Nuclear weapons Essay

The Problem of Nuclear Proliferation

The term “weapons of mass destruction” refers to nuclear weapons (WMD). In reality, WMDs are capable of obliterating an unfathomably large number of people and wreaking catastrophic havoc. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was established to prevent the transfer of civil uranium to the military in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapon technology. Its primary goal was to promote nuclear energy collaboration while ensuring that civil uranium and plutonium—essential components of nuclear energy—are used for peaceful rather than military purposes, as has been the case in the Iranian case (Walt, 2017). The countries approved to use uranium are not supposed to act in a way that insinuates proliferation and manufacture of nuclear weapon programs. In this regard, the following essay seeks to identify different perspectives or strategies for addressing the escalating problem of nuclear proliferation and the strengths and weaknesses associated with each one of them.

Strategy 1: Dismantling or Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

One of the main strategies to solve the issue of nuclear proliferation is through dismantling or eliminating nuclear weapons. The dismantling of nuclear weapons entails a lengthy process that incorporates every facility in the nuclear weapons complex of the National Nuclear Security Administration. For instance, Iran should remove their nuclear weapons from functioning. This involves applying the necessary force to ensure that the country does not engage in nuclear proliferation. However, there are some weaknesses and strengths associated with this strategy. One of the strengths of the strategy is that it can help in reducing the creation of weapons, thus lessening nuclear proliferation. However, there is one weakness associated with this strategy in that countries that are superpowers, such as Russia and the United States, may fail to comply. As superpowers, little can be done to them by other countries.

Strategy 2: Applying Sanctions

The other strategy is by applying sanctions to countries that engage in the creation of nuclear weapons (Parsi, 2017). Sanctions entail limitations or a penalty enacted in a country. In most cases, the United States is the renowned country that mostly implies sanctions to another country. Sanctions are mainly imposed to hurt the economy of a country that has engaged in nuclear proliferation (Chathamhouse.org, 2017). The strength of this strategy lies in the impact it creates in a country in terms of the economy. As a result, a country such as Iran can cease the development of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, no country can impose sanctions on the United States, and thus it controls its own nuclear proliferation, which is one of the key weaknesses of the strategy.

Strategy 3: Agreements and Treaties

Agreements and treaties are another strategy for ending the problem of nuclear proliferation. This strategy entails establishing a ground through which a country can negotiate with others to make a deal of ending the development of nuclear weapons (Waltz, 2012). In most cases, this is the first strategy before other steps can be incorporated. Its strength lies in the fact that all countries can agree to end the creation of nuclear weapons. However, the strategy has one major weakness in that some countries, such as Iran and North Korea, fail to adhere to agreements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various strategies that can be employed to reduce and eradicate the problem of nuclear proliferation. As highlighted, the strategies are associated with various strengths and weaknesses. Strengths, in this case, help in eradicating the problem of nuclear proliferation, while weaknesses associated with the strategy tend to provide a means through which the problem of nuclear proliferation cannot be solved. Thus, before employing one of them, it is vital to weigh up its strengths and weaknesses.

References

Chathamhouse.org. (2017). Iran and Nuclear Restraint: Lessons from Elsewhere. Chatham House. Retrieved 20 December 2017, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/iran-and-nuclear-restraint-lessons-elsewhere

Parsi, T. (2017). No, Sanctions Didn’t Force Iran to Make a Deal. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 20 December 2017, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/14/no-sanctions-didnt-force-iran-to-make-a-deal/

Waltz, K. N. (2012, August). Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability. Retrieved from Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2012-06-15/why-iran-should-get-bomb

Walt, S. (2017). The worst case for war with Iran. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 20 December 2017, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12/21/the-worst-case-for-war-with-iran/