| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION INDIA PAKISTAN": |
|
|
Nuclear Proliferation: India and Pakistan, 2008.
This paper explores the nuclear weaponry proliferation in India and Pakistan.
3,031 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the nuclear weaponry proliferation from a "collective goods" perspective and explores the many reasons why a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan will not lead to a stable balance of power in the region. The paper discusses international terrorism, sectarian and ethnic hatreds, deep-seated paranoia and the fact that Pakistan is overly-reliant upon its nuclear weaponry for its defense. The paper therefore argues that India and Pakistan should be discouraged from their present nuclear build-ups.
From the Paper
"To start with, "collective goods" is really a term drawn from economics - albeit it is one that can be applied to a number of different disciplines depending upon the context within which it is being introduced. For our purposes, "collective goods" are really public goods wherein the item in question cannot be withheld from one consumer without also withholding it from all consumers. A classic example of this is national defense whereby a nation cannot defend its borders without also defending all individuals who reside within those borders at any one time - including foreigners or "undesirables". Additionally, the "flip-side" of collective goods is that, not only are they items which cannot practicably be denied to any one person, but they are also items which benefit those who simply refuse to pay for them; suffice it to say, the collective good makes "free-riders" out of many people (Yamagishi & Sato, 67-69). This concept has immediate application to the issue of nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan."
| |
|
Nuclear Confrontation Between India and Pakistan, 2007.
An analysis of the implications for the area of the continuing threat of nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan.
1,271 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the historical and ideological roots of the conflict between India and Pakistan and its contemporary nuclear manifestation. It discusses how this nuclear saber rattling, specifically over the continuing conflict in Kashmir, will continue to be a threat toward security for the region and how there is no likely resolution in the near future. It also analyzes the implications for the business community.
From the Paper
"Both India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices in May 1998 (Ganguly, 2002). This was a critical turning point in the political relations between Indian and Pakistan. Further it represents one of the most significant contemporary issues facing India. That the nuclear conflict is constructed on an historical conflict of control of the Kashmir region is only the background of the issue. Kashmir is a territory essentially caught in the middle of nuclear "saber rattling" (Oberoi, 2001). The real problem facing political stability in the region at this point is the proliferation of nuclear arms in both India and Pakistan. "
| |
|
India and Pakistan Nuclear Conflict, 2003.
An analysis of the nuclear confrontation in Southeast Asia.
3,766 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 22 sources, MLA, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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)."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2001.
A look at how the introduction of nuclear warfare has impacted conflict between India and Pakistan and the world.
2,010 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 5 sources, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An examination of the ongoing conflicts between India and Pakistan and how the introduction of nuclear weapons has effected their conflicting relationship. The author reveals how nuclear proliferation has its bonuses in minimizing threat between the two countries yet simultaneously threatening global security.
From the Paper
"There is no larger threat to the world than nuclear warfare. A World War in which nuclear weapons were used would undoubtedly cease life as we know it on earth. This outcome would be attributed to the direct effects of the bombs and the indirect effects a nuclear winter would bring about. This fact leads the majority of people to believe that the less amount of nuclear weapons on the planet the better. Now let?s say that you live in India or Pakistan, neighboring countries that have fought each other in the past. Many people have died in battles between these two countries. Within the last few years each of these countries has acknowledged the fact that they possess nuclear weapons by testing them underground for the world, and especially each other, to see. So was the introduction of nuclear weapons a good or bad thing for the future of relations between India and Pakistan? The introduction of nuclear weapons into the militaries of these two regional powers was a huge step in reducing the chance of all-out war between the two rivals due to nuclear deterrence. However, just because the threat of nuclear attack has slowly helped start India and Pakistan on the road to peace, it does not necessarily mean that the world would be better off if every nation had nuclear weapons."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2006.
A critical statistical analysis of the relationship between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
2,888 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper employs a critical review of the body of literature, original research synthesis to determine if indeed a causal relationship can be found between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An exhaustive statistical regression analysis illustrates that the relationship between the aforementioned variables is not significant and thus, that the hypothesis of correlation and causation cannot be confirmed. However, the paper goes on to provide evidence to suggest correlation between the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other factors such as global military tensions and certain categories of world events. The paper includes graphs and tables.
Paper Outline:
Literature Review
Proposal
Data Sources
Data Analysis
Results and Interpretation
Discussion
Conclusion
Reference List
From the Paper
"The body of literature is generally in concessus with regard to the link between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is, however, disagreement over the method by which nuclear weapons and materials are spread. Some argue that terrorist organisations and rogue states are able to acquire enriched uranium from nuclear waste deposits. Others claim that these parties are more likely to invest in nuclear energy technology as a means of acquiring nuclear weapons while other still claim that the link between these two factors in negligible or non existent. "
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2002.
The necessity for a strong U.S. policy to control the danger of nuclear proliferation.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the necessary elements for an effective U.S. policy stance on nuclear arms and nuclear proliferation control. It examines both political policy and military options necessary to counter nuclear program advancements in hostile countries.
| |
|
North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation, 2005.
This paper discusses the arguments for and against North Korean nuclear proliferation.
2,540 words (approx. 10.2 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
India and Pakistan, 2004.
This paper discusses the history and relationship of India and Pakistan.
3,930 words (approx. 15.7 pages), 18 sources, MLA, $ 107.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that India and Pakistan have been arch-rivals since the partition of the sub-continent that took place more than 50 years ago; their animosity goes back a long time and finds its main causes in religion and history. The paper shows how this animosity has turned into a deadly arms race. The author points out that Pakistan never accepted the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India. The paper relates that the culture of medieval terrorism has spread throughout Pakistan because the Pakistan government has permissive attitudes towards terrorism and uses Islamic Jihad terrorism against India.
Table of Contents
History of India and Pakistan Relations
Independence and Partition
The Fight for Pakistan's Independence
War and Revolt
The Kashmir Conflict and the Wars Fought between India and Pakistan
Civil Unrest in the State of Jammu and Kashmir before the Issue of Accession
The Transfer of Power in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947
Accession
The Plebiscite
First Indo-Pakistani War over the State of Jammu and Kashmir
Second Indo-Pakistani War over the State of Jammu and Kashmir
Third Indo-Pakistani War
The Current Situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir
Social and Economic Problems in Pakistan and India
Effect of September 11th on India and Pakistan
Pakistan
India
The Culture of Terrorism
The Nuclear Capabilities of the Two Countries
From the Paper
"In 1931, the Maharaja's officials in the Jammu Province disrupted many different Muslim prayer congregations and insulted the Holy Quran. This caused a massive outrage among the Muslim community. The Muslims held many meetings and processions. At a meeting, Abdul Qadeer delivered a violent speech against the Maharaja. He was arrested by the police and charged for sedition. During his trial, the police shot a crowd of Muslim protesters outside the Srinagar Central Goal, taking the lives of twenty-two demonstrators and a policeman. This day is known as "Martyrs Day" in the history of Kashmir, marked as the beginning of the struggle of the Muslim Kashmiris for independence from the Indian government."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2001.
A discussion of how the possession of nuclear weapons can increase or decrease the security of states.
1,195 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 3 sources, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This term paper discusses the benefits & drawbacks of nuclear proliferation and how it can increase or decrease the security dilemma. It shows the main concern that lies at the heart of the issue of nuclear proliferation to be the security of states.
From the Paper
"Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weapons, occurs in two ways: vertically and horizontally. Vertical proliferation occurs at a time when a country already owning nuclear weapons increases the size of its arsenals. However, the main fear lies with horizontal proliferation. Horizontal proliferation involves the spread of nuclear weapons to currently non-nuclear states. Some fear that if non-nuclear states acquire arms, it results in decreased security for all states. Others argue that if all states possess arms then the fear of a nuclear war deters states from using their nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. The question most often associated with the debate of nuclear proliferation states: Does nuclear proliferation increase or decrease the security of states? This question, commonly known as the security dilemma, lies at the heart of this issue. Opponents of nuclear proliferation claim that the emergence of new nuclear states decreases security because new nuclear states come in hostile pairs, have governments and societies that are not well rooted, and increase the likelihood of nuclear accidents and terrorist thefts of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear proliferation state that the emergence of new nuclear states increases security because new nuclear states alter the dynamics of arms races and deterrent balances are inherently stable."
| |
|
U.S. and Iran Relations in Nuclear Proliferation, 2005.
This paper explores in detail the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear weapons while examining America's methods of sustaining its hegemonic presence in the world.
2,159 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines both sides of the nuclear issue by stating Iran has concerns regarding the attainment of nuclear technology but wishes to appear to the world as an advanced and well-developed nation. With nuclear weapons, Iran's influence in the Middle East could be increased which could entail an alliance with Iraq that would promote anti-U.S. sentiment resulting in undermining U.S. efforts in the Middle East in general. The writer of this paper focuses on the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran on the matter of nuclear non-proliferation and explains in-depth how the U.S. is using a web of approaches to maintain its world wide hegemonic presence.
From the Paper
"The behavior of the United States towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear non-proliferation could be viewed through a number of theories, but the most proficient analysis of this situation is achieved through regime theory. Foremost, we must understand the issues surrounding why the U.S. wants to halt Iran's desire for nuclear technology. Since Iran does not currently have nuclear capabilities, it would be nearly impossible for them to launch a trans-Atlantic attack for a period of 5-10 years. Although that possibility seems unlikely, the U.S. is promoting the prevention of such a future assault. Another possibility is that if Iran was able to hone nuclear technology, other Arab states such as Egypt and Syria would feel threatened by this considering the negative relations of Iran and Israel, and would not want to be caught in the middle."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2006.
An analysis of "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed" by Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan.
1,284 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan look through two completely different lenses when looking at the realities of the world, where Waltz's theory is neo-realist structural theory and Sagan's is organization theory. It looks at how their two theories regarding nuclear proliferation have led us to emphasize different aspects of nuclear history and to predict very different nuclear futures.
From the Paper
"Waltz does not think that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, as he says many times "Nuclear weapons make wars hard to start." (Sagan and Waltz p.45) He believes that deterrence will continue to work; although he is not promoting proliferation he is just realistic by saying proliferation will continue and then he has an optimistic proliferation outlook for what this means to the world. Waltz believes that, "the behavior of new nuclear states will reflect their interest in avoiding nuclear war. New nuclear powers will avoid preventive nuclear wars, develop survivable nuclear arsenals, and prevent nuclear weapons accidents because it is in their obvious national interests to do so." (Sagan and Waltz p. 83) "
| |
|
Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, 1996.
History & 1995 permanent international ratification, negotiations, nuclear & non-nuclear states, principles & provisions, review conferences, U.S. public opinion, unresolved problems.
4,275 words (approx. 17.1 pages), 14 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was made permanent in May, 25 years after it entered into force and nearly 50 years after the United States wrought devastation on Hiroshima. The four-week NPT Review and Extension Conference, held in New York April 17 to May 12, was the largest arms control conference ever held, with 175 of the treaty's 178 parties participating ("How to," 1995, p. 28). No state got all it wanted, although the weapon states had more reason to be satisfied than the non-weapon states.
The United States, Russia, Britain, and France wanted the treaty extended indefinitely and unconditionally. Only the first part of their..."
| |
|
India and Pakistan, 2008.
A comparative analysis of India and Pakistan.
2,677 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, although India and Pakistan jointly won their independence from Britain on August 15th, 1947, following a nationalist struggle within British Colonial India lasting nearly three decades, they differ greatly in matters of politics, economics and law. The paper also looks at how, since partition, India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the disputed area of Kashmir as well as a number of skirmishes although tensions between the two have dissipated significantly since 2004 when war almost broke out. The paper relates that the two countries have also been involved in a nuclear arms race which culminated in both countries testing nuclear weapons in 1998.
From the Paper
"The Pakistani legal system is based on English common law with provisions that account for Pakistan being an Islamic state. Pakistan accepts obligatory International Court of Justice jurisdiction, with reservations. The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, provincial high courts, and a Federal Islamic (or Shari'a) Court. The president appoints the chief justice of the Supreme Court and together they determine the remaining judicial appointments. Each province has a high court whose justices are appointed by the president after discussions with the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the provincial chief justice. The judiciary is prohibited from issuing any order divergent to the decisions of the President. Federal Shari'a Court hears cases that primarily involve Shari'a, or Islamic law. Legislation enacted in 1991 gave legal status to the Shari'a court. Although Shari'a was declared the law of the land, it did not replace the existing legal code. "
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 1995.
This paper discusses the Ameican and international concerns and efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons in Third World: Background, examples and monitoring.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 8 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The United States developed the first atomic bomb and used it to end World War II in 1945. After the war, the world was marked by a Cold War that lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s. During that long period of time, a number of other nations joined the nuclear club by developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and one of the primary goals of American foreign policy was to limit nuclear proliferation to the greatest degree possible. In the changed world circumstances faced today, the danger of nuclear proliferation has not passed. Instead, there is more and more concern about new technological developments that might make it possible for smaller and less-developed nations to produce nuclear weapons that would be smaller and more powerful than the bombs used on Japan in 1945."
| |
|
India and Pakistan, 2006.
This paper discusses and compares various economic statistics regarding India and Pakistan.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares economic and population data on India and Pakistan, noting that India is a moderate-sized country with a huge population. The writer states that over-population is one of the problems facing India, and that data on this subject can be found easily using an Internet search engine. The writer notes that one site that offers a good deal of data is known as Data & Statistics, a site offering data gathered by the World Bank on different countries, and with a specific section on Development Goals for India.
From the Paper
"India is a moderate-sized country with a huge population. Over-population is one of the problems facing India, and data on this subject can be found easily using an Internet search engine. One site that offers a good deal of data is known as Data & Statistics, a site offering data gathered by the World Bank on different countries, and with a specific section on Development Goals for India. The most current data on the site is for 2004. According to this site, the population of India reached 1.1 billion in 2003 and remained at that level in 2004, up from 1 billion in 2000. The growth rate has been slowing slightly, down to 1.4 percent in 2004 from 1.7 percent in 2000. For 2000, the last year with full data, the national poverty rate stood at 28.6 percent of the population."
|
|
|
