• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Contemporary world issues paper nuclear arsenals in small countries.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Michael Falotico 4/01 History- Mr. Conrad Poly Prep Contemporary World Issues Paper Nuclear Arsenals in Small Countries Now, in the year 2001, there are major technical advances everyday. Many are not extremely important and are not worth noting, but others are. Among these technical advances is nuclear power and weaponry. Both nuclear power and weaponry alone are not a bad thing, but in the wrong hands they can be dangerous. One of the most dangerous things that you can do with nuclear weapons is give them to weak, very small countries. This isn't a smart thing to do because it now gives that country more of a backbone when it comes to making demands. Also, whichever country is buying the warhead most likely doesn't know how to take care of the warhead properly, and this can be dangerous. The sale of nuclear armaments to smaller, developing countries is not sensible for the sake of international security. The threat of smaller countries having nuclear weapons is a problem in the world today. Procedures have been created to stop this growing problem. The most effective way to monitor nuclear weapons is to force countries to submit any weapons that they had previously purchased from other large countries. The most powerful anti-nuclear treaty is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which states that no country can have nuclear arms except for the United States, France, Russia, China, and Great Britain. ...read more.

Middle

In defense of his country's name, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, "India is now a nuclear weapons state; this is the reality that cannot be denied. It is not conferment that we seek, nor is it a status for others to grant.... It is India's due, the right of one sixth of humankind."7 Since becoming a "nuclear state", India has acquired more international importance. At UN meetings and at other important international meetings, India is given more time to talk about what they believe is important.8 Once again, this is one of the main reasons nuclear arms should not be given to small countries; India basically became a world power the day it declared itself a nuclear power. In the world, there are certain countries that need nuclear weapons more then other countries. Countries like The United States and China need weapons of mass destruction because they are world powers that need something to back up their actions. Right alongside these major world powers with nuclear arms is Brazil. Brazil first started toying with the idea of nuclear armament right after World War II, using German uranium enrichment technology. When they received the equipment needed for the bomb-building process, Great Britain and the US (who both opposed Brazil's nuclear armament) were informed that the enrichment process didn't produce high enough grade material for building nuclear bombs. The US and Britain both did not know that Germany was secretly supplying high grade uranium to Brazil.9 Brazil no longer possesses any nuclear weapons. ...read more.

Conclusion

South Africa is a very odd case in the fight against nuclear non-proliferation. After establishing a uranium enrichment program and building six nuclear warheads, South Africa submitted all of its weapons to several different countries. In 1990, President F.W. de Klerk, (along with the end to apartheid) called for the conclusion of the nuclear program in South Africa. South Africa officially signed the NPT in 1993 and in 1994 was deemed non-nuclear by the IAEA.13 Several small nations which chose not to be nuclear powers are all part of the fight against global nuclear non-proliferation. With all of the treaties and laws passed concerning nuclear weapons, none of them pose a final solution to the potential problem of nuclear warfare on earth. Even if the Non-Proliferation Treaty works globally, it still leaves five major countries of the world with nuclear weapons capabilities. This might not seem so bad, but with the past relationships of these five countries, the chance of war breaking out is far from unrealistic. The only potential solution to the problem is peace on Earth. It appears as though until all of the nations in the world can learn to live with each other peacefully, nuclear disarmament seems out of the question. When we can all trust each other enough not to have weapons of mass destruction pointed at each other, ready to launch at the push of a button, then this problem will never end. 1 www-tech.mit.edu 2 www-tech.mit.edu 3 www-tech.mit.edu 4 www.ucsusa.org 5 www.armscontrol.org 6 www.state.gov 7 www.washingtonpost.com 8 www.washingtonpost.com 9 www.yale.edu 10 www.fas.org 11 www.armscontrol.org 12 www.armscontrol.org 13 www.armscontrol.org ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    "Poland must be reconstituted a great nation," he told the country during the 1944 election. Yet the president also repeatedly acknowledged that the Russians must have a "friendly" government in Warsaw. Somehow, Roosevelt hoped to find a way to subordinate these two conflicting positions to the higher priority of postwar peace.

  2. Do the Writings of Clausewitz have contemporary relevance?

    in Clausewitz's time, today the conditions required for victory may be very different and as such it may be harder to achieve a logical conclusion.15 Clausewitz seems more focussed on the idea that the only means of resolving a war is bloodshed (the so called idea of decisive battle)

  1. US President George Bush labelled Iran and Iraq as part of an "axis of ...

    The report indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during its war with Iran as had been declared by Baghdad. Such information led UNSCOM to believe that Iraq has in its position an additional 6,000 CW munitions that are unaccounted for.56 Iraq has also retained all of its CW scientists.

  2. Does the issue of nuclear proliferation still matter in world politics today?

    instrument of diplomatic influence, where the mere threat of their use is assumed to confer certain advantages on their possessor; or purely for prestige, and recognition as a regional or global power of the first order. Some analysts credit the existence of a nuclear "balance of terror" for having prevented

  1. The world would be a better place without nuclear energy. What do we use ...

    30 years on America is invading the country that it sold weapons to in case they have those weapons? Now America has to make a better weapon because its old ones are obsolete and everyone has them. We have locked ourselves in an eternal arms race.

  2. UNIT 6: PAPER 6b: THE SOVIET UNION AFTER LENIN

    * Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky argued for the continuation of the NEP. There had been an excellent harvest in 1927, but the peasants had been reluctant to hand over their grain - there were few goods they could buy with the money they received anyway.

  1. International Relations Assess the arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons

    what size of arsenal does the state have, what sort of NWs are in it and in what state of repair are they?) and upon a state's willingness to use such an armoury. The motivation of the attacked to defend is presumed stronger than the motivation of the attacker to

  2. Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal?

    Scott Sagan's direct reference to the disturbing probability of the risk of accidents would also not feature anymore (Sagan, 2002, pg47). Consequently, the existence of long-lead times would buy time enabling resolutions to be reached during potentially catastrophic political disputes.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work