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 nuclearproliferation 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."
Tags: cold, india, pakistan, war, security, destruction, human
Abstract This term paper discusses the benefits & drawbacks of nuclearproliferation and how it can increase or decrease the security dilemma. It shows the main concern that lies at the heart of the issue of nuclearproliferation 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."
Tags: arms, cold, dilemma, nuclear, proliferation, race, security, war
Abstract This paper discusses the problem of nuclearproliferation in modern society. It describes the historical purpose of nuclearproliferation and the positive uses of nuclearproliferation. The paper then looks at both sides of the argument of whether to continue with nuclearproliferation or not. It discusses the benefits and the associated problems with nuclearproliferation and argues against nuclearproliferation.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Body
Counter Argument
Conclusion
From the Paper "In conclusion it is clear that nuclear proliferation will remain one of the most significant issues of the modern world, as many nations North Korea, India, Iran and some unknown organizations through secretive or diplomatic means wish to continue in their bid to gain such weapons and there is really not that much that can be done to stop it, especially idealistically and despite the social and physical cost. Additionally, though nuclear proliferation serves a purpose in history, as a deterrent it is very difficult to say this is still the case as most are aware that responsible nations are even less likely to use such weapons today than they ever have been. Lastly, the utilization of nuclear technology for peaceful means, as the energy crisis grows in the world will further complicate the reality, despite the destructive capacity, even of these technologies. Peaceful use of nuclear technology can also seriously impede the ability of regulatory commissions and review boards to investigate, as nations have been deceptive in the past with regard to development."
Abstract The paper discusses the implications of modern nuclearproliferation in a regional and international arena and highlights the importance of North Korea's nuclearproliferation in the Korean Peninsula. The paper utilizes the Lockwood analytical method for prediction (LAMP) method of analysis to appropriately predict the outcomes of North Korea's nuclear plans and their effects on the Korean peninsula.
Outline:
Introduction
Issue Identification
National Actors
In-depth Perceptual Study of Issue
Possible Courses of Action
Major Scenarios
Total Number of Permutations
Pairwise Comparison Results, Ranking and Analysis
Potential for Transposing
Conclusion and Focal Events
From the Paper "This work will serve as a Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction (LAMP) analysis of the question of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula. As an emerging nuclear power North Korea may significantly change the manner in which the political world interacts with it, though you would think that it would not be likely to alter the manner in which individual North and South Koreans live their lives. Though this is clearly a simplistic and westernized view, as the understanding of the strength of a nation is intrinsic we, especially as Americans live in a state of almost constant denial of the manner in which the nation has developed "security," perceptually or otherwise. This is including a relatively low level of knowledge among common folk about the nature of armament."
Tags: scenarios, permutations, military, action, stalemate, unification, South, Korea
Abstract This paper serves as a Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction (LAMP) analysis of the question of nuclearproliferation in the Korean Peninsula. It describes the history and development of North Korea andr then discusses how North Korea's emergence as a nuclear power will affect nuclearproliferation in the Korean Peninsula and surrounding nations or national interests.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Issue Identification
National Actors
Possible Courses of Action
Major Scenarios
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Total Number of Permutations
Pair-wise Comparison Results, Ranking and Analysis
Conclusion and Focal Events
From the Paper "To many, North Korea is emerging as a noticeable player in the world, owing almost entirely to its bid to create and manufacture a nuclear arsenal. In the summer of 2006, in fact on July 4th, not coincidentally the US national independence day holiday, North Korea tested at least seven nuclear missiles. ("The Real WMDs; by," 2006, p. 14) This event was a slap in the face to the current international players in the arms race, and especially the US who chose, for ease of conviction, post 9/11 to strike Iraq, rather than N. Korea, as its first step in the "war on terror." This event also marks the beginning of a show of power on the part of N. Korea, to not only deploy weapons for testing, a kind of shooting into the air, but to continue to develop and employ them as part of their own security strategy, despite international pressure to cease and desist. There is no real question that current event could begin the process of one of the eventual scenarios, outline by the LAMP method analysis above. Each primary and secondary player will likely have a political, economic and popular response to the events. Increased fear in each nation, both primary and secondary as well as furtherance of reports of total economic and humanitarian breakdown in N. Korea will also likely continue to feed the potential for conflict and hopefully eventual resolution, of some kind. Ideally such a resolution would involve peaceful aspects rather than militaristic ones but given the show of force this is extremely improbable at this time."
Abstract This paper relates that, unlike the nuclear powers of the Cold War, the new nuclear candidates will be unable to acquire an effective nuclear deterrence system due to the flaw in their command structure, absence of a second strike capability, and lack of a safety mechanism. The paper uses the wars in Afghanistan and Iran and the level of danger faced by the U.S. from a North Korean as examples of modern warfare and demonstrates that maintaining a flexible military force, combined with Americas' ability to act unilaterally and preventively when needed, serves as a better alternative to prevent nuclearproliferation.
From the Paper "The War in Afghanistan had clear pre-set goals including a regime change, destruction of Al-Qaeda and the capture of its leader Osama bin Laden. The mobilization was rapid beginning with the aerial bombardment on October 7th, 2001. Taliban air defenses and Al-Qaeda training camps were first on the target list followed by the Taliban's communication infrastructure. Our forces carried out precision strikes with cruise missiles and F16/fighter bombers and the Air Force utilized its expertise in carpet bombing."
Tags: guerrilla, multilateral response, resources, vietnam war, technology
Abstract This paper discusses the necessary elements for an effective U.S. policy stance on nuclear arms and nuclearproliferation control. It examines both political policy and military options necessary to counter nuclear program advancements in hostile countries.
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."
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 This paper takes a look at the arguments opposed to and in favor of nuclearproliferation, 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 nuclearproliferation 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."
Tags: fear, all-out, war, us, ussr, peak, tensions, cold, war, deterrent, policy, strategy, national, security
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."
Abstract This paper sums up the social, political, economic repercussions of the 1947 partition of British India into India and modern-day Pakistan. The paper suggests that a more conciliatory approach on behalf of the political leaders of the day might have avoided much of the subsequent bloodshed and spared both of these nations the acrimony and animosity that presently lingers.
From the Paper "The partitioning of India has stirred a great deal of debate. This paper will wade into that debate by examining whether or not the partition of India made sense socially, politically, or economically. More specifically, this paper will argue that the 1947 partition did a great deal of harm to India - and to Pakistan - in all three regards and that a more inclusive approach involving the leaders of the day might have spared both nations the tragedies that followed. With that in mind, it is to a discussion of the Indian partitioning of 1947 that one now turns."
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.
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."
Tags: U.S., nuclear, weapons, politics, middle, east
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."
