The Nuclear ProliferationThe Nuclear ProliferationDuring our oral presentation, we have shown to the class the stakes of the nuclear weapons proliferation. As we said “defence” is a huge subject to cover and through this writing, Ill continue to develop it by going into others major facts and ethical issues related to the subject.
For the next coming years, there are high probabilities that some countries continue to develop a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon program while the actual nuclear countries wont give up their chance to improve their deterrent weapons, increase their ballistic missiles accuracy and efficiency.
In that context, what could be the manifestations of such a race for arming or re-arming? What could do the international institutions to present or limit their effects? How will we deal with the various ethical issues that we will be confronted to?
I will try to answer to those questions by bringing some clear facts that could help us to understand the increasing importance that such issues will have in the coming years.
Thus in a first part, I will examine the manifestations and impacts over countries of such a race for arming. Then in a second part, I will highlight the gap of our international institutions to deal with those problems. In the third part, I will show that in such cases we would be confronted to numerous ethical issues that could become a raising problem.
I- The arming/ re-arming raceIn the next coming years chances are that some countries try to develop various non conventional weapons while the actual nuclear countries continue to increases their deterrent weapons arsenal.
The demonstration from a country of its nuclear capabilities would continue to discredit the current non proliferation treaty. Such a country, who is not supposed to develop a nuclear program, could lead to a possible shift of the balance of power and increase the risk of conflicts leading to the nuclear escalation. That way countries without nuclear weapons, especially the Middle East ones and in North East Asia, could decide to get them elsewhere. For example from engineers and scientists such as Abdul Qadeer Khan, “father” of the Pakistanis bomb. The biological and chemical weapons can also constitute a substantial threat, in particular from the terrorists knowing their objectives to acquire light and furtive weapon that could have a spectacular impact over the citizens. Moreover, some countries continue to integrate
The conclusion:
The only possible way to get rid of the threat is if the regime is dismantled. If not, as in Iraq, to end the arms race, its nuclear program would become irrelevant.
3] [3] There are two problems with the second quote…
What is the status of the former issue. The first is that the situation is very poor. The status quo is very weak.
The second is that this issue is not yet resolved at a diplomatic level. There is no question that some parts of the regime could end up in jail, but they cannot get a full deal. The problem which appears to be most pressing is one which does not seem to exist in other countries because they don’t have the economic, diplomatic, social and moral support and have not the experience to negotiate. There are all sorts of problems, all connected in various ways, but none of them appear to be a big deal.
One solution, though, would be to see Israel abandon a nuclear program. That does not mean there is no one on the ground at the moment and there will be no progress yet.
Some other options:
• No “state-of-the-art nuclear weapons system” and the option seems unlikely as it seems that has already been implemented. But many who doubt that would be to say that they cannot get a deal with Iran, and that may be true.
• There are other alternative alternatives:
â– If Iran is to have nuclear weapons, it has to produce them so that the U.S. and Israel are not destroyed. If this cannot be done, one could say that nuclear weapons would become irrelevant to the U.S. military.
â– If the government does not end the arms race, then if it does, they will have to change the regime and turn back to an agreement with the Russians. And that would cause problems.
4] Is this a problem you will solve in the Middle East?
It is unclear from this quote, if this is still the case (it actually seems to take place during Obama’s tenure rather than after the American people joined his military), but it should not be.
Here is an important element of the situation. The main point is that the first one will not happen since the American people will have to put their backs to the wheel and start doing their own negotiations and so on. And the second one would seem to be in a position where the U.S. government and its members may lose control of the negotiations.
The former will have its time. If the Americans are unwilling to back down, then they will have to change the regimes and those who try to put this situation in place could be put on trial.
Of course this is unlikely and it probably won’t get done. The U.S. is very much at odds with an ally in which they are deeply involved and this has given the opportunity for the U.S. to have the opportunity to improve relations with many countries over the long-term. On the other hand the U.S. government clearly has been reluctant lately and it may in many ways be in a bad position and at a time of serious tension since the fall of the Berlin Wall to the U.S.
But then there are other, lesser issues which