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..."
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.)"
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."
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)."
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."
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."
Abstract This paper discusses the factors that caused the Sino-Soviet Split between 1954 and 1964 and changed the character of the Cold War. In addition, this paper discusses the way in which the emergence of open civil war in world communism gave the forces of freedom and those charged with the security of the United States new opportunity and new reason for optimism about the future.
From the Paper "A deeper study of history might have enabled Americans to understand much earlier the potentials of the Chinese-Soviet conflict. There is much material in the history both of international Marxism (international Communism) and of Russian-Chinese relations that clearly foreshadows the present conflict."
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 In looking at the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq, this paper discusses the increase in the threat to national security, the destabilizatiuon 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."
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 ..."
Abstract This paper examines to what extent did strategic preparation for the Russo-Japanese War determine the success of the belligerents in its outcome. It also looks at which side did the better job of planning for the termination of the war. The paper shows that there is no doubt that the Japanese were more prepared than the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. While the Russians were trying to become an imperial nation without understanding the costs associated with being one, the Japanese drew up a plan to confront the Russians. The keystone to this plan included a naval buildup to control the seas surrounding Japan, and a system of alliances that would eliminate foreign intervention. In addition, Japan studied its enemy and devised a strategy that would cripple the Russian fleet and capture the Korean peninsula. The paper shows that the Russians had no plan except for the complete overthrow of Japan and its disarmament. While Russia did not use the tools necessary to win a decision, Japan planned and executed an almost flawless limited war against a much greater power.
Paper Outline
Introduction
The Seeds of War
Preparing for Battle
Balance of Power
Planning of the War
Termination of the War
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper "As stated previously, Japanese strategists had studied the future conflict and made key assumptions. These assumptions focused on the fact that Japan had to prevent Russia from escalating the conflict and asserting its full strength in the war. Lastly, Japan would have to convince Russia that it could not win. It has already been seen that escalation would have been difficult as Russia was already diplomatically isolated and could not bring in new allies. In addition, Russian could not truly expand the war since Japan controlled the seas, and an attack on the Japanese islands was unlikely. Lastly, since Japan had limited objectives and never invaded Russian soil, the quantity and quality of Russian troops never developed."
Tags: mahan, sun, tzu, Manchuria, Vladivostok, Port, Arthur
Abstract This paper explains that the possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea is a problem because of its deviant and erratic behavior, capricious communist leaders, impoverished citizens and the serious threat to its neighbors and the international population. The author points out that, from the North Korean viewpoint, it requires a nuclear weapons program for self-preservation especially against the inevitable attack from the United States; having a nuclear program is the only way it will be able to negotiate with the United States. The paper explains that the argument of the global community over the ever-changing standards used to decide if a country is suitable for nuclear weapons development is complicated by differing motives, such as power, influence, nationalistic pride and security nations; however, when these motives are pushed too far and manifest into irresponsible or unpredictable behavior, the international community is required to aggressively pursue disarmament, as is the case for North Korea.
From the Paper "President Clinton, who served dual terms from 1993-2000, was a firm believer in the power of diplomacy to sway the Koreans and employed lots of negotiation devices throughout his term. Conversely, President Bush, who served from 2001 to the present, is commonly portrayed as taking a tougher stance on foreign relations and decided to decline all bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Agreeing to meet with North Korea one on one would be appeasement in his eyes and Bush argued that he would not seek to pacify the Koreans; rather the President wished for the nations of South Korea, Japan, and China to also engage with North Korea and take greater responsibility in the dispute, citing their regional responsibility. Lastly, in 2003 President Bush cancelled the Agreed Framework pact, created by the Clinton administration in 1994, and ended the regular fuel shipments to North Korea."
Abstract The paper applies Fisher and Ury's four principles of negotiation to the U.S. - Iraq conflict. It identifies the issues facing each of the parties, and analyzes why they are unready for negotiations. The paper concludes with the hope that some third party, such as the United Nations, might be able to step in and resolve the crisis. Note: The paper was written while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
From the Paper "The first step is to identify each party's interests. For the government of the United States, the interests are abundantly clear and have been repeatedly, positively stated: to protect the people and resources of America from a future terrorist attack. Allegations of "secret" interests - needing a new, cheap source of oil or the base desire to take revenge on the Arab world - have been just as abundant but are neither acknowledged by the government nor founded on any evidence, historical or otherwise; so until they are admitted or proven, they only serve as obstacles to negotiation. At this point in time, Iraq's primary interests exist as a response to America's positioning; the Iraqi government would like to survive in its current state and also to strengthen its economic and military situation."
Abstract In this article, the writer points out that in order for one to determine whether or not the United Nations has been successful at accomplishing its goals, one must look to the advantages and disadvantages of the United Nations. Further the writer notes that to do so, one must look at the United Nations' peacekeeping capabilities, arms control and disarmament policies, human rights work and humanitarian aid. The writer also discusses how those policies have been applied to member and non-member nations. The writer concludes that in order to move the United Nation towards its goals of bringing peace and improving the quality of life of all people, the United Nations may need to undergo a restructuring, which would make the United Nations more likely to intervene on behalf of citizens in less influential nations.
From the Paper "One of the main critiques of the League of Nations, which was the predecessor to the United Nations, was that it had no power to enforce its recommendations. Therefore, a relative advantage of the United Nations is that it has the authority to send troops to locations where violence is threatened. This power is referred to as peacekeeping. According to the Human Security Centre, the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts appear to have resulted in a less violence world by eliminating colonial conflicts, reducing interstate wars, and reducing genocide and politicide. In fact, the most powerful testament to the United Nations' peacekeeping ability is the fact that there has not been a third world war. However, it would be inaccurate to simply label the United Nation's peacekeeping power solely as an advantage, because history has revealed that it has not been applied consistently. For example, the United Nations has either been reluctant to use its peacekeeping powers to aid people in Africa, or has proven woefully unsuccessful when it has attempted to do so."
Tags: development, human, rights, peacekeeping, humanitarian, aid
Abstract This paper states that its research on the issue of civic engagement in global public policy confirms that citizens and peace activists all over the world have organized transnational networks in order to influence arms control policies and bring about change. Their efforts have produced mixed results, from remarkable success to complete failure. Ultimately, their influence on arms control policy depends upon their ability to generate public support for arms reductions, for public support translates into political pressure on government policymakers. The paper brings historical examples from the Cold War to illustrate this, such as the Cuban missile crisis, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union, the Salt I Treaty, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the START treaty. The paper concludes by stating that arms and militarism have been an inseparable part of every major empire or culture throughout human history and that this is a dilemma peace activists may not be able to resolve. The paper includes an annotated bibliography.
From the Paper "Civic engagement on arms control policy emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War in response to the development and deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union amassed huge arsenals of atomic bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic jet bombers, and ballistic missile submarines, and it seemed that conventional battles fought by massed armies of tanks and infantry would never occur again. The general consensus among government officials and the public as well was that possession of nuclear weapons was the new measure of any nation's military power."
