Nuclear Proliferation

Topics: Nuclear weapon, Nuclear proliferation, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Pages: 11 (4282 words) Published: March 4, 2014
Joshua Gutierrez
POSI 4367
Doyle
20 October 2013

Nuclear Proliferation: A Threat to Global Security
The international security realm has a dispute that is detrimental to international security and inherent to status quo policy. The premise is states that nuclearize weapons produce greater international insecurity, while states that denuclearize weapons produce greater international security. With this analysis comprising theoretical, scientific, and factual concepts with empirical evidence, I aim to establish why states that denuclearize weapons produce greater international security. This discussion has been ongoing for decades and I strive to offer clarification and justification on the subject. The ambiguity and obscurity of nuclear weapons, along with their implications, can be best defined under Fierke’s interpretation of security that militaristic ideology is not all that is involved in achieving security. Economic, environmental, cultural, religion, etc. impacts all plays a key role in upholding a stable and secure state. “While many have argued that the destruction of the environment or poverty present a much greater threat than terrorism, the sense of urgency generated by the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United states, or on 7 July 2005 in Britain, pushed the former into the background. However, the assumptions of the War on Terrorism, and not least the language of war, have increasingly been called into question, particularly since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.”1 She furthers on by stating that the fail of the invasion has lead to a decrease in political support and that once again the political language has changed the definition of security from a militaristic view back to a more focused humanitarian view, but that it primarily is militaristically focused which is wrong. A state ensures its’ security when it prevents harm from happening, thus, leading to the protection of its state and people, which is its only obligation. Nuclear weapons programs, to me, are for militaristic purposes and epitomize materialism to achieve security and power. For the individual, one can only assume that nuclear weapons in the hands of unfamiliar states can only lead to unknown vulnerabilities due to the ambiguity of nuclear weapons and dubious politics. This alone impacts the individual with fear and potential threat to individual and national security, especially after 9/11 and the London Bombing. My end is to guarantee that greater security can be achieved on an international level by getting rid of nuclear weapons and decreasing proliferation worldwide.

Two countries well known for their tense region and nuclear dispute are India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have had multiple crises concerning both regional and national security within the past five decades with one another. Incidents have including Kashmir hostility, military objectives, and actions towards acquiring the nuclear bomb and the use after it was acquired. Though India acquired and tested nuclear weapons first, “On May 11 and 13, 1998, India detonated five nuclear devices and the Pakistanis responded on May 28 and 30 with six nuclear explosions of their own”2, their advancement created a nuclear arms race with Pakistan due to the regional hostility and insecurity, which resulted in increasing the magnitude of the regional instability. Pakistan many weeks later developed, acquired, and strengthened a nuclear arsenal, which resulted in augmenting security warranted to nuclear deterrence. Kenneth Waltz offers an optimistic view on nuclear weapons stating, “Yet the evi­dence, accumulated over five decades, shows that nuclear states fight with nuclear states only at low levels, that acci­dents seldom occur, and that when they do they never have bad effects. If nuclear pessimists were right, nuclear deterrence would have failed again and again. Nuclear pessimists deal with the potential causes of catastrophe; optimists, with the effects the...


Bibliography: CNN, “North Korea Leaves Nuclear Pact.” Friday, January 10, 2003. CNN.com/World http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/10/nkorea.treaty/
Coleman, Colin, “Mandela’s South Africa: Reviewing Two Decades of Freedom”, Huffington Post, 4 November 2013
Kapur, S. P. (2005) ‘India and Pakistan’s Unstable Peace: Why Nuclear South Asia is Not Like Cold War Europe’, International Security.
Liberman, Peter, (2004) ‘Israel and the South African bomb,’ The Nonproliferation Review 11:2, 46-80
Sagan, S. D. and K. N. Waltz (2003 [1995]) The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, New York: W. W. Norton.
Shankman, Paul D., “North Korea Is Still A Top Threat, Pentagon Says,” US News, 3 May 2013
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Nuclear Issue in North Korea Essay
  • nuclear disarmament and limitations of foreign intervention Essay
  • Essay on Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
  • Nuclear Proliferation Essay
  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Essay
  • Position Paper- Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in Russia
  • Nuclear War Essay
  • Essay about Nuclear Proliferation

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free