ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Proliferation

659 Words3 Pages

With the world being so volatile, it is impossible to weigh the success against the failures surrounding the non-proliferation regime, with the Non-Proliferation treaty being the core consideration, surrounded by several arms control treaties and agreements. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is the corner stone of the non-proliferation movement. The first NPT created bureaucratic structures that allowed for non-nuclear nations to create nuclear equipment for purely peaceful uses, with the binning agreement from said states to not further proceed there activities into nuclear weapons.1968, then American president Lyndon Johnson explained the NPT ‘’encourages the peaceful use of nuclear energy by assuring safeguards against its destructive use... …show more content…

Through compromising, the nuclear weapons states agreed to look for alternative measures to prevent a nuclear arms race and to further seek disarmament, in the promise that non-nuclear states make the in-debatable commitment to immediately halt all nuclear weapons proliferation activity. Non-nuclear states however implored that within the NPT agreement protected their ‘’inalienable right’’ (Nuclear Proliferation Safeguard 2015) to continue or start ‘’research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination’’ (Holloway ,D.1994 ). This same notion was trumpeted by the IAEA’s in its original mandate, that led the way for the NPT, that also emphasized the peaceful and safe use nuclear technology, in conjunction with the strict mandates of nuclear verification for global security. Political scientist John Stoessinger describes the dilemma facing the creators of the IAEA as being ‘’struck between the Agency’s developmental function as a ‘contributor’ to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world…and its restrictive role, as deterrent against atoms-for-war’’ (Burns, R and Coyle, P 2015). The IAEA is based from the NPT as the implementation arm of the organization, and draws its authority from mandated agreements negotiated by states. Through these negotiations members specifies the arrangements of ‘’record keeping, define on site inspections and declare nuclear materials’’ (Siracusa, J. 2015). Thus the IAEAs role can be described as regionally following jurisdiction, as they deal with individual states. It’s through jurisdictional authority that most officials recognize that the IAEA is the key international organization that is in control

Show More
Related
1481 Words | 6 Pages

The US heavy-handedly pressured them to refrain from nuclear exports, specifically in the German-Brazilian deal. The US’ loud voice instilled the pact set forth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. Until 1974 most nations had approached nuclear weapons and civilian uses of nuclear energy separately. Both sides in outlining their grievances towards each other often used article 4. “All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

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
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
199 Words | 1 Pages

Blake Mcmahon and Adam Lowther look back to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, describe the destruction the bombing had caused, and acknowledge people’s concern regarding the danger of nuclear weapons. They counter the assumption of nuclear danger by asserting that if a country launch nuclear weapons it will spark deadly response from other nations. The nuclear characteristic of deterrent, they argued, is exemplified in the Cold War, in which the United States and the Soviet Union hindered themselves from the brink of war due to the horrific possibility of a nuclear war. Mcmahon and Lowther claim that nuclear weapons are still essential deterrents for the United States against countries that are developing nuclear weapons

Read More
1692 Words | 7 Pages

On August 6, 1945 humanity’s relationship to war, and state power changed as the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Two month later, George Orwell wrote a piece entitled “You and the Atomic Bomb,” attempting to understand the consequences of the use of a nuclear weapon and looking towards the future world with nuclear weapons. Importantly, Orwell outlined the next fifty years of history, a cold war. The United States’ nuclear policy, showed how Orwell was correct in articulating the relationship between the United States and Soviet Union, with in the context of nuclear weapons. The United States’ nuclear strategy was based on the changed the nature of war, the perception of living in a constant state of war, attempts to rationalize nuclear weapons, and the separation of the means and ends within the context of war.

Read More
324 Words | 2 Pages

Is a nuclear armed Iran as bad an idea as politicians put it on to be? According to Kenneth N. Waltz, a nuclear armed Iran might just be the best thing for stabilizing the Middle East. On the other hand, Henry Sokolski believes that it would be a disaster if Iran acquired these weapons. In order to further understand this debate, we must understand the interests, interactions, and institutions that affect and will be affected by both of these sides.

Read More
3390 Words | 14 Pages

I. INTRODUCTION Since their creation in 1945, nuclear weapons have posed a critical security risk, as they possess world-ending capabilities, and do not discriminate against those they affect. As of 2024, there are nine nuclear armed states as opposed to the single nuclear weapon state that existed in 1945. This is problematic because an increased number of nuclear-armed states raises the potential for a nuclear conflict to occur. Some individuals may argue that nuclear weapons do not pose an immediate security risk because they have not been used in conflict since the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Read More
1429 Words | 6 Pages

The atrocities during the war (the Holocaust and atomic bombings) precipitated a worldwide dialogue concerning international cooperation and safeguarding human rights. Subsequently, one pivotal solution emerged in 1945 by establishing the United Nations to prevent future wars while engendering concordance amongst states. These events highlighted that nuclear weaponry's destructive capability significantly influenced views on arms control policies, compelling public advocacy for disarming efforts (Dower par. 17). The bombings also acted as a caution against the likelihood of disastrous destruction in the event of future confrontations. They aided in encouraging international efforts to inhibit the dispersion of nuclear weapons.

Read More
1153 Words | 5 Pages

This state of affairs has perpetuated a constant threat of nuclear warfare and has required continuous diplomatic efforts to prevent the use of these weapons. The dropping of the atomic bomb set a dangerous precedent and contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The use of atomic weapons in World War II established a precedent that the use of such devastating weapons could be justified under certain circumstances. This precedent has had far-reaching consequences, intensifying the arms race and undermining efforts towards disarmament and non-proliferation. The

Read More
499 Words | 2 Pages

It is widely agreed that the most dangerous threat to civilization is that posed by nuclear weapons. The threat posed by nuclear weapons was apparent to all observers worldwide. The notion of M.A.D (Mutually assured destruction) was a “policy” that effectively made the act of using weapons a zero sum game in which neither side would have any incentive to deploy its nuclear arsenal. Ronald Reagan beginning in 1982 sought to reduce the threat to the world by limiting the number of nuclear weapons that both the U.S and the Soviet Union possessed. This proposal would eventually become known as the START treaty.

Read More
1755 Words | 8 Pages

Weapons of Mass Destruction—the bombs powerful enough to erase a city in a matter of seconds, the cause of sickening fatal harm to victims, and the bringers of severe environmental radiation contamination, they are the focus of this ethical dilemma. Iran has recently revealed its potential to amass its own arsenal joining the nine other nations with nuclear weapons technology. However, those plans changed in 2015 with the signing of the historic Iran Deal. The agreement, signed by the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom eliminated Iran’s ability to develop or make any type of nuclear bomb through severe restrictions. In exchange, the punishing economic sanction imposed on Iran in efforts to stop uranium enrichment were lifted.

Read More
888 Words | 4 Pages

On one end, this idea of mutually assured destruction must be considered. When two opponents compete for world domination in the field of nuclear weaponry, the repeated back and forth attacks guarantee the annihilation of both sides. During World War II, atomic weaponry remained in its infancy. In today’s world, the potential of atomic weaponry is exponential, with weapons thousands times more powerful than those of World War II, making the threat of death seem even more imminent. It is easy to say, “Nuclear weapons must be stopped”.

Read More
559 Words | 3 Pages

has developed a reputation as an erratic, unpredictable leader. Anyone suspected of disloyalty or uncooperative to the leadership could be removed. It is believed the new young leader views nuclear weapons as a symbol of power and prestige necessary to establish credibility as a military leader in the international community and crucial to regime preservation and survival. This penchant for nuclear weapons is apparently worth the risk of isolation COA 1: RETURN TO SIX PARTY TALKS

Read More
1685 Words | 7 Pages

He set a precedent for diplomacy by halting the arms race and averting nuclear destruction. Ever since Gorbachev took office and began negotiations with Reagan, the world’s stockpile of ballistic missiles has declined. With tensions between Russia and the United States again on the rise, and leaders advocating for nuclear arms proliferation, international peace is at risk. Gorbachev stand is now more relevant than ever, a reminder that ideological divides are better resolved through conferences than

Read More
862 Words | 4 Pages

Proliferation groups are trying to get the US to lead the way and destroying and disarming their atomic bombs in hopes that other countries will follow. Forster proposes these ideas in his own words. "The goal of the treaty is to "prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."(Forster). The US cannot just say disarm your weapons and not do the same themselves. The US needs to take charge and start things themselves.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Proliferation

Related Topics

Open Document