| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION": |
|
|
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.
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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.
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) "
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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..."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 2005.
A thorough analysis of the arguments in favor of nuclear proliferation and the arguments opposed to it.
2,676 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at the arguments opposed to and in favor of nuclear proliferation, noting the politics and philosophies behind both sides. After summarizing the arguments, the paper then concludes that, ironically, the very factors and sentiments that encourage nuclear proliferation are the same as those that discourage its proliferation.
From the Paper
"Ever since the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has been polarized into two different groups: one that supports nuclear proliferation, and another that vehemently campaigns against the piling up of nuclear material in the world. Both groups have their own arguments to justify their stand. While those who oppose nuclear weapons argue that nuclear proliferation endangers the very existence of the world and international peace, the supporters of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear weapons are required as a deterrent force. The American policy of minimum deterrence echoes this sentiment. However, considering the fact that the world reached dangerously close to an all out nuclear war way back in the eighties during the cold war years, points to the fact that the policy of minimum deterrence can, in the hands of hot-headed heads of states, become a very dangerous tool for political manipulation."
| |
|
Small Arms Proliferation and Misuse in the Southeast Asia, 2003.
A look at the proliferation of small arms and their subsequent misuse by criminal elements in Southeast Asia.
1,204 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the impact of small arms proliferation in Southeast Asian region. It highlights studies that detail illegal activities that allow rebels access to small arms with which to perpetrate further chaos in the country by undermining vital aspects of basic human security.
Contents
Introduction
Small Arms Proliferation and its Impacts on Human Security in Southeast Asia
From the Paper
"According to the "Small Arms Survey 2002: Counting the Human Cost" published by the University of Geneva, the total number of human lives lost to small arms has reached approximately 639 million worldwide. Relatedly, according to the United Nations, the current number of small arms around the world is estimated to be 500 million to 1 billion. Light weapons are found to be the principal cause of death in conflicts around the world with the vast number of casualties belonging to civilians. It appears that despite the numerous lives lost, small arms and light weapons remain largely available in the world.
Small arms proliferation and their subsequent misuse by criminal elements have not only caused massive deaths but also undermined the equally important aspects of human security. These aspects include economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security. With the increasing level of small arms proliferation and the resulting instability and insecurity it causes, human security is threatened. It serves to prolong the violent intra-state conflicts, and worst, encourage the demand for more arms for more profit to arms peddlers and for self-defense of neglected civilians. It is in this context that human security is examined amidst the proliferation and misuse of small arms in Southeast Asia."
| |
|
International Conflict between Iran and the U.S, 2005.
An analysis of the international conflict between Iran and the U.S., focussing on Iran's nuclear proliferation and the ideological differences between the two nations.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the conflict that has been brewing between the United States and Iran, which has revolved ostensibly around Iran's possible violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The paper shows that the conflict between Iran and the U.S. has been evident in the international policies of both nations. Iran has engaged in a series of political and economic actions that are directed squarely at undermining the U.S.'s international authority. The U.S., in turn, has tried to rally international support, largely through the United Nations Security Council, to control Iran's actions.
| |
|
International Challenges, 2005.
A discussion of the three biggest challenges facing the international community - inequality, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
1,542 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper posits that inequality, terrorism and nuclear proliferation are major issues for the governments of the superpowers. The writer argues that these challenges have assumed crucial importance in recent times and have significantly affected international relations. If the international community fails to tackle these issues satisfactorily over the next few decades, they may become uncontrollable with overwhelming consequences for the whole world. This essay looks briefly at these three issues in turn and explains how they affect the current and future international relations.
From the Paper
"Economic and social inequality has assumed grotesque proportions in recent times and the indications are that it is on the rise. For example, the richest 1% in the world (50 million people) have income equivalent to the poorest 57% (2.6 billion people) and four fifths of the world's population live below what countries in North America and Europe consider the poverty line. The rising trend of income inequality is reflected in the fact that "the share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income now stands at a miserable 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960." ("Inequality"-World Revolution.org)"
| |
|
Weapons Proliferation, 2004.
A discussion about the balance of trade regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the threat towards America.
945 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly discusses the threat that WMD pose to America because of the trading of nuclear weapons. It discusses the treaty signed by most countries in the world and how UN control of the trade of these weapons is essential in preventing a disastrous nuclear war.
From the Paper
"Weapons proliferation, simply defined, is the rapid increase or spread of weapons in the context of global security. If we are to measure the weapons capabilities of the world, the United States retains the lion?s share: in 2002 the Economist estimated that American military spending would exceed 379 billion in 2003 (Economist, 6/18/2002.) For comparison?s sake, Russia, the world?s second largest nuclear power, had a total GDP of merely 346.6 billion in 2002 (Economist, 7/22/2003.) However, the ?balance of terror? that underscored the cold war era was in many ways much safer than the current situation. Whereas ?weapons proliferation? once referred to the number of weapons in existence, it has taken on a new meaning; it now is usually meant to reflect the number of political entities capable of using weapons of mass destruction. The number of such countries has increased beyond UN Security Council permanent members to include India, Pakistan, Israel and perhaps most notably North Korea."
|
|
|
