In today’s world it is vital to be up to date with not just domestic politics, but international politics as well. One hot topic in the international community is WMD proliferation. WMD, or weapons of mass destruction, are pivotal when considering our relationship and interactions with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. The relation between the United States and North Korea has been tense for many decades and has become even more strained since North Korea has advanced their development of nuclear weapons. In order to be more aware of the world as a whole, people should be more educated on WMD proliferation, why countries such as North Korea feel the need to develop weapons of mass destruction, and the possible solutions to this problem. There are …show more content…
A good starting point is the essentials of WMDs and who has them. Weapons of mass destruction is a broad term that contains biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. At this time only nine countries physically posses nuclear weapons; however, approximately 20 countries have the ability and technology to implement programs that would allow them to quickly produce nuclear weapons if they so choose. These nine countries consist of the United States, Israel, France, Russia, Great Britain, India, China, and North Korea. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are military advancements that have changed the distribution of military power. The distribution of power depends on which countries have nuclear capabilities and which ones do not, which then causes countries to be more inclined to develop these capabilities so that they can be considered a player in international relations. On top of other states getting nuclear weapons, there is the threat that terrorist organizations can acquire them as well, and while liberals and realist generally accept that states are rational actors the same cannot be said about terrorist organizations which makes them more …show more content…
Realism and liberalism are the most relevant when it comes to WMD proliferation. Realism explains why it happens, and liberalism and realism, both offer different solutions. Realists argue that, even though it sounds counterintuitive, weapons of mass destruction actually have caused more peace than destruction. This statement hinges on one of the components that realists stand by; that states’ ultimate goal is to survive and that every other interest is of no importance if the state cannot survive. The risk of the destruction of a state if it were to engage in a nuclear war is high enough that; theoretically, a state would be willing to give up the pursuit of anything in order to continue its survival. Even if a state would not be willing to completely compromise with its opponent, the threat of a nuclear war would cause both countries to proceed cautiously and be more open to compromise than if the threat outright destruction was not looming overhead. The deterrence theory sums up all of these points in a concise manner by saying that, if both states involved have a second strike capability and are rational, the presence of nuclear weapons causes all parties involved to reach a solution without the use of said weapons, thus inciting peace. Even though the mutual deterrence theory sounds optimistic, history has