Abstract
This paper discusses the chronology of various peace treaties and disarmament agreements between the United States and Russia. It looks at issues surrounding what transpired after the Vietnam war in terms of anti-nuclear protests which later led to nuclear weaponry reduction by the super powers. The aftermath of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki left many dead, disfigured, and exposed to radiation, thus propelling the movement towards peace.

From the Paper
"Ever since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 the world community has pressed for nuclear disarmament as many people have recognized that the use of nuclear weapons was/is not only immoral, but also genocidal (Allied, 2002). Arms control in the 21st century is a hot topic, particularly in light of the recent and ongoing terrorist threats. Over the past few years there has been great success in terms of arms control setting the precedence for the continued prevention against nuclear weaponry and has resulted in the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons have built up over the past fifty years, thus posing as a serious threat to security in the post Cold-War world (Mishra, 2000). After the Cold War ended, disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the United States stepping..."

Tags:disarmament, control, peace

Abstract
The paper reveals that the amount of known nuclear weapons that exist today is enough to destroy the planet several times over! The paper discusses the United States' and other nations' commitment to continue developing nuclear weapons. The paper looks at the ethical and moral issues associated with disarmament. The paper explains that solutions to the problem are complicated and multifaceted, but maintains that educating the public about expenditures and effects of this powerful and antiquated weaponry is clearly the best possible way to help solve the growing nuclear arms problem.

From the Paper
"Using the tools of social analysis to look at this immense social problem gleans information that demonstrates both the nature of the problem and the immense level of resources and negotiations that would have to take place in order to even begin to reach levels of total disarmament, a goal that many seek, while others thwart it, that is seemingly insurmountable in its complexities. (Nuclear Weapons Proliferation website MSNEncarta) Many cultural issues need to be addressed as well as strategic policies and demands that are as diverse as the types of weapons that exist and the personalities of the nations and individuals involved. The nature of the problem has it seeds in the complicated manner in which nuclear weapons have become so prolific (a fact that you will see in the following passages.)"

Tags:stockpile, defense, spending, technology, energy, warheads

Abstract
This paper documents Ruth Rosen's belief that guns, instead of securing women's safety, create an atmosphere of violence and fear. It discusses her crusade through her book to persuade her readers that gun control is a women's issue and women should be more concerned about curbing gun violence in their communities.

From the Paper
"Ruth Rosen has no formal authority on the issue of gun control. What does, however, make her an "expert" for the purposes of her essay is her connection with Betty Friedan, the first president of the National Organization for Women. That she was invited by Friedan to the conference addressing gun violence specifically as a women's issue, the audience imagines Rosen to be a close associate of the esteemed Friedan."

Tags:gun, control, violence, firearms, rights, freedom

Abstract
The paper discusses the problem of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects should one country decide to launch a missile. The paper explains that this would make it an international problem, not knowing how long or how wide the effects will be from that one nuclear weapon.

From the Paper
"The Middle East has many international issues that are affecting it and the rest of the world: terrorism, border disputes, nuclear weapons, civil war and religion are just a few that are affecting the rest of the world. This multilateral issue of nuclear weapons is a major contemporary international problem, the fact that the launch of just one missile will not only affect the intended victims, but many others for an unlimited time. Their will be no control over the massive destruction nor the long-term effect on the people or the land. When you have countries like Pakistan, Israel and Iran who have admitted..."

Tags:contemporary, international, issues

From the Paper
"This study will discuss strategic arms control and disarmament issues between the United States and the Soviet Union. The study will briefly review the evolution of these issues from the end of World War II up to February, 1992, in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the extremely uncertain and unstable circumstances which prevail as a result of that disintegration.

The Cold War (now declared "dead" in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union) stretched over more than four decades and was most terrifying in terms of the nuclear issues which dominated that period from the end of World War II to late 1991 when the Soviet Union was officially broken up. For the bulk of that period --- in the wake of the American bombing of two Japanese cities and the creation by the Soviets of their own ..."

From the Paper
"Chemical Warfare and the U.S. Army
Executive Summary of Findings and Conclusions
The United States Army exercises important responsibilities in relation to chemical warfare in three specific focus areas in the contemporary period. These focus areas are as follows: (1) combat chemical warfare defense, wherein the Army is responsible for the research, development, and testing of effective defenses for United States military forces against attacks employing chemical weapons of mass destruction; (2) chemical warfare disarmament, wherein the Army is the primary lead agency of the United States government in the program for the destruction of the nation's chemical weapons stockpile as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty; and (3) providing support for domestic defense against chemical weapons of mass destruction..."

Abstract
The author takes a look at the two newest declared nuclear powers: India and Pakistan. The author analyzes the potential solutions for resolving the conflict as well as short-term safety concerns. The author examines the CTBT, a Fissile Materials Production Cutoff Treaty, Permissive Action Links, and nuclear disarmament as potential solutions before arriving at his conclusion.

From the Paper
"Albert Einstein once remarked that, "Bullets kill men, but atomic bombs kill cities. A tank is a defense against a bullet, but there is no defense against a weapon that can destroy civilization. ... Our defense is law and order" (Calaprice, 2000, p. 177). The Nuclear situation that exists between India and Pakistan is one that deserves much more attention from US policymakers than it currently receives. The United States should play a significant role in any nuclear regime change that would take place in India or Pakistan. Because the United States is a trusted negotiator by both sides, it has a unique role that it can play (Bajpai, 2003, p. 125). The options that the US could pursue are not all direct actions. Sometimes the best way to influence policy is not through coercion but through leadership and example setting. While many options exist, the four policy choices that should be examined more closely are CTBT ratification, a Fissile Materials Production Cutoff Treaty, sharing Permissive Action Links with Pakistan or both countries, and finally nuclear disarmament as set forth by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."

Tags:arms, control, ctbt, disarmament, fmct, non, npt, pals, proliferation, treaty, weapons

Abstract
The writer gives explanations clarifying why Canada should retain a position of opposition to nuclear missile defense (NMD) and gives alternative solutions to the support of NMD. The paper examines the effects of such opposition on bilateral relations with the USA. It also explores the results of supporting NMD both in the short term and in the long term. The writer sees Canada as universal peacekeepers and nuclear disarmament advocates.

From the Paper
"This means Canada must be on the offensive diplomatically and defensively to preserve relations and security. Diplomatically, we must stress to the US that by acquiescing and allowing NMD to operate within NORAD, split security standards could develop that at present would be detrimental to Canada. Moreover, having NMD capability may incline the US to intervene in matters that we as Canadians and international peacekeepers would never get involved with but would automatically be engaged in because of NORAD."

Tags:disarmament, Russia, China, Israel

Abstract
This paper examines the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was signed in 1968 by 189 countries and which places limits on the amounts and types of nuclear weapons that a country can own. The paper discusses the goal of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its limitations. The focus of the paper concerns whether total disarmament can be a reality and the United States' position on the issue.

Table of Contents:
Can Total Disarmament Be A Reality?
Shifting the Balance of Power
The Politics of Proliferation
Article X and General War Withdrawal
What is next for US Non-Proliferation Policy?

From the Paper
"The US needs to provide the same transparency that it demands from others with nuclear capabilities. Cold War rhetoric and tactics are no longer valid stances in terms of nuclear proliferation. These additions to US nuclear policy reflect recognition that the atmosphere has changed in relation to nuclear arms and their use. New players in the game have caused a need to shift from a generalized nuclear policy to one that takes into account every individual circumstance. The US needs to adopt a new philosophy that reflects cultural sensitivity and that reflects the situation that exists between the US and each individual entity in the nuclear playing field."

Tags:weapons, production, security, Iran

Abstract
In looking at the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq, this paper discusses the increase in the threat to national security, the destabilization of world peace and the violation of democratic principles. The author draws the conclusion that America would be violating each and every principle that it claims to uphold if it chooses to go to war with Iraq.

Outline
1. An increase in the threat to national security.
a. Mercenary and fundamentalist factions in Afghanistan that once followed U.S. wishes turned against the U.S. post the Gulf War against Iraq, ultimately leading to September 11, 2001.
b. Rise in anti-American sentiment
i. Questions over U.S. rhetoric and double standards such as categorizing Iraq and Iran as belonging to the "axis of evil," but continuing to turn a blind eye to terrorist activity in Pakistan within its own borders and in Kashmir.
2. Destabilization of world peace
a. U.S. action against Iraq could lead to further destabilization of the entire Middle East region, as opined by many leading experts.

b. Breakdown of international arms non-proliferation and disarmament efforts since U.S. preemptive action will lend further justification to countries of different ideological leanings to arm themselves in the interests of national self-defense.

3. Violation of democratic principles
a. The right of the people of each country to choose their preferred course of action and if so desired overthrow their own government, which has been exercised time and again in world history
i. Our own struggle to break away from British Imperialism
ii. India's freedom of struggle against the British using non-violent principles and forms of rebellion.
iii. The increasing fall in U.S. public opinion
b. A war against an already deprived and suffering nation raises questions about humanitarian principles.
4. In conclusion, we will be violating each and every principle that we claim to uphold if we choose to go to war with Iraq.

From the Paper
"I don't think anyone in the free world doubts that Saddam Hussein is a "threat" to international peace. However, any military action is likely to be risky and self-defeating at this point in time. To start with, any U.S. action against Iraq and that too, without support from the UN and the international community is likely to endanger and not protect national security. For after all, let's not forget and let's face upto the fact that Osama was, in many ways, a creation of the U.S., who brought together a combination of communal factions and mercenaries in Afghanistan during the years of the Cold War, on the platform of anti-communism and "jehad." Post the end of the Cold War, however, various interested factions in the Islamic world continued to use Afghanistan and the very same U.S. creations of jehadis to spread Islamic fundamentalism."

Tags:hussein, invade, security, peace, democracy, saddam