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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Essay Title: Does the issue of nuclear proliferation still matter in world politics today? Mutual nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998 jolted the world back into realizing that the long-standing problem of nuclear weapons proliferation had not gone away. In the immediate post-Cold War environment, there appeared to have been an actual reversal of nuclear weapons proliferation in some respects, with the denuclearization of all former Soviet republics except Russia; the dismantlement by South Africa of its small covert arsenal of nuclear weapons; an apparent end to the nuclear weapon ambitions of Brazil and Argentina; a freeze in the observable part of North Korea's nascent nuclear weapons program; and the eradication-at least for now-of Iraq's costly nuclear weapons infrastructure. Going further back, both Taiwan and South Korea had been persuaded to curtail efforts that were underway at one time to acquire nuclear weapons, while nations as diverse as Sweden, Switzerland, Romania, and Australia failed to pursue incipient programs. In general, the number of nuclear weapon states-whether declared or not-had not grown nearly as much as predicted by some observers back in the 1960s, when it was expected that two dozen or more countries would have acquired nuclear weapons by now. However, while the numbers have not changed in the near-term, several developments, including the embryonic nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan and the uncertain future of the North ...read more.

Middle

The chances that proliferation will reduce the likelihood of nuclear war are quite small. The risks therefore, are large, large enough to preclude much serious advocacy of widespread proliferation, large enough to make worthwhile efforts to understand the underlying dynamics of nuclear proliferation and to seek means to inhibit it, and, most important, large enough to justify attention and preventive action by individual states and the international community. (Ted Greenwood, Harold A. Feiveson and Theodore B. Taylor, P.28) The world now has about 20,000 nuclear weapons; there were once 65,000. It must be counted as a major miracle of the modern age that in the 60 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki none of them has been used in anger. North Korea already claims to have nuclear weapons; estimates are from six to eight, though the claims and estimates could be wrong. Iranians deny pursuing nuclear weapons, but their denials are doubted by outside experts and undermined by Iran's incomplete compliance with nuclear inspections. There are now eight nuclear powers: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel (suspected). The danger is not mainly increasing that number by two. It is that if North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons, other countries would ultimately go nuclear. Then, every nuclear danger would rise dramatically: miscalculation, pre-emptive attacks, theft, a global market in weapons technology, and use by terrorist groups. ...read more.

Conclusion

As long as the possession of nuclear weapons offers special privileges to a nation, the tendency to join the nuclear weapon club will be irresistible. (Taylor & Francis Ltd, P.419) Nuclear weapons will remain widely spread in non-NPT states, if this problem being unsolved. In conclusion, the tide of nuclear weapons proliferation has actually been reversed in some cases in recent years, several developments-including the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan and the uncertain future of the North Korean nuclear weapons program-could conceivably cause other states to initiate or accelerate their own such programs, as well as generally making the world-and in particular, South Asia-a more dangerous place. A few other states remain of concern as well. Iraq, with its demonstrated history of a large-scale program, appears determined to acquire a nuclear weapons capability at the earliest opportunity. So does Libya, albeit being considerably less advanced. Meanwhile, Israel shows no willingness to give up its substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons despite widespread criticism. In the short term, despite the South Asian testing, the number of states aspiring to have nuclear weapons is unlikely to grow. However, in the medium to longer-term, recent developments on the Subcontinent and on the Korean Peninsula, depending on how they play out in coming years, could have a serious impact on the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, in terms of both increasing the number of states contemplating the development of nuclear weapons, and increasing the risks of such weapons actually being used in combat. ...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. The role of partisan politics in the spread of McCarthyism

    How far then did partisan politics, specifically, encourage such widespread support? In order to answer this question, one must first analyze opinions on how other factors contributed to the issue. According to Harvard sociologists Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, it was the aquiescence of the American masses allowing McCarthy

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

    As a choice we have repeatedly chosen to use more conventional weaponry than NWs. "War can be fought in the face of deterrent threats, but...the closer a country moves toward winning...the more surely that country invites retaliation and risks it's own destruction...If states can score only small gains, because large

  1. American History.

    Calhoun, the VP, wrote and left unsigned the South Carolina Exposition and Protest [special state conventions can nullify nat'l laws]. - But in the Senate it was Robert Hayne [SC] who argued in favor of states' rights vs. Daniel Webster [MA] in the 1830 Webster-Hayne Debates ["Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" - DW].

  2. History of the United States

    Cattle ranching was the first large-scale enterprise to invade the Great Plains beginning in the late 1860s. By the 1880s, however, the open range began to give way to fenced pastureland and to agriculture, made possible by the newly invented barbed- wire fence and by "dry farming," a technique of preserving soil moisture by frequent plowing.

  1. Do nuclear weapons have any use as instruments of deterrence or are they just ...

    Two superpowers allowing general stability to exist between the two for a time which would not have been possible without the looming threat of possible war. This can also be seen through the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 where's after there was greater co-operation between the superpowers with the USSR

  2. Timothy W., Luke 'Museum politics: Power plays at the exhibition'

    the selection of images and the explication of their reception in historical context aimed to contest what the images might have meant to their producers, how they were received by their consumers, and why they should not be treated as neutral documents of the West for America today..'.

  1. Does Realism as a statist Ideology exist today?

    This is strong evidence that realism exists to an extent now, as states seek to maximize their interests, for example the US allegedly did when they invaded Iraq, with the intention to capture Iraqi oil.

  2. American Society today is a rich, powerful and highly populated

    The "old immigrants" felt these "new immigrants" were stealing their jobs and also they didn't like the idea of different cultures. All these factors caused growing hostility towards these "new immigrants." The numbers of these "new immigrants" soared to over 900,000 in 1905.

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