Free The Atomic Bomb Essay Sample
The age of industrialization and technological inventions marked an important period of human development; economically and improvement in the living standards. However, accompanying this period too was an era of development of weapons of mass destruction such as atomic bombs, as different nations sought for a commanding voice in the world economy, political and military power. In relation to this, the second half of the 20th century witnessed massive development of these weapons massive production, being led by the United States of America (Schwartz William A and Derber Charles 2009 p 69).
The proliferation of atomic bombs among different nations continues to threaten global security. Whereas there have been calls for abolition of these weapons among the Asian countries by the Western world, the United States should lead in supporting the abolishment of proliferation of Atomic Bombs, being the only superpower after the fall of Soviet union, because failure of which the states which never had nuclear weapon will acquire new ones and the pile stock of nuclear weapons will continue to increase drastically according to (Krieger, D. 2009 p 53)..
Research and Discussion
The commitment of world nations towards achieving an atomic-free society lies squarely on the United States as a result of the fact that it is a global superpower. Fostering optimism toward global leadership of nuclear disarmament is a difficult agenda to go by, nuclear weapon being a central symbol of international politics (Ford, 2010, pp. 7). These weapons imaginations of their potential power to destruction remains alive to the mind of many with each party state doubtful of the other state capability. With this in mind, the American presidents both current and in the future need to emphasize the goal of a world without atomic bombs and commit themselves towards achieving this. In reference to Shultz et al. (2008), Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of 'all nuclear weapons,' which he considered to be 'totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.'
300 words per page instead of 280
Free Revisions (on demand)
Free plagiarims report (on demand)
The current and future presidents of the United States should emulate Reagan's example and work towards eliminating atomic weapons from the society. The current president Barrack Obama described it as 'urgent' the prevention of the spread of amassing weapons of mass destruction. (Ford, 2010, pp. 3). However, the fruits of disarmament are yet to be harvest if few nuclear armed states apply discriminatory orders based on inequity breed resulting into resistance and the war against proliferation and nuclear terrorism will be far from being won, hence the need for global cooperation to prevent proliferation, failure of deterrence and nuclear terrorism. International leaders and civilians are worried that many more states might acquire nuclear weapons and are not trusting the custodian of the weapons which may end up to dangerous hands of terrorists.
The United State showing commitment would make other regions have a second other and allow deliberations, therefore nuclear disarmament might not work fully but may help to some extend whereby other states may be motivated to support and strengthen inspections, control use of fissile materials and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, this still is not a cure by it own self because terrorist will not be influenced by such decisions, but nuclear elimination could prevent them from using such weapons in future (Myrdal, A. 1978.p 369)
The problems of disarmament cited by Seymour Melman include inspection of disarmament, evasion team, and the capability and the limitation of aerial inspection, he further put it that the war on disarmament is now shifted to arms control which contradict the actual objective of the arms elimination program, The inspection policy leading to cheating by the nuclear armed states (Seymour Melman 1958 p 66).
The end of the second war two gave room for the competition of supremacy of the former alliances which triggered the emergence of the 'cold war'. United State of America and Russia went on an arms race with the technological advancement in nuclear industry and space race just to mention a few but the production of atomic bombs was a major concern according to Shultz et al. (2007).
Proliferation of weapon of mass destruction is a major concern to the society at large as public healthy problem according to (Allison, 1996, p.189). Atomic bomb production has been resulting from competition against the super powers (U.S. being one of them) with the end of the Second World War two; there was lack of mutual trust between the two former alliances which made it hard to come up with international control nuclear weapon proliferation agreement (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006, p.17).
Whereas every nation that has developed atomic weapons has argued that security concerns are the driving force of their actions, this can proved otherwise. Research indicates that atomic bomb production resulted from competition against the superpowers; US being one of them. For instance, there is currently the risk for a new phase in nuclear arms competition through further modernization of weapons (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006, p.23). Nevertheless, showing commitment to eliminate these weapons by countries such as the United States would influence other regions to develop a second thought and give room for deliberations following the fall of the Soviet Union as the world major super power. The United States has so far avoided committing itself towards eliminating the production of nuclear associated materials and remained adamant in being involved in programs that support this course of action (Allison, 1996, p.110).
The fall of the Soviet union to some extend reduced nuclear annihilation, this did not prevent the continuous use of fissile material which the global is still at risk of weapons of mass destruction, industrial nuclear power according to studies made by atmospheric scientists indicated that nuclear exchange is at an arming rate a study done on nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could result into a nuclear winter according to Fords.
The draw backs of strengthening protection against proliferation from the American point of view is the global expansion of nuclear industry and nonproliferation of nuclear weapon which implies that increase in the number of nuclear plants will result subsequent increase of uranium for separating plutonium. However tension still reign high, because the same technology can be used to nuclear weapons as it uses to produce civilian fissile materials with the dissemination of these knowhow throughout the world can result further proliferation of nuclear weapons (US Department of Energy 2001 p 67).
The nonproliferation campaign will only get a boost only if the countries which do not have the facilities do not have them, and the already existing recycling facilities to stop their fuel recycling voluntarily. However, these states or countries requires nuclear power therefore, they should be assured competitive fair price for an alternative source of energy let say crude oil (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006, p.27).
There is need therefore for countries across the globe to come together in unison and make a commitment towards eliminating these weapons in the society, the people living in this world faces a number of nuclear threats with the possibility of terrorists using it to detonate major cities and towns, the danger of unauthorized use of the already available nuclear weapon, the possible collapse of the binding treaties against proliferation of nuclear weapon and lastly the emergence of new nuclear armed states or nations. (Shultz et al. 2007. P, 6 ) being led by the United States. Notably, without absolute commitment to the eradication of atomic in the U.S is hampered by the senators' refusal to place the United State under the protocol. (George Perkovich 2010 p 6)
Other nations across the globe would not commit themselves to support nonproliferation inspections, rules and controls, over diverse fissile materials. In reference to Krieger (2009), 'abolition of nuclear weapons must come in stages, but if proliferation in the future is to be averted, a true commitment to total abolition of nuclear weapons banning and eliminating their use and possession as the truly reigning international goal is no longer to be delayed of equivocated' (p.60).
The resistance to world free of nuclear weapon gives another school of thought because it open the option of countries moving toward nuclear program to secure military supremacy in future, it is clear that nuclear armed states together with United States do not live up to their promise the lead the war of nuclear disarmament. The worries of the American people is not the nuclear weapon proliferation is withholding but the increasingly lack of commitment of other nuclear armed states to nonproliferation and the ability to punish those found producing weapons of mass destruction (Christopher A. Ford, 2010, pp. 3).
Other countries together with United States are greatly concerns about the nonproliferation of nuclear weapon by entities such as IAEA (international Atomic Energy Agency) which is mandated to control the use of nuclear power to activities that are exclusively peaceful (Christopher A. Ford, 2010, p. 7). According to Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial that "there are several critical nonproliferation objectives that should be pursued, but they do not require any unattainable vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world to justify them", (Shultz et al. 2007, p 26)
The enforcement system and verification procedures required to attain this would be ultimate in enhancing U.S. and global security in a period when atomic bombs productions are expected to increase globally. Consequently, the control over atomic bomb production is necessary as this will pave way for disarmament of the already produced atomic bombs. According to Allison (1996), one of the channels that the United States could pursue is to encourage Russia to comply with its arms control commitment (p.134).
The commitment program is geared to reduce and secure stocks of the already manufactured atomic bombs hence reducing the risks of terrorists' accessibility. Another important challenge not only facing the United State but also other European countries is how to under take the removal of nuclear weapons materials from unsecure places around the world, this issue have raised both national and international concern of the whole of international community. Enforcement mechanisms and verification would also enable the reduction of risks that terrorists can access atomic bomb production materials
The United States should be seriously committed seek ways of verification, enforcement of the eradications of the weapons of mass destruction and not be justified by it control on nonproliferation and fuel recycling technology advancement but also develop the desire of achieving it. According to Ford's he was quoted saying "the elimination of all nuclear arsenal is not an end in itself, It is a means to global security" (Ford, C, 2010 p 8).
The enforcement mechanism and verification procedures would also minimize risks of these weapons falling in the wrong hands, for instance the terrorists. So far, there is a growing danger that nuclear materials might fall into the hands of terrorists, or even common criminals who might sell it on to terrorists (Müller-Kraenner, 2008, p.128).
Custom essay writing service bestwritingservice.com
100% satisfaction guaranteeOrder now
The nuclear terrorism is the greatest catastrophic national security facing the United State on it part, is trying to prevent the accessibility of highly enriched plutonium and uranium used for atomic bomb production which is the present and future still elusive issue facing nonproliferation (George Perkovich 2008 p. 4). States that possesses and operates reprocessing facilities could in actually sense produce weapons. Therefore, measures to limit the use of enrichment and plutonium separation have received international understanding in order to strengthen protection against proliferation and expansion of nuclear industry (feudman 2007.p 17).
The United State is a signatory to the IAEA which ensure that nuclear energy use is not for human destruction, IAEA protocol entailed the states to notify the IAEA on plans of building new facilities and to declare their nuclear recycling activities, researcher end any kind of development and the IAEA inspectors could access the nuclear plant within a short notice and take samples to detect violations according to (Christopher A. Ford, 2010, pp. 4).the United nation have been vocal for nuclear disarmament and have established a commission on nuclear disarmament (Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. 2006 p 6).
If deterrence would work everywhere starting from the U.S. at all times, there would be less worries on issues regarding proliferation. However, the civilian security is uncertain from the dangers of mass destruction for nuclear deterrence because as long as deterrence is concerned nuclear weapons remains, therefore with international order to reduce weapons of mass destruction to a low level the goal of attaining secure, verifiable and enforceable elimination of these weapons must be put into place (Kenneth Waltz, 1995 p 36)
It is important to mention that if deterrence of production of atomic bombs is attained, beginning from the United States of America as proliferators' and with each nuclear proliferation mean there a greater risk to the planet which is the sole habitant of human beings. Therefore, nuclear nightmare will not cease until the proliferation is stopped, and then there would be fewer concerns over the issue of proliferation of these weapons. As a result, this would bring an assurance that the world is free of atomic bombs. On the other hand, countries who played havoc and conflict on different part of the world because both sides will not be afraid of each other atomic mighty and would cease fighting with each other in cold wars since they are assured of their national security. The lack of confidence will made both the United State and the nuclear armed state not to eliminate their last nuclear weapons. If United State lead the war on deterrence it NATO allies will follows suit. Indeed, these key non-nuclear-weapon states have longstanding traditions favoring the global elimination of nuclear weapons; with the position held by the United State abolition of nuclear arsenal will ultimately guarantee global security (Orrick, D. 1999 p 137).
The atomic bomb disarmament is the highest international agenda on the United States now than it has been in the long history since the first launch of a nuclear atomic bomb few days before the end of the second war two. The U.S. policy of preventing proliferation, preventing nuclear terrorism, reducing toward zero the unique threat of nuclear annihilation and fostering optimism regarding U.S. global leadership, It is therefore important for the U.S. to play it role as a role model and serve as good example of other region to eliminate atomic bombs as it is the major super power. If this is not controlled, it means that states will continue producing weapons of mass destruction threatening the comeback of another cold war of arm race.
A binding by the international treaties on the elimation of atomic bombs is the only hope and the way forward for sound international relations. However, the prospect of a world free of atomic bombs does not make its attainment viable, let alone foreseeable unless all countries reciprocate and join force in a co-evolutionary process. However, chances of the success will still remain elusive if the nuclear armed states continue to apply discriminatory orders. Verification and security conditions geared toward elimation of nuclear weapons atomic bombs included will be an important milestone toward a secure world.