...Should we support the international anti-nuclear movement? On June 12, 1982 one million people gathered at New York city`s Central Park (Schell). Their cry was rather unique for a political demonstration; end the US nuclear arms race with Soviet Union. Similar rallies and protests occurred in most of the developed countries such as France, Germany and Spain in the 80`s and early 90s (Westcott). However more recently in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the growing threat of global terrorism the debates and the protests have been reignited. Spearheaded by anti-nuclear groups such as Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Greenpeace, the international social movement, called The Anti-Nuclear Movement aims for a much more comprehensive goal: the complete dissolution of all nuclear technologies. This essay aims to convince the reader that this is not an impractical movement championed by hot headed environmentalists but a very important endeavour which will have lasting consequences for humanity. The most important aim is of course that of nuclear weapon disarmament. “The death of a man becomes a tragedy. The death of a million however becomes a statistic.” (Goodreads).A grave quote by Stalin (one of history’s most ruthless dictators) is strikingly true in the case of nuclear weapons. The detonations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed nearly 150,000 Japanese, reducing people into rounded numbers. Harnessing the inner forces of radioactive atoms, the atomic bomb carries...
Words: 1839 - Pages: 8
...the fact that opposition did sometimes limit Britain's nuclear policy) and the least important factor which is cost and that is not important as the more Britain spent, public opposition didn't grow. The perceived 'MAD' threat was the most important because as the Cold War became more dangerous towards Britain, they spent more on developing/buying nuclear weapons. Firstly, CND was established in 1958 out of concerns of the escalating arms race of the Cold War especially given that the Russians had just launched Sputnik and Britain had tested her own H bomb. An example of showing how CND gaining lots of support was that 150,000 people took part in the Aldermaston marches in 1960-61. Secondly, the Greenham's Women's Peace Camp protest that lasted from 1981-2000 shows that there was a clear illustration of mass public opposition to the threat posed by nuclear weapons as the peace camp was established to protest that nuclear weapons were being sited by RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire. Thirdly, there was an encircling of the base which occurred in December 1983, with 50,000 women attending and cutting sections of the fence, indicating the lengths the protestors were prepared to go to signify the strength of their opposition.. On the other hand, even when the threat of the Cold War escalated, Britain sometimes carried on their nuclear policy. This can be shown by governments throughout 1945-90 continued with a nuclear weapons policy even despite key moments of public pressure during...
Words: 675 - Pages: 3
...The Head of State or Government of he movement of the Non-Aligned countries met in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, from 24-25 February 2003 to address the crucial global issues affecting their people with the view of agreeing to a set of actions in the promotion of peace, security, justice, equality, democracy and development conducive for a multilateral system of relations based on principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of state. The right of people to self determination and non-intervention in maters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. According to the United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs (UNDA), the Heads of State or Government emphasized that the international situation continues to be marked by rapid and dramatic evolution, presenting numerous opportunities and challenges to the international community and the Non-Aligned Movement. However, recent events have again demonstrated that a peaceful, just and secure world continues to elude human kind. Accordingly simmering disputes, violent conflicts aggression and foreign occupation, interference in the domestic affairs of states , policies of hegemony and domination, unilateral and conceive measures, ethnic strife religious intolerances, xenophobia, new forms of racism narrowly conceived nationalism pose major and dangerous obstacles to harmonious coexistence among states and people and have...
Words: 2480 - Pages: 10
... People debate but a lot of things in the world. One big topic that is being talked around in the world is nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are “an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion.” Questions are being asked around the world like are Nuclear Weapons dangerous are the world or safe? Are they worth having or should we abolish them? Some people are saying that it is not possible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons unless all states agree to give them. That statement could be very true, but going against that statement could be the better idea going forward. There are plenty of ways where you can have states still having nuclear weapons but can still prevent the spread. “Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every country does have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy).” Nuclear weapons are known to have protected peace. No country would really use the weapons because it could possibly harm the world. Instead, they would use the weapons as protection and for resources. Some countries need the nuclear weapons to survive, and if they give it up it might be worse for them. The countries that have the nuclear weapons should be able to keep them, but only if they sign a treaty saying they won’t attack anyone. To stop the prevention, the countries that don’t shouldn’t be able to attain them. Countries that have the weapons should have...
Words: 847 - Pages: 4
...New York Times, “As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy” shows this effect through several examples. Though all are present throughout the article, the overwhelming approach is through ethos and effectively building the credibility of the article’s content. Almost every piece of information that is presented is linked either through a direct quote or a summary of the thoughts of an expert of the topic being discussed. With Nuclear Weapons Council directors, Pentagon heads, and Generals giving their opinions on nuclear weapons, one is inclined to trust what they read. When former head of Pentagon weapons testing Philip E. Coyle says, “I’m not a pacifist” (2016), but that the military is planning for an arsenal that is still far too big, then there may be a problem that needs to be examined. In terms of logos, the largest argument is economical. On one side of the debate, we are told that the refitting of old weapons is just cost-effective. New technologies and capabilities aren’t being added to the devices. They are just being refurbished with new plastic bits and wires that may wear over time. Counter-point, the new abilities to strategically and with incredible precision aim at a target hundreds of miles away and the creation of what the article calls “dial-a-yield” (this author prefers “choose-your-boom”) certainly sound like new technologies and capabilities. With the information that one class of these weapons alone would cost around $30 billion...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...present day, there were many debates on whether the Manhattan Project was justified or if nuclear weapons are even ethical. Seeing the destruction of the “Little Man” and “Fat Boy” bombs in the moment arose great fear and discontent. However, looking at the Manhattan Project in retrospect shows that the advantages gained through the years greatly outweigh the consequences of the nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project was a pivotal endeavor in America’s history...
Words: 1705 - Pages: 7
...especially those concerning the dilemma between increased costs of sustaining an ever-demanding nuclear program, whether to cut back on nuclear use, and the process of creating nuclear policy in general. Trump seems supportive of current nuclear policy but is ambiguous regarding continued contraction or expansion of arsenals. As the new administration prepares a review of the ongoing program and deliberate what to revise, the voices of skeptics echo the high premium needed to modernize while supporters “[...] argue that the United States not only can afford to bear the costs of these systems, but cannot afford the costs of failing to modernize its nuclear arsenal”...
Words: 474 - Pages: 2
...military official. However, I respectfully disagree with the assessment that America is in a more dangerous position today than at any other point since 1974, when General Dempsey graduated from West Point. Take nuclear weapons. As I pointed out previously, for the past sixty-two years, the U.S. intelligence community has continuously assessed the potential for nuclear terrorist attacks on the United States. Despite the expressed interest of three terrorists groups in acquiring a bomb, there is no known instance of a nonstate actor or “super-empowered” individual possessing a nuclear weapon, or the requisite fissile material to build one. Meanwhile, nine states - the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea - have the bomb. Moreover, the threat of nuclear terrorism is markedly reduced from the early 1990s, when more than thirty thousand nuclear weapons and tons of fissile material were poorly secured at over two hundred facilities throughout the former Soviet Union. After twenty years of U.S.-funded cooperative threat reduction programs that removed, consolidated, and secured nuclear material, Harvard University professor and nuclear security expert Matthew Bunn wrote in April 2010: “Overall, the risk of nuclear theft in Russia has been reduced to a fraction of what it was a decade ago.” The habitual tendency to overinflate threats facing the United States was the focus of an...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...resolution is made to control Iran nuclear project at Qom (and the possibility of Iran to create a nuclear boom). Recently has been notified that Iran got a new nuclear station in Qom, the British, US and French intelligence agencies informed that it’s too small to produce a nuclear weapon but too big for being a nuclear station use for produce energy, this intelligence bodies also think that Iran can purify uranium to the level of being a nuclear weapon and put it in a vector (missile), which could rise part of Europe and middle east. This new has create a tense atmosphere between the countries of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and the international environment, the three purpose of the NPT is to disarm the countries who got nuclear weapons (US, Russia, France, UK and China), to aim the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear materials in a pacific way. The global context go against the nuclear weapons we can see how US and Russia had agree to reduce more the nuclear heads (they already agree long ago (the end of the cold war) to reduce their nuclear heads but recently they agree to reduce it even more), we could also mention that the German government (Guido Westerwelle) wants to open a debate to see if the US can remove their nuclear heads that they still in Germany (even when it’s going to make 20 years since the end of the cold war). US, UK, France and Germany condemn Iran for maintaining the nuclear program in secret, China and Russia...
Words: 472 - Pages: 2
...Essay Questions 1. How do the different actors in international system affect international relations? How do the different theories explain the role of these actors in the international system. The actors consist of state actors and non-state actors. Non-state actors and terrorism work outside the westphalian system and take power away from state sovereignty. They consist of terrorist groups, IGO’s like the European Union, NGO’s like multinational corporations. NGO’s increase interdependence and globalization. IGO’s bring about peace and spread democracy and war is not realistic. NGO’s even have the ability to remove state governments through public support and pressure placed on high ranking officials as shown in -----. They also have the power to hinder development of countries as shown in the Global South, but at the same time they provide many jobs for the economy. For state actors, the actions and decisions of states can effect profoundly the international because of polarity, hegemony, and economy. The Liberalist view would see non-state actors as a positive because they are bringing countries allowing them to work together through institutions increasing interdependence and globalization. Realists would say that these non-state actors are only out for self interest in profit and will use up resources taking advantage of wages whenever possible. Constructivist view would see terrorist groups specifically as falling under Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations...
Words: 5630 - Pages: 23
...Canadian International Council Strengthening the Non-Proliferation Regime: The Role of Coercive Sanctions Author(s): T. V. Paul Source: International Journal, Vol. 51, No. 3, Nuclear Politics (Summer, 1996), pp. 440-465 Published by: Canadian International Council Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40203123 Accessed: 30/11/2010 19:58 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cic. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Canadian International Councilis collaborating...
Words: 9239 - Pages: 37
...Debates have arisen when North Korea withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003. It is known that North Korea has exported nuclear weapons in Iran and Pakistan to show its support in being ready to launch an attack against humanity. According to the American Society of International Law, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty because of the hostile foreign policy of the United States. From the North Korean government’s perspective, they are a target of a pre-emptive strike and military punishment. Though these allegations do not have sufficient evidence to back up North Korea’s reason to back in the treaty, each state still have the right to withdrawal. Stated in Article X of the Nuclear Non-proliferation...
Words: 406 - Pages: 2
...Are Nuclear Devices Global Peacemakers or Killing Devices? Right after World War 2, after two nuclear bombs were dropped in Japan by American Aircrafts, the war gradually and eventually ended. But with it began a new kind of war called the "Cold War". It is technically not war rather tension amongst nations. The two superpowers the Soviet Union and the United States were probably the most tensed nations. Some nations took side of the Soviet Union and some decided to stay neutral. The world has been in a peace state has been and a lot more stable since the cold war has begun. But can it stay that way? Nuclear weapons are scary and deadly. We all know that. They can wipe out a whole city in just a fraction of a second and kill millions and millions of innocent people. Their radiation is long lasting and fatal which can be found up to several hundred miles away from the impact zone, and can last over for decades. They can cause changes in our genes which last several generations. In Japan you can still find disabled children and adolescents due to defect in their genes cause by nuclear radiation. Well, now technically speaking nuclear weapons are killing devices, but it’s indeed wrong to say that since the invention of it, we haven’t had global peace. Actually, right after the bombing and the massacre, we have realized how terrible the consequences can it be. It’s that sudden realization that is keeping the peace. Deadly weapons are designed to annihilate, but in the right hands...
Words: 865 - Pages: 4
...are the only use of nuclear weapons in the world. The atomic bombs were created by the Manhattan Project, which was a research and development program established by the United States with the United Kingdom and Canada that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II. The United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945 by threatening Japan with “prompt and utter destruction”. However, such ultimatum was ignored by the Japanese government. Thus, two nuclear weapons that developed by the Manhattan Project had been deployed by the United States. Hiroshima was the primary target of the first atomic bomb mission and Nagasaki was the second target of the mission. The first nuclear weapon named Little Boy was dropped from an American B-29 Superfortress, known as Enola Gay on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and followed by another nuclear weapon named Fat Man dropped from the B-29 Bockscar on the city of Nagasaki on 9 August. The official figures by Japanese at the time put the death toll at 118,661 and the later estimates the final toll was about 140,000 of Hiroshima’s 350,000 population including military personnel and those who died later due to radiation. On the other hand, the explosion of Fat Man event killed 39,000 and caused a further 25,000 people injured. Other than that, many of them suffered long-term sickness and disability due to these events. The decision of using nuclear weapons The debate over bombings has...
Words: 1816 - Pages: 8
...University of North Carolina, 2004 On August 6, 1945, after years of planning, money and debates that was conducted. The military, political officials and the president of the United States made a decision that that changed the outcome of the war against Japan. This decision will be forever embedded in every history book in America. On April 12, 1945 President Harry Truman was elected into office after Roosevelt’s death (Walker, p.8). On April 25, 1945 the president was briefed about the world’s greatest weapon, a weapon that would cause utter destruction on any target the uranium 235 atomic bomb (Walker, p.14). Roughly four months later Truman issued the dropping of the first Uranium 235 atomic bomb on Hiroshima three days later the a second bomb on Nagasaki (Walker, p. 79). It was not until the world saw the immediate aftermath of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski did they see just how horrible of a weapon the United States had produced (Walker, p.98). The novel “Prompt and Utter destruction” by J. Samuel Walker reveals his plans, discussion with military officials and events that the United States thought to use and planned before dropping the bomb. It aims to present and helps readers understand the planning and motives that contributed to the dropping of the two weapons of mass destruction on Japan. “Prompt and Utter Destruction” helps answer the troubling questions that still until this day have been debated; did...
Words: 1826 - Pages: 8
