Debate ovre the Production of Nuclear Weapons
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The debate over the production of nuclear weapons began with the announcement of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The power of the weapon and the devastation it wrought frightened many Americans, not for the least reason because they considered what would happen if the weapon were turned on them, but also out of a humanitarian concern for the horror and death the bomb brought to Japan. The arguments have continued on both sides ever since, and even today in the post-Cold War era, the issue remains vital because more and more countries are seeking and achieving atomic capability. Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weaponry to more and more countries, has long been a fear of the U.S. government, and efforts have been made to control the distribution of nuclear materials. Another worry today is that technology has advanced to where bombs can be made quite small, and a particularly frightening possibility is that terrorists could get their hands on sufficient material to make such a device. Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz in their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate present alternating points of view in a debate format to highlight the arguments on both sides of the issue, whether nuclear weapons are needed to keep others from aggressive acts, or whether the danger is too great and the weapons should be destroyed. The authors begin by noting that this is one of the most critical international issues facing us today, in part beca
. . .
ld dare to attack. It seems much easier to achieve balance when only two or a few more countries have the bomb, but Waltz finds a form of regional stability developing as more countries have the bomb. For one thing, any given country has only a few local enemies which they struggle with, and if all have the bomb, the sort of stability the major powers achieved would be possible on a smaller scale over and over again. Waltz essentially takes recent history as something that would be repeated by other countries as they develop nuclear weapons, and he thus believes that just as nuclear war did not happen before, it will not happen in a nuclear future with more and more players.
Sagan, on the other hand, does worry about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and does not assume that the danger is past just because no one dropped a bomb after World War II. Sagan notes that the powers that developed nuclear weapons and that have them today are not the same sorts of nations that would in the future. Many in the future would be ruled by their military, and he believes that such leadership has a very different organizational culture, one that would be "likely to lead to deterrence failures and deliberate or accidental war" (48). Saga
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Weapons Debate, Sagan Sagan, II Sagan, , Essentially Sagan, nuclear weapons, spread nuclear, spread nuclear weapons, Kenneth Waltz, nuclear war, civilian control, nuclear capability, WW Norton, develop nuclear, Nuclear Weapons, Spread Nuclear, develop nuclear weapons, weapons debate, waltz considers, kenneth waltz, weapons argument, nuclear weapons debate, idea nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons spread,
Approximate Word count = 1890
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
