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
In Igor Ivanovs article The Missile Defense Mistake: Undermining Strategic Stability and the ABM Treaty, he writes not as a universal moralist, but as a proud Russian citizen and official, holding on to the state of the world 30 years ago. In 1972 a treaty between the former Soviet Union and the United States was signed, forbidding the development and construction of an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Defense System. While this treaty was sufficient for 1972, it is no longer, and now could threaten the national security of both nations if upheld. Thirty years ago, the US and USSR were the only real nuclear world powers, any treaty was signed between the two countries that dealt with nuclear arms, basically dealt with all nuclear arms. This is no longer the case today. China, Korea, India, and Iraq are burgeoning nuclear powers that cannot be handled as if they fall into line with the way that the US and USSR handled things.
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction kept things in check because the nuclear arsenals of each country were intended to be used to win a world war. This was looked at objectively and both nations agreed that all that would happen is that we all die. The new nuclear states, especially India and Pakistan, are not so interested in dominating the world, but having a decisive victory over their historical rival neighbor. It is states like this that a US ABM system would be built to protect against, not our former adversary, the USSR. It is in this simple fact that Ivanov shows he is not appealing to a universal moral standard. As a citizen and leader of Russia, Ivanov is surely proud of his country, everyone should be proud of his homeland.
The USSR was, during the height of the Cold War, the only real threat to the national security of the USA. Now that the Cold War has ended, and the Soviet Union has broken into smaller states, the USSR has lost some of its former imposing stature. Wanting to still be one of the major powers, Ivanov says that our ABM system would be directed all but solely at Russia. The real threats, as sort of wildcard nuclear powers, are the newly defined problem states in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
In this way of thinking and writing, Ivanov appeals not to a universal moral standard, but to a proud mother Russia. Ivanovs belief that an US ABM system would spark a new arms race is not as far fetched as this author wants it to be; but, would it not be more prudent to have a defense system for missiles that are in the control of radical leaders, who, in the case of Saddam Hussein, think very little about the good of all, and, have a problem with a world council (in the form of the UN) telling him what to do. If he were to unleash a nuclear missile on the USA, it seems much more effective to have an ABM system waiting to intercept it than a thick notebook of paper, signed almost thirty years ago, by men who did try their best, but could never have foreseen the threat realized today of a radical leader, with his hand on the button of such great destructive force.
Free research essays on topics related to: soviet union, moral standard, nuclear arms, nuclear powers, universal moral
Research essay sample on Universal Moral Nuclear Powers
