Since the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the international world has become increasingly concerned with the development and potential use of destructive nuclear weapons. The Cold War-era saw these concerns at their height, as the US and the Soviet Union vied for superiority in the international system. The fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s seemed to mark an end to the most concerning chapter in the history of nuclear proliferation. However, nuclear weapons have once again come to the forefront of international concern specifically regarding regions like Iran, Pakistan, India, and China. The article “Living with a Nuclear Iran” by Robert D. Kaplan and “America’s Nuclear Meltdown towards “Global Zero”” by Lavina Lee both highlight the growing concern over the development and use of nuclear and ways and argue that direct action must be taken in order to prevent nuclear war from emerging in the future. In both the aforementioned articles, the authors make plain the idea that nuclear weapons continue to be a concern for many nations. The concern today, the articles agree, differs from that of the Cold War to some extent—it is more commonly feared that revolutionary nations like Iran and Pakistan will develop weapons that could pose a threat to other nations and not so much that the use of nuclear destruction is impending. The authors of these articles seem to agree that “…treaty talks are merely a concessionary phase in the continuing struggle,” (Kaplan 140). This statement highlights the belief that agreements between nations will not be sufficient to prevent the amassment of nuclear weapons; other actions must be taken in order to deter nuclear build-up. The actions to be taken, however, mark contr... ... middle of paper ... ...t another nuclear standoff and possible nuclear war. The difference in these articles comes in the authors’ ideas of what kind of actions must be taken to combat an increasingly nuclear world. Despite the differences, the message of the articles remains clear—nuclear weapons continue to pose a threat to the world today, and the international system must act in order to prevent the potential catastrophic effects that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Works Cited Kaplan, Robert D. “Living with a Nuclear Iran.” The Atlantic. (September 2010). Rpt. in Global Issues 13/14. Ed. Robert M. Jackson. New York: McGraw Hill, 2014. 139-141. Print Lee, Lavina. “America’s Nuclear Meltdown towards ‘Global Zero.’” USA Today Magazine. (May 2011): 39-41. Rpt. in Annual Editions: Global Issues 13/14. Ed. Robert M. Jackson. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. 142-145. Print.
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
Sherman, Brad. “Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Vital Speeches Of The Day 74.2 (2008): 66-68. History Reference Center. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
Beginning in the 1940’s, the global landscape was changing dramatically. With the start of World War II, tensions were rising among the world’s most powerful nations. Russia, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and the United States were all trying to achieve global dominance. During World War II, the smart decision to invest in atomic energy made the United States a global superpower.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
Nolan, Janne E. 1999. An Elusive Consensus: Nuclear Weapons and American Security After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Nuclear Arms, as opposed to conventional arms, generate their destructive force from nuclear reactions. The issues that are related to the use of nuclear weapons is also far different than the issues generated by conventional bombs. The long term
The Cold War is famous not only for its long engagement between the two super powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but also because of the heightened physical tension that nuclear power brought to the global stage. Winning the war at the cost of human annihilation was not abnormal political conversation, and from the 1940s onward, fear of global destruction became a daily concern (Granieri, 2011). The circumstances of the Cold War made it different than previous international conflicts because it was the first conflict that could potentially lead to massive, worldwide destruction. Without the dangers of nuclear power, the Cold War wouldn't have differed much from previous historical conflicts between powerful states.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
Nuclear issue in the North Korea has been a problem widely discussed around the world in recent years, while the whole progress from the start of the nuclear crisis (The withdrawal of the North Korea from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003) to the cooperation (Six Party Talks) and its failure is quite dramatic and worth exploring (Fang, 2009). This paper attempted to use two perspectives including neorealism and neoliberalism to look at the issue, and examine their explanatory power. Accordingly, this paper recognized the importance of the two perspectives in explaining the issue. On one hand, neorealism showed the restraints and balancing behaviors of the states during the process of negotiation, implying the failure of the talks. On the other hand, neoliberalism contributed to clarification of the complexity constituted by different actors and problems in the issue, while demonstrating the rationality of states, as well as the birth of the institution forming international norms. Therefore, the author believed the two perspectives are not contradictory, but complementary.
The possible employment of nuclear weapons between the two superpowers during the Cold War was unprecedented. The power of this stalemate shattered the paradigm of warfare and demonstrated how significant this military revolution’s effects were even at the mere threat of nuclear weapons use. Regarding this standoff between t...
Ronald E. Powaski, March to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1939 to the Present, (Oxford: OUP, 1987), 106.
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.
Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or two nuclear bombs. As the most recent standoff with North Korea over nuclear missile-testing approaches the decompression point, the United States needs to own up to a central truth: The region of Northeast Asia will never be fully secure until the communist dictatorship of North Korea passes from the scene. After threatening to test a new, long-range missile, Pyongyang says it is willing to negotiate with "the hostile nations" opposing it. But whether the North will actually forgo its test launch is anyone's guess. North Korea first became embroiled with nuclear politics during the Korean War. Although nuclear weapons were never used in Korea, American political leaders and military commanders threatened to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War on terms favorable to the United States. In 1958, the United States deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time, and the weapons remained there until President George Bush ordered their withdrawal in 1991. North Korean government stateme...
Governments from other countries should be able to work things out and settle business without fearing that someone will be threatened with a nuclear war. These weapons have a very high percent of total destruction, other countries do not think about when they use these fatal weapons as an excuse, of what they will really do when sending the bombs off. They are only thinking of defending themselves no matter what the consequences are, little do they know that it could come back and bite them in the butt. Nuclear weapons will not only cause destruction to one country but all of them. Banning these dangerous weapons will make sure that these excuses will no longer be a problem to the world, countries and nations will not have to fear if they are putting the entire world in
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.