“U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work”
Since the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a crisis emerged due to the mass casualties, amount human suffrage in the aftermath and the irreparable destruction caused. These two bombing struck fear in the global community and lead to what many call the “nuclear taboo.” The two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed most infrastructure within half a mile, which seems minor compared to the hydrogen bombs the US possesses today which have a blast radius of eighteen miles. It is understandable why the global community would be concerned about which states have nuclear weapons or which states are making progress towards possessing them. According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 only five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, those five countries are: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France. These are not the only countries is the international community that have nuclear weapons and it is speculated that North Korea may even have a nuclear bomb. Scholars have long been reporting their concern on the purpose behind Iran’s nuclear program and so it may not come to a surprise to them that the NY Times would report the “United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,’ and that the project may still be under way.” The question remains what, if any, role should the United States or the international community have in disarming Iran? To what extent does the US have a obligation or duty to police the international community? And has the United States learned a lesson from Iraq that will affect their foreign policy towards states that may have nuclear weapons?
As much as I think it would be an all around bad idea to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, the United States stands on shaky ground when it comes to enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We cannot simply cite the treaty in our appeals to Iran as reason enough for them to halt their nuclear operations. Clearly we do not take the treaty seriously ourselves because we have firmly established partnerships ships and weapon trade agreements with two of the three states not specified in the treaty to be allowed the possession of nuclear weapons. Even if Iran did care what the US and the UN Security Council said about its nuclear operations, how could they even begin to take our threats seriously?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous blogger. To extend his comment, I would further say that the whole Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (1970) seems to be useless because countries like Iran, India and North Korea seem to have nuclear weapons as well. Even though Iran and North Korea has had sanctions placed on them for the development of nuclear weapons, I believe there has to be a more strict approach towards these two countries. More importantly, the overarching question that should be asked is why do we have nuclear weapons? The last time I checked, America has good terms with France and the United Kingdom. It seems understandable America’s attitude to the former Soviet Union and Communist China is dictated by past events. Therefore, in addition I would like to know why America and her allies would have nuclear weapons? Does France and the United Kingdom discredit America’s ability to destroy her enemies effectively?
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of any nation possessing a weapon that’s capable of murdering millions of people and destroying even more lives is completely frightening and disheartening. I agree with both Matt and Hayley that the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is not the best foundation for the United States to direct international nuclear management as some nations clearly choose not to adhere to the treaty. While I do believe that the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty played an important role in preventing the establishment of a greater number of nuclear states, it only takes one aggressive nation not in compliance with the treaty to drop a nuclear bomb on one or more of its enemies.
ReplyDeleteI think having the nuclear proliferation treaty in place to begin with signifies that the 5 countries United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France in a way have special power over all other countries to have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons which may create conflicts among countries. I believe that either no country should have access to nuclear power or else the countries who have so called "police power" shouldn’t discriminate as to which country can or cannot have nuclear weapons. I think that some countries might want to have access to nuclear weapons just for safety and protection just in case a nuclear war does go into effect. Just like every country has a standing army, then these countries should also have nuclear weapons but that is a whole different ground since nuclear weapons are very dangerous as well as highly destructible. So the best bet would probably be that no country should have access to such weapons so the safety of all human kind can be protected.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the US, being one of the 5 countries allowed to have nuclear weapons should act upon Iran and North Korea.The previous blogger mentions that no country should have nuclear weapons or the countries who do shouldn't discriminate as to which countries should have them. Well I disagree with that, with nuclear weapons the need to police is a must, especially when those not allowed are threatening others with them. I don't see how that's realistic. Sanctions against those who are disobeying the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty should be put in place. However, we must consider the financial burden on European EU members as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the NPT is just a moot concept. The countries that were allowed to hold nuclear weapons were the one victorious in the Second World War. The treaty at the time did not include non-state actors. Countries such Israel, India and Pakistan know to have nuclear weapons and countries such as Iran and North Korea are developing nukes. It is unfortunate that the world must have nukes to feel protected from countries and nukes are an option when diplomatic talks end. I agree with Amy that there should be policing in nukes, especially with the threat from non-state actors but the policing should be done by neutral organizations (not like the United Nations, where the Permanent Five States dictate all say).
ReplyDeleteThe question remains what, if any, role should the United States or the international community have in disarming Iran?
ReplyDeleteWith the great amount of mass destruction that can take place from Nuclear weapons, one would surely think that the United States and the international community should have a big role in disarming Iran. There exist, however, a big problem with taking this approach. How can a number of countries possessing a military advantage tell other countries that they are not allowed to obtain this same power? Of course it is in the best interest of countries already having nuclear bombs to regulate other countries possessing these kinds of weapons but is this request reasonable if you’re not The United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom or France.
On one hand I feel very strongly about the cause of Nuclear nonproliferation. So much so that I can hear the reasoning behind growing discussion for military action (especially on Israel's behalf). Yet the US has been inconsistent with its nonproliferation policies in the past, and exhibiting such excitement over Iran must come off to the majority of Iranians as unfair in comparison to the US's attitudes towards countries like Israel and Pakistan. Realistically having a nuke gives you political leverage that really advances your country. One simple but powerful example is that the US has never invaded a country with a Nuke. Thats powerful insurance that any leader would inevitably desire. While I still stand firmly in believing that nonproliferation comes first, it's essential for us to grasp how the world looks through the Iranian perspective.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand I feel very strongly about the cause of Nuclear nonproliferation. So much so that I can hear the reasoning behind growing discussion for military action (especially on Israel's behalf). Yet the US has been inconsistent with its nonproliferation policies in the past, and exhibiting such excitement over Iran must come off to the majority of Iranians as unfair in comparison to the US's attitudes towards countries like Israel and Pakistan. Realistically having a nuke gives you political leverage that really advances your country. One simple but powerful example is that the US has never invaded a country with a Nuke. Thats powerful insurance that any leader would inevitably desire. While I still stand firmly in believing that nonproliferation comes first, it's essential for us to grasp how the world looks through the Iranian perspective.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a nuclear Iran is a dire threat to not only the Middle East but also the entire world. I agree with John’s comment about nations that have a nuclear bomb always seem to be attaining political leverage that really advances their country. One simple but powerful example is that the US has never invaded a country with a Nuke. Although, he said that it is “essential for us to grasp how the world looks through the Iranian perspective,” I think greater sanctions need to be put in place, not only in aggressive countries that have the potential to be devastating, but for all countries with nuclear bombs.
ReplyDelete