The chosen article for critical review is the Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Difficult but Not Impossible Policy Problem by Barry R. Posen. The author of the article is a Professor of Political Science at MIT who serves as the Director of the MIT Security Studies Program and on top of that accomplishment, he has written two previous works, Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks and The Sources of the Military Doctrine. Barry Posen contributes an extensive amount of knowledge on the subject of nuclear weapons. Posen is well versed in the field of Political Science furthermore he is represented at a very respectable university, and his previous works regarding nuclear arms displays that he is knowledge on the topic (MIT Political Science). Over the years, there have been consistent debates, but lack of development and action on how to progress against the possible productions of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians. This pessimistic view is not without proper concern because the leader of Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been recorded saying, 'death to Israel' so skeptics and general people alike share much concern with the development of nuclear energy in Iran. The technology would grant the opportunity to construct nuclear weapons. Which some may fear it can be used against neighbouring states in the Middle East. The state in danger of course is Israel, one of the cooperative Middle Eastern states that essentially acts in the interests of the western world, something Ahmadinejad accused them of doing, saying this is why both the UN and the United States are 'pro-israel' (YouTube Israel Off the Map). In this analysis, there may be a presence of realist biased.
Within the text of the article, Posen's exami...
... middle of paper ...
...hich has been seen in the past as the deals that are struck may prove to be nothing for Iran anyways. United States went into Iraq against the UN. Iran knowing this, would understand that striking the deal with the US may not be in their best interest and can simply play along to their demands, but secretly continue their research and development on nuclear technology. Ultimately, leaving the second option as a reliable one, which is pre-emptive war. The other options give the Iranians too much time and leniency regarding a very big threat, a threat that would be in the hands of a Middle Eastern State in a very unstable surrounding environment known to home anti-western and anti-Jewish radical organizations and people. This is something that would be near impossible to contain considering guerilla warfare and stateless people are very hard to track down and control.
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.
Iran is so important because of its oil. Iran signed an agreement in 1942 allowing the British and the Soviets to defend their country from a possible German attack. This was mostly to protect their oil. American troops joined soon after. In the agreement, it said that the troops would leave six months after the war. In 1944, the British, Americans, and Soviets pressed for oil concessions. The Soviets decided to take action on Iran. By 1945, the oil situation was still unsettled, the war was coming to an end, and the American attitude toward the Soviet Union had changed dramatically. The Soviets had decided to take action in Iran. In 1946, the United States complained to the United Nations about the situation in Iran and accused the Soviets
With his experience he had many doubts about the Hydrogen Bomb, whether it would work. “Oppenheimer and others on technical and moral grounds had initially opposed building the H-bomb, seeking instead an international moratorium on its development” (Teller and Ulam).
Although, Cravens may have some weaknesses in her argument by not giving the substantial information about her opponent’s stance. Maybe this could be considered as clever point because otherwise it may completely undercut her argument to attract her position from audience about nuclear power. She tries to prove to the audience that currently there is no possibility that United States nation can use any of renewable energy sources such as the wind and sun, and that nuclear energy is only one safe, and this is the best option to get the necessary amount of needed energy.
This only works in theory, as demonstrated by the many countries that have tried it and failed.... ... middle of paper ... ... This, put plainly, failed.
“Ready for War.” Intelligence Reports Iss. 131 (Fall 2008). 46-54 SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2011.
...he international economic and political order. A study also suggest the liberal hegemon of US intention to use soft power to spread liberal ideas around the world would only give a negative impact on international stability rather than bringing peace it caused violence in certain states such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea (Jehangir, 2012). Other than that, the concept of nuclear peace had been criticised as it may causes the rise of terrorist organisation; thus, weaken the initial realist’s theory of conventional deterrence and nuclear peace. The introduction of nuclear weapons as promoting peace led to the emergence of terrorists groups and developed an unstable side in the post-cold war. This would result to aggressive state behaviour due to lack of trust and developed great suspicions between nuclear states and fear of high risk of accidental nuclear war.
方玥雯[Fang Yue Wen] (2009). 北韓核武研發與東北亞安全：2002-2007. [The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and the Security in Northeast Asia: 2002-2007] in台灣[Taiwan]: 國立政治大學[National Cheungchi University] Retrieved 18 July, 2013 from http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37029
Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has enacted policies to isolate and undermine the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. A key development took place in the past several decades where North Korea broke away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop their own nuclear weapons and while lacking launch capabilities, they have been successful in their development. During this process, the United States took active policies to deter the North Koreans in pursuit of their goals. It is easy to assume that the United States took this stance in order to maintain a military edge in the region. But under closer examination, this neo-realist perspective does not explain why the United States pursued this policy.
The only question that matters is this - when you die, will you be happy when everybody else is crying?” He also says that “I contend that Bush would be a lot more moderate if there weren't some fundamentalists breathing down his neck every time he wants to establish the state of Israel, every time he wants to do justice for the Palestinian people.” His political and religious opinions tell us that why he deserves to be called a public activist. He does not seem to be hiding behind comfortable social position but working himself up to the risk of the
The theory of Realism provides reasons why North Korea has positioned the nuclear weapon debate at the centre of its policy. One of the fundamental assumptions of Realism is in fact that each state, embedded in an international order characterized by a condition of antagonism, attempt to pursue its national interest. Besides that, the overriding national interest is defined in terms of national security and survival. Moreover, according to the same theory, relations among states are derived primarly by their level of power, which is constituted basically their military and economic capability, and in pursuit of the national security states strive to attain as many resources as possible. The theoretical model explains thus why the nuclear issue has eventually resulted in identifying with a security one, meaning that North Korea main concern is to assure its survivor, its efforts are in the first place finalized at meeting that target and its only means of pursuing it consists of the posing of the nuclear threat. North Korea finds itself to be stuck in an economic and, to some extent, diplomatic isolation; even though the financial sanctions leading to the just mentioned critical conditions have been caused by the government inflexible, aggressive and anti-democratic behavior, the regime has no ot...
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...
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