Essay on Nuclear Arms Proliferation

Nuclear arms proliferation is a dangerous and tremendous evil which pressures mankind through the 20th century. If we look back we could see that there has not been any century or a decade free of wars and armed conflicts, but the main question whether a nation has an obligation to go to war or not has not been answered yet. This question has agitated many people, politicians and common citizens, clergy and ethicists and is needed to be answered. Nuclear Arms is one of the dangerous weapons which can kill thousand of people and contaminate vast territories for thousands years.

 Help with
Help with Essay on Nuclear Arms Proliferation

On the one hand, nuclear weapons could be proliferated in order to avert the possible danger. Taking into account historical events and present day situation in the world, it is possible to say that countries should has nuclear weapons to protect their citizens from external and internal threats and possible interventions which threatens its existence and unity. The case of Iraq shows that terror attacks depict that other nations should have nuclear weapons in order to maintain balance of power. “Nuclear weapons pose a domestic security problem because relying on them for security means that other countries will do the same, resulting in all of them being targeted by someone” (Krieger 2001, 8).

Dramatic strides in technological inno¬vation, sharply defined international power blocs, and the striving for influence in developing nations, as well as religious, ethnic, and cultural discord are roots of terrorism. Every nation has the right to protect itself before its innocent people will be injured and humiliated. In this case, it will be a protection policy aimed to secure piece and happiness (Peimani 2000). For instance, war in Iraq has been claimed by European community as a policy of aggression towards Iraqi people. For American nation, it is a necessary step to protect its citizen from adverse intervention ensuring peace and national immunity.

The counter argument suggest that “nuclear weapons aren’t really weapons; they are devices of unimaginable destruction that draw no boundaries between soldiers and civilians, men and women, the old and the young” (Krieger 2001, 8). This, of course, is one of the most bewildering and disturbing aspects of today’s wars, for those caught up in them no less than for those observing and trying to understand them (Limaye, 2000).

The main ethical concern is that it is difficult to predict results of nuclear weapons proliferation. For mankind it is a real danger to worry about, because we do not know what is waiting for us further more. The weakness of the opposing view is that it is a great anxiety that our population will be faced with the problems we cannot cope with. “nuclear weapons are too destructive to be of any military utility, and that by holding on to them the United States only encourages others to acquire them” (Khatchadourian 2002, 24). Proliferation of nuclear weapons benefits rich countries but weakens position of small states which cannot develop nuclear weapons in a short period of time. It is, rather, a relational concept: it refers to the way differences are communicated and is therefore created and maintained by contact (common sense), not by isolation. “September 11 brought a glimpse of what the post-cold war nuclear threat might look like. But it has not given the movement a clear-cut chance to step forward” (Khatchadourian 2002, 24).

The environmental concerns are the important because nuclear weapons storing requires special security and protective measures because it contaminates vast territories. After the Herosima (1945), it is evident that nuclear weapons dos not benefit any countries causing deaths and sufferings for several generations of people. The ethical problem is that in recent years nuclear waste has become a big concern. The environmental ethics requires clean production and utilization process to be applied to every production and manufacturing process, but it deals more with recycling and waste management than scientific ethics. nuclear weapons should be prohibited because national community cannot control all countries and their policies towards this weapons of mass destruction. For instance, “The IAEA, for its part, reports that Iraq’s capacity to enrich uranium and to make nuclear weapons is destroyed, but that some points in the nuclear programme remain unclarified and, more generally, that it is not possible to assert that every relevant piece of equipment (component) has been found. Presented” (Blix 1999, 1).

The arguments mentioned above show that proliferation of nuclear arms does not benefit world’s community and threaten environment and world’s population. There seemed to be general agreement that competition for political power and the material resources to which such power gives access would do far better as a general explanation of the phenomena under discussion. Every state has the right protect itself, but nuclear arms is not a weapon but devices of mass destruction which do not benefit neither the state nor world community. However, an obligation of a nation gives special significance to the ‘uniqueness’ led to a particular concern. Undoubtedly the different laws do contribute to difficulties on the part of the law-enforcement and intelligence services, especially in terms of information sharing within the international community. The legislation has also resulted in the destruction of valuable intelligence records, created expensive administrative arrangements and caused ridiculous use of security classifications. The application of force against enemies, without any corresponding effort to understand their grievance or to implement specific reforms to rectify what may be legitimate problems, may produce some immediate results but usually does not constitute a viable strategy and may, in fact only postpone the ultimate threat. Nuclear arms do not help to neutralize the enemy in order to protect its safety and happiness, but to create a great threat for civil population.

1. Blix, H. THE INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION REGIME: Problems and Possibilities. New Zealand International Review, Vol. 24, 1999, p. 1.
2. Khatchadourian, R. Saying No to Nuclear Arms : CALLS FOR AN END TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE GROWING — INCLUDING IN WASHINGTON. The Nation, Vol. 274, June 24, 2002, p. 24.
3. Krieger, D. Stopping the New Nuclear Arms Race. The Humanist, Vol. 61, March 2001, p. 8.
4. Limaye, S.P. Tokyo’s Dynamic Diplomacy: Japan and the Subcontinent’s Nuclear Tests. Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 22, 2000, p. 322.
5. Peimani, H. Nuclear Proliferation in the Indian Subcontinent: The Self-Exhausting “Superpowers” and Emerging Alliances. Praeger, 2000. is a provider of high quality, custom writing services and can write any kind of paper, including case studies. is experienced in writing informative, detailed, and concise case studies on any subject and using either kind of case study approaches. If you need help with a case study, place your order for a case study and one of our professional writers will happily construct a case study for you or help you with any other writing assignment you may have: Essay, Research Paper, Thesis, Term Paper, etc.

Place your order now to get an excellent custom-written case study!

Comments are closed.