrow a world superpower. Both the method and the goal of the radical group appeared out of character from what the world had seen previously from extremists but a result that did open they eyes of many governments is a self-reflection that we as a society were not prepared for the evils that lie in wait. By using John Parachini risk assessment perspective on chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) weapons of mass destruction a government can become proactive and have the ability to plan, prepare, and respond when just a type event happens on their soil. The agenda attempted by the terrorist group did not come to fruition due to their inability but it did expose the Japanese government’s failure to identify an active terrorist group operating inside its boarders and a massive disappointment for not successfully responding to its citizens in the midst of the attack.