Nuclear proliferation is the spreading of nuclear technology to countries that are not recognized as “Nuclear Weapon States” by the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is a treaty that was opened for signing in 1968, and was set into force in 1970. 25 years after the treaty was put into force, the NPT parties met in May of 1995 and decided to extend the treaty indefinitely. The treaty recognizes 5 states as “nuclear-weapon states”, these states are the United States of America, United Kingdom, France, and China. These states are authorized to produce and carry nuclear missiles, and other forms of nuclear armament. The Catholic Church agrees with the intentions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to push the ultimate goal of nuclear …show more content…
disarmament. Pope Benedict XVI on January 1st, 2010 stated: "...I firmly hope that, during the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held this May in New York, concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (The USCCB), shares its position on nuclear armaments, saying, “The United States and other nuclear powers must move away from their reliance on nuclear weapons for global security”.
This statement was made to advocate for ratification of the new START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), a treaty between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the reduction of strategic, and offensive armaments. The USCCB has urged Administration, and Congress to view the armament control treaties as “steps along the way to achieving the goal of a mutual, verifiable global ban on nuclear weapons” -- USCCB. The key moral question of the Catholic Church has been, and still is today: “Is it preferable to resolve differences through dialogue and negotiation, or to resort to coercion and armed force?” In my personal opinion, I believe that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty parties should be more open to allowing more militaries to have access to nuclear technology and armaments. There are regulations on nuclear proliferation that make up a system called the International Safeguards
System. The International Safeguards System since 1970 has successfully prevented the diversion of fissile materials into weapons. Its scope has been widened to address undeclared nuclear activities. Nuclear weapons, when used in the proper given situations and contexts, can also bring peace and resolution to certain conflicts. The argument that nuclear weapons can bring upon peace as well as catastrophe is based upon historical observations and events. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Next, there's never been a nuclear, or even a non-nuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states" (newsweek).
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.
"USCCB Renews Call for Nuclear Arms Reduction : News Headlines." - Catholic Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.
Together with the Soviet Union we have made the crucial breakthroughs that have begun the process of limiting nuclear arms. But we must set as our goal not just limiting but reducing and finally destroying these terrible weapons so that they cannot destroy civilization and so that the threat of nuclear war will no longer hang over the world and the people.
One of the most controversial decisions that have been made, in the history of the United States, was Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ever so controversial topic of the dropping of the atomic bombs has successfully driven people insane. People feel strongly that this decision was atrocious and unnecessary, while others believe the polar opposite, that it was completely necessary. Some historians argue that the human cost to the Japanese population can never justify the use of such weapons. Other historians see it from an optimistic perspective, that it would not have been moral if atomic weapons had not been used to end the war as quickly as possible. President Harry S.
We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat." our enemies, as we would want to be treated. " If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified, and if you do provoke a nuclear war, you should be punished. That brings me into the second reason why countries retain nuclear weapons and that is a threat. It is a way of protecting your country, but you will protect yourself and retaliate if provoked.
The gravity of the atomic bombings was not taken lightly by the nations surrounding Japan, but the United States refused to lose any more men in a long-winded assault; the enemy 's resolve was unmatched by American standards. Majerus states, "This firm resolution of the Imperial Army to fight out an all-or-nothing battle until virtually the very last man ultimately did not go unnoticed by US government officials." (5). Further proofs of these arguments were demonstrated by the Japanese when they deployed the kamikaze (suicide pilots) to Pearl Harbor. The raising question is, however, did decisional certainty regard any ulterior motive at the time considered to prevent the death of American troops, or had there been any considered possibilities within a peaceful resolution? This has sparked another theory among the nation 's scholars. Did the U.S. drop the bombs to save American lives, or to intimidate their rivaling ally, the Soviet Union? It was later revealed that the USSR was willing to help the United States in the assault of Japan. History teacher Brent Dyck states, "At the Potsdam Conference held in July 1945, Stalin told Truman that the Soviet Union was ready to help the United States and invade Japan on August 15."
The fact that the United States resolved to drop an atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan shocked many people, including U.S. citizens. The U.S. chose a brutal weapon when choosing the atomic bomb, as proven by the thousands of deaths it caused. Today, some people still question the motives for such a ruthless choice of weaponry. The atomic bomb, however destructive and questionable, seemed to be the only way to ensure “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. The atomic bomb was, in fact, “a clear step designated to force Japan’s unconditional surrender;” however, this statement fails to give attention to the larger picture that influenced the U.S.’s decision to use the atomic bomb. By using the atomic bomb before any other nation
On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On August 15th, the Japan announced unconditional surrender in World War II. To this day historians still discuss why the U.S. decided to use the atomic bombs. Orthodox historians argue that the decision to drop the bombs was a military one designed purely to defeat the Japanese. Revisionist historians argue that the bombs were not needed to defeat Japan; the bombs were meant to shape the peace by intimidating the Soviets. After analyzing the documents in The Manhattan Project it has become clear that the U.S. used the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union
Atomic bombs were used against Japan in order to end the war as quickly as possible, with minimal amounts of American casualties. The United States had decided that they will only accept an unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The use of the atomic bombs was hoped to push the Japanese the last bit to get them to surrender to the U.S. 's terms.
The continuous spread of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a threat for national security and the safety of the entire planet. The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear power is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same low-enriched uranium that is processed in a nuclear power plant is the same uranium used to make nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants are the contributors to these mass destruction weapon capable of wiping out the human race. An article published by the World Nuclear Stockpile Report says, “ Nine countries in the world posses a total of 15,375 nuclear weapons.
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.
David Lange's assertion that "Nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" is a profound declaration that resonates deeply in the realm of ethics, politics, and humanity. This statement is not merely a passing comment, but a thoughtful and deliberate condemnation of the very existence of nuclear weapons. It is a clarion call to humanity to reexamine our values, our priorities, and our very survival. At the heart of Lange's argument lies the understanding that nuclear weapons are an affront to human dignity. The capacity to inflict indiscriminate harm on a massive scale, to reduce entire cities to rubble, and to condemn generations to a future of radioactive fallout and nuclear winter, is a moral obscenity.
NPT is world's biggest multilateral understanding after United Nations which was marked more or less 190 states. However the historical backdrop of NPT demonstrates that it was fundamentally disregarded by those states which were announced atomic weapon states by NPT itself. The fundamental disappointment of NPT is the absence of concordance among P5 for incapacitating the world. On the off chance that P5 will exchange the atomic innovation to non atomic weapon states because of their financial investment. At that point the fantasy of demobilization can't get to be reality.
In 1945, when the Americans bombed Hiroshima, Japan, approximately 140,000 men and women were instantly killed by the effects of American nuclear defense. With such extreme brutality and force how many people must die for one to finally realize the strengths of nuclear bombs and what damage they can cause. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they kill thousands of innocent humans at a time, destroy the environment, and inviolate human’s right to moral and personal freedoms.
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