NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Nuclear Nonproliferation In this paper, I will discover the views of different world countries on the inevitability of nuclear proliferation. I will address what will become of the rising proliferation of nuclear technology. I believe that allowing nuclear weapons to spread will only endanger the world in the long run and that unless we act now, we will not be able to see another two thousand years of the human race. The dangers that can arise from mismanaged proliferation are profound and numerous. There is the danger that the proliferation process itself could give one of the existing nuclear powers a strong incentive to stop a non-nuclear neighbor from joining the nuclear club. For example, Israel (an undeclared Nuclear Power) used force to stop Iraq from acquiring a nuclear capability.
There is also the danger that an unstable nuclear competition could emerge among some of the new nuclear states like India and Pakistan; moreover, other the danger could emerge among unstable countries such as Iraq, which is developing own nuclear weapons. Iraq might lack the resources to make the nuclear forces invulnerable, which could create first-strike incentives. Also, there is the danger that proliferation would increase the risk that nuclear weapons could be fired by accident, captured by terrorists, or change possession because of shaky governments. In addition to random mistakes governments could make, the threat of nuclear proliferation and the United States reluctance to heed the problem has only given the world more reason to argue over the problem. Article VI of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty links nonproliferation and disarmament by committing the parties to pursue negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear-arms race and to achieve nuclear disarmament. Top U.
S. officials (and British, French, and Russian officials) acknowledge in private that they view Article VI as an inconvenience to which they must pay occasional lip service. They argue that their nuclear weapons do not threaten countries such as India, Pakistan, or Iran. Consequently, any attempt to tie nonproliferation to nuclear disarmament is merely a political pretext to cover regional and domestic motivations for seeking nuclear weapons.
This argument has merit, but not so much as defenders of the nuclear status quo think. Nations can readily claim a chain of security threats that lead back to the five declared nuclear-weapons states: For instance, Pakistan's nuclear ambitions stem from Indias, which stem from Chinas, which stem from those of Russia and the United States. Meanwhile, Iran says it is threatened by American and Israeli nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers can and should marshal strong arguments that in fact Iran and Iraq would derive less security from building adequate nuclear forces to counter their putative threats than from pursuing bilateral, regional, and international diplomacy to reduce tensions. Easing tensions will only come from a commitment of the destruction of all nuclear weapons. The high military value that the nuclear-weapon states put on their arsenals throughout the Cold War and unwillingness of these states to devalue them significantly since 1991 has undoubtedly influenced other countries, especially in the Middle East, where the situation is not stable because of clash of interests between western powers and Middle East countries.
In the 1970 s Iraq began a systematic buildup of its armed forces; at the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, there were more than one million men under arms. By 1990 Iraq had the most powerful army of any Arab state and the fourth or fifth largest in the world. The army had a plentiful supply of modern Soviet weapons, and it has gained battle experience against Israel (in Syria in 1973), in operations against the Kurds, and in a large-scale war against Iran. Iraq's technologies were purchased from the Soviet Union. Nowadays, Iraq continues to utilize scientists from the former Soviet Union countries to improve its armed forces and it is very likely that Iraq is working on the nuclear weapon development program, since the country currently has almost all capabilities to do so.
Under Saddam Hussein, major military programs centered on stockpiling chemical weapons, developing a medium-range rocket capable of delivering nuclear or chemical warheads a distance of 600 to 800 miles, and launching a nuclear weapons program. Although the destruction of the Iraq reactor by the Israeli air force in 1981 was a major setback, the nuclear weapons program was stepped up in 1988. The problems and threats posed by Iraqi military capabilities by the end of 1999 continued without a visible resolution. Instead of showing international resolve with respect to continuing the pressure on Iraq to relinquish all missile and WMD capabilities, the divisions within the UN seemed to indicate continued weakening of this resolve. The year 2000 began in essentially the same situation as was the case in the previous year, without inspections, and increasing funds available to Iraq for its WMD and missile programs. The regime of inspection and verification that was imposed on Iraq in 1991 has ceased to function, and while sanctions remain in place, they are increasingly undermined by a combination of legal and illegal commerce.
Three permanent members of the UN Security Council Russia, China, and France continue to support the lifting of sanctions, and various compromise formulae are being considered. The steady low-level US bombing campaign in the North and South continues, but it is difficult to assess its impact or effectiveness. The most important thing is that by the end of 1999, over eight years after the war and cease-fire agreement, Iraq maintains a substantial non-conventional military capability. Israeli officials remain very concerned about the Iraqi WMD and missile capabilities. Without the inspection regime, as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, and given the weakening support and good organization of sanctions, the remaining capabilities will become the foundation for expanded development. The Iraqi nuclear program is likely to be accelerated, with emphasis on the search for fissile material.
Given the abundance of fissile material in the world (particularly in Russia), and the requirement for only a few kilograms to provide the cores for the carefully concealed weapons, Iraq is very likely to be able to possess a nuclear weapons capability in the near future. Recently, the Daily Babil, an Iraqi newspaper, which is owned and published by Saddam's Hussein's eldest son, Uday, has reported on a number of meetings between Saddam Hussein and a number of nuclear scientists, and Dr. Fail Muslim Al-Janabi, who is in the head of Iraq's Nuclear Energy Agency. In the most recently reported meeting last July, Al-Janabi told Saddam of the nuclear agency's scientists commitment to climb a new peak in the many peaks of the scientific progress and development which has a beginning but has no end...
as they draw their righteous swords in the face of the evil aggressors... In his response, Saddam praised their scientific achievements which have revealed Iraq's mettle, patience, steadfastness and determination to climb and seize the opportunity of progress and development. (Babil, July 31, 2002) In the wake of the terrorist attacks in the U. S. on Sept. 11, 2001, Iraq was virtually alone among countries in failing to offer official condolences to the U. S. In line with his adversarial relationship with the U.
S. , Pres. Saddam Hussein publicly opposed the U. S. -led war on terrorism and called on other Islamic countries to help defeat it. He also decried the military action in Afghanistan, calling it a spark that could set the world on fire. In response, U. S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that once the U. S. had concluded its campaign in Afghanistan, it would deal with Iraq's weapons program (including nuclear technologies development) as part of its effort against terrorism. Meanwhile, the U. S. focused on persuading Russia to sign off on a smart sanctions package that would ease the restrictions on civilian goods imported into Iraq but tighten restrictions on military supplies.
However, always there are countries in the world that would support one or another side. Such also happens in the case of Iraq. Iraq is putting lots of effort to acquire strategic weapons (ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads). Although delayed by the Iran-Iraq war, these efforts were accelerated in the 1990 s.
Iraq made substantial progress on ballistic missiles by acquiring extensive technology and assistance from outside sources (primarily Russia, China, and North Korea). In parallel, the development of the Iraqi nuclear infrastructure continued, and evidence of the acquisition of biological weapons also increased. China, as one of the countries that helped Iraq to acquire strategic weapons, currently supports the development of nuclear technology in Iraq, while western community (NATO), which primarily consists of developed countries, is not interested to be threatened by nuclear weapons of the third world countries. At the moment, a campaign against Iraq raises many questions. Actually, is the concern about the development of military technologies the driving force for the United States to start the anti-Iraqi campaign?
Or is it just the concern about obtaining resources (oil) at cheaper prices in order to maintain economic domination? Currently, China is also a big player in the world affairs. Chinas economy is rapidly developing and China will face the problem with resources too. China has far better relations with Iraq and would like to cooperate further with Iraq just in order to meet its own goals.
The support of Iraq will be very beneficial for China. This is the primary reason why China would support the development of nuclear weapons in Iraq, which will allow Iraq to be more independent that would result into loss of the dependence from the west, which currently is Chinas competitor on the global arena. The evidence presented clearly shows how nuclear weapons play a very significant role in the relationships between many countries. In a few of the cases, more than one Asian country is involved in the entire situation. Nuclear weapons have been used to try and gain international respect, to show military power to neighboring countries, or to just make sure that a country can protect itself.
Currently, nuclear weapons are used just as a way of self-protection against the possible aggression, which means that countries playing this dangerous game are grouping in order to meet own objectives. Bibliography: Blanco, Scott. Modern Weapons: Nuclear Weapons. Castle Rock: Macmillan, 1992 Babil, July 31, 2002, web Non-proliferation Treaty, web Kadner, Steven P...
Free research essays on topics related to: iran iraq war, nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, saddam hussein, development of nuclear
Research essay sample on Iran Iraq War Development Of Nuclear