.. uired from the U.S. if it can’t conduct nuclear tests. By the way, this situation is what Sagan wrote about: the powerful countries with nuclear weapons will try to control forever, and this should be obstructed. While the U.S.
military provides an overwhelming deterrent to any rational adversary, we must also worry about how to deal with potential threats from sources that are not rational. And it is against these dangers that the Administration is developing and testing a limited NMD system, with a decision on deployment possible as early as next summer. This decision will be based on our overall security interests and will take into account cost, threat, technological feasibility and effects on arms control.7 This pointed out that nuclear proliferation is producing some bad effect to the U.S and also the world. Like Sagan said that not only nonproliferation is necessarily but also the powerful countries should reduce their nuclear weapons. China wants to be a world power on a par with the U.S.
This countrys strategic nuclear arsenal is 300 times as small as that of the U.S. The entire arsenal packs about as much explosive power as what the U.S. stuffs into one Trident submarine. The process began in the early 1990s, at the very top of the armed forces, when politicians pushed the military to streamline its command-and-control structure.8 More than a year after U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq, the issue of whether Saddam Hussein has used the time to rebuild his weapons program is vexing U.S. policy makers and stirring debate on the campaign trail. The Security Council is struggling to forge a new policy that would allow the inspectors to return, but its members remain divided on the sanctions. It agreed to a series of short extensions of the oil-for-food program, which lets Iraq to bypass sanctions and sell oil to buy food and humanitarian goods.9 If those powerful countries dont reduce the nuclear weapons, the other countries will not feel securely.
It will produce a vicious circle. Obviously, the real international competitions are not like Waltzs thought. The more countries have nuclear power the more this world is in dangerous. After World War II ended in 1945, considerable support again developed for arms control and for alternatives to military conflict in international relations. The United Nations Charter was designed to permit a supranational agency to enforce peace, avoiding many of the weaknesses of the League of Nations covenant.
After the carnage of World War I, the international climate was more receptive to the idea of arms control. During the years between the two world wars, many formal arms-control conferences were held and many treaties were drawn up. One of the most important agreements on arms control was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968. Signatories pledged to restrict the development, deployment, and testing of nuclear weapons to ensure that weapons, materials, or technology would not be transferred outside the five countries that had nuclear weapons. Sagan idea obviously is the trunk stream, which the whole world have worked on it.
Perhaps the most pressing nuclear problem since the ending of the cold war is that of nuclear proliferation. It has become increasingly difficult to prevent advanced Third World states from developing nuclear weapons if they desire them. Attempts to police the use of nuclear technologies and fuels through inspections and controls imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency have been useful in slowing proliferation, but in the end nonproliferation is likely to rest on political judgments–for example, can a nation adequately protect its security without nuclear weapons? Will the political costs of acquiring them be prohibitive?10 The difficult nonproliferation challenge in the future is not to ensure that the U.S. government and people are opposed to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. In deed, it is not difficult to understand why a large nuclear state, with the most powerful conventional forces in the world, would want to limit severely the spread of nuclear weapons to other states in the international system.
The real challenge is to create a future in which the government leaders, the organizations under them, and the citizens of nonnuclear states around the globe believe that it is in their interests to remain nonuclear states.11 The awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons clearly increase the cost of war, and a statesmans awareness of this basic fact can be, in theory at least, a positive force for peace. But nuclear weapons are not controlled by states or statesmen; they are controlled by organization. These organizations, like all complex organization, will inevitably have biases and parochial interests, will by necessity develop routines and standardized procedures, and will occasionally make serious operational errors. The militarys biases in favor of preventive war, common organizational problems in producing survivable forces, and inevitable imperfections in the safety of alert nuclear arsenals produced very serious problems for the superpowers during the cold war. These kinds of problems are likely to reemerge, sometimes quietly and sometimes with a vengeance, in new nuclear nations. Nuclear weapons do not produce perfect nuclear organizations; they only make their inevitable mistakes more deadly. Because of the inherent limits of organizational reliability, the spread of nuclear weapons is more to be feared than welcomed.
Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Ben Macintyre, US had secret nuclear arsenal in 27 countries, Times Newspaper, October 21 1999 Ramesh Chandra Thakur, Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone. St. Martin’s Press, Inc, 1998 Bruce G. Blair, The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and de-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons. Brookings Institution Press, 1999 Jonathan Alter, Playing Politics With the Bomb- Rejecting the test-ban treaty would be a green light for ambitious regimes everywhere, Newsweek October 1999 Barry Renfrew, No New Cold War Appears Imminent, Associated Press 13 December 1999 Vernon Lobe and David A.
Vise, Physicist Is Indicted In Nuclear Spy Probe-Wen Ho Lee Accused Of Mishandling Secrets, Washington Post 11 December 1999 Madeleine Albright, A Call for American Consensus, TIME magazine 22 November 1999 Vol. 154 NO. 21 Frank Gibney JR. Birth of a Superpower, TIME magazine 7 June 1999 Vol. 153 NO.22 Tom Raum, Questions Remain About Iraq Weapons, Associated Press 8 December 1999 Peter D. Feaver, Guarding the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States.
Cornell University Press 1992 Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons- A Debate. W. W. Norton & Company, 1995 Political Science.