ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Deterrence

1871 Words8 Pages

Nuclear deterrence refers to the concept of avoiding nuclear arms for diplomatic methods to solve an issue. The principle of deterrence is ‘first user’ which means a state is allowed to attack only in self-defence. States will attack for their protection but will retaliate if needed. As put forward by Thomas Hobbes “men are driven by competition, diffidence and glory.” Men seek for their own preservation, any threats will lead them to rebellion so as to be secured and save themselves. Nuclear weapon creates fear among each individual and state. A nuclear terror is enough to break the international peace. The end of cold war led to a change for the need of security around the globe and possession of nuclear power nuclear deterrence to function properly states should possess nuclear power provides security as well as a seat among the great powers of the world as it acts as a bargaining tool to enable International Corporation and the UN Security Council has primary …show more content…

But now the risks of nuclear weapons are considered to be higher than the benefits they bring for nuclear weapon holders. President Obama referred to the potential for a terrorist to get a nuclear weapon as "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." (Prague, April 2009). There are three kinds of efforts needed to diminish nuclear risks and they are firstly to deterring and preventing states and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons. Secondly use nuclear arms control to reduce the threat that nuclear weapons and nuclear material pose worldwide and finally creating a peaceful nuclear energy fuel cycle to lower risks of misusing nuclear

Show More
Related
1291 Words | 6 Pages

The “A” bomb is the most powerful and destructive nuclear weapon of today. It would not have been made if it were not for the cold war. The bombing of Hiroshima ended the war between the United States and Japan. The long fall of communism was a necessity to the nature of history and peace. The point of the USSR was to compete with the United State until it would eventually destroy.

Read More
893 Words | 4 Pages

Clearly this is no longer an issue however do they have any value in today’s world? The week claims “Nuclear weapons have guaranteed our security for generations. They remain the ultimate deterrent to any aggressor, and the best means of ensuring peace.” It’s easy to agree with the

Read More
760 Words | 4 Pages

This led to the assessment that atomic weapons would have on international politics and how it would affect the establishment of new post-cold war

Read More
555 Words | 3 Pages

First off, not disagree with the decisions of the president to drop atomic bombs in Nagasaki, Hiroshima. The reason why I disagree with the atomic weapons that were drawn in japan is because there were thousand of people who were killed, innocent peoples who died in that bomb drops. there were military men who died, but at the same time is was acceptable for united states to fight, and win the war. United states were discomforted the lost thousand of people, including military, 48,000 people from the united states, military, and innocent peoples. It was grave that the united states had thousands of life that are why they proposed the attack besides japan.

Read More
1094 Words | 5 Pages

This is a powerful argument, as it appeals to the emotions of the reader by suggesting a devastating and irreversible outcome if nuclear weapons are not abolished. They warn, “Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war?” This statement is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of our actions and the need to work together to prevent such a catastrophic event. The authors argue that the use of nuclear weapons would result in the destruction of civilization as we know it. They claim that the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

Read More
1540 Words | 7 Pages

The spread of nuclear weapons is important because the United States can prevent any sort of nuclear conflict. Whether it is the US attacking another country, or another country attacking the US. After a group of Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran, the US government was keeping a watchful eye on nuclear proliferation in the United States and in Iran. In January of 1979, Ronald Reagan was in Jacksonville when he made a statement regarding nuclear proliferation in the United States, “‘...Unilaterally the United States seems to be the only nation in the world that’s trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.’” (Rafshoon

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Throughout the years of 1945 and 1991, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were involved in what is today is identified as the Cold War. During this dark time many lived in fear due to the newest weapon that would be used in war, nuclear weapons. These weapons caused fear throughout the whole world because of their capability to kill thousands with just one. Today many debate over the abolition of nuclear weapons in the United States. Some argue that the U.S. should abolish nuclear weapons, while others say nuclear weapons should not be abolished in the United States.

Read More
887 Words | 4 Pages

Before his election to the presidency, Dwight Eisenhower sought to contain the atom’s destructive power (). Yet, in his first speech at the United Nations as President of the United States, Eisenhower argued for the normalization of the international proliferation of nuclear technology (Office of the President, 1953). The motivation behind his now famous “Atoms for Peace” speech illuminates an interesting contradiction between the obvious American nonproliferation objectives and the president’s political calculation. The key to understanding this contradiction is to separate Eisenhower’s contemporary political motivations from the consequences of the president’s choice to pursue international proliferation of peaceful nuclear technology.

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

In August, 1945 the Japanese were forced to accept defeat in World War II due to the terrifying bombs known as “Little Boy” and “ Fat Boy.” Harry Truman stepping up to take over the presidential job and making the decision for these bombs to be dropped after the death of president Franklin D. Roosevelt will forever be known as one of the biggest decisions in American history. Over the years Americans have accumulated questions such as why President Truman made this decision, if there were any alternative options for peace, and if President Roosevelt would have made the same decision. Regardless of any decision that Truman made, most people would agree that he was making decisions that were in the best interest for our country.

Read More
929 Words | 4 Pages

Books have been around us our whole lives, but do they hurt or help us? Take all books off the shelves. They're too dangerous to be a snob." by Alexandra Petri, is an opinion piece exploring banning books and how books affect society. In this article, Petri uses language to convey a sarcastic tone and contrasting opinions about the harm books can cause people.

Read More
262 Words | 2 Pages

The art of fear is essential in nuclear deterrence. Using the film Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) I will argue that nuclear deterrence is hard to achieve when communication of nuclear capabilities is not well established amongst states. In this paper, I will use the film Dr. Strangelove (1964) to argue how theories such as deterrence theory, realist theory, security dilemma, preventative war, pre-emptive war as well as relative gains and zero sum game led to a failure to achieve nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To make my argument on how more nuclear weapons may hinder deterrence, this essay will proceed as follows; I will firstly discuss the how nuclear deterrence and mutually

Read More
863 Words | 4 Pages

Theoretically of course, what if a country was to develop a weapon strong enough to completely disintegrate cities and all the people living in it? Coincidently, the United states discovered a bomb that did exactly that and ended up thrusting the world into a new era of weaponized technology towards the end of World War II. Countries from this point on became wary of opposing the United States, aware of the power they possessed, especially since the US had already used this weapon on Japan to end the war.

Read More
1023 Words | 5 Pages

In this regard, countries such as Pakistan that are perceived to have limited security in relation to their stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapon grade materials pose a significant threat. During the administration of President Pervez Musharraf, there were at least two assassination attempts that were conducted through the collusion of the military and Al Qaeda operatives. This raises the question if the Pakistan administration is unable to secure the security of its president, what about the stockpiles of weapon-grade nuclear material in their possession. Moreover, Iran has been known to finance and support terror organizations, which also raises questions whether it could provide nuclear technology to such groups to hit American targets on its behalf. Additionally, nuclear weapons could be smuggled into the United States from its neighbors such as Canada and Mexico, who seem to have a mediocre security system.

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

Rough Draft Jacob Berry In 1941, is the year the Atomic bomb changed warfare and human life forever. Many projects around the United States worked on the race to create the atomic bomb. One project, The Manhattan Project, led by Julius Robert Oppenheimer, created enough U-235 to create one of these deadly weapons.

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

Most nations equipped with nuclear weapons claim that they rely on them for strategic defense, and they are vulnerable to various attacks without these destructive weapons. Even with the high risk of destruction and devastation, they would prefer to keep nuclear bombs active and ready to go when necessary. Scrapping nuclear weapons would work to a nation’s disadvantage because various hostile states are covertly acquiring nuclear weapons in large number. If they dismantle nuclear bombs, they will be vulnerable to attacks (Matsui). The United States has many pacts that say if countries get rid of some of their weapons they will get rid of some of there

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Deterrence

Related Topics

Open Document