Pros And Cons Of The Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Page 1 of 6

For decades, nuclear weapons are instruments that have been a growing concern throughout the world. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) created the structure for controlling the advancement of nuclear weapons and expertise around the world. A large portion of the world’s countries—both nonnuclear and nuclear countries—adhere to the treaty agreeing that they will not transfer, build, accept, assist, or acquire nuclear weapons. Nonnuclear countries also allow the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor the countries nuclear facilities to safeguard that they are using the facilities for peaceful purposes. There are two countries that have agreed to the NPT previously, that are causing tensions: North Korea, and Iran. North Korea agreed to the treaty in 1970, and then violated the treaty in the 1990s by making the steps toward building nuclear weapons; in 2006, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Equivalent to North

Hemmer argues that there are dangers of a preventative military strike. He states that the idea that the people of Iran would react to a military strike by supporting the overthrow of the already existing regime is unrealistic. He further states that the more likely outcome would be strengthening of the current regime, and damage America’s interest in the regime. This is because any military actions towards Iran would cause “seismic shocks” through global energy markets when the price of oil is already at its peak. Additionally, any preventative attack is only a temporary fix to the problem, even if the attack succeeded, there would be consequential aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. Hemmer further states that several years later, America would probably have to do it all over