One of major global agendas is to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have an interesting dialogue by Realist, Liberal, and Constructivist. We also discussed a similar topic with regard to President Obama’s Nuclear dismantle proposal. Rethink and incorporate our discussion and answer the following questions.
2. Which theoretical perspectives do help to justify a state obtain the nuclear program and nuclear weapons?
3. Which theoretical perspectives do help to justify the position of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons such as Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
4. Today, North Korea and Iran intend to obtain their own nuclear weapon capability as a tool to achieve their own foreign policy goals.Which theoretical perspectives do justify their action? Explain why.
1. The problem is the security dilemma. As one state, such as the US, proliferates, other states will feel less secure. Because of that, other states with nuclear capabilities will also proliferate, leading to a lot of weapons ready to destroy each other.
ReplyDelete2. Realists completely justify the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the program itself. One way it is beneficial is that it adds to the balancing of power, which is crucial in managing insecurity. If the US, Russia, India, and Iran have nuclear capabilities, they will balance the power of each other, and will in turn feel more secure. Another way it is good is through deterrence. If a country threatens to use power against another, it will deter them from using violence against that country. Especially when it comes to nuclear weapons, realists believe that since they are so utterly destructible, states will definitely be deterred from using violence against nuclear states.
3. The position of preventing the use of nuclear weapons would be best supported by liberalism. They believe that fewer weapons means greater security. The disarmament of nuclear weapons would reduce the costs of the security dilemma. The NPT and CTBT are great steps for the liberals in coming closer to a peaceful world.
4. Realists understand why Iran and North Korea are obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities. They are looking out for their own self interests. When so many of their foes possess nuclear capabilities, it is in their best interests to also have the capability. This would also lead to deterrence so that the US doesn't attack one of them, since the threat of a nuclear attack would deter them.
Liberals would also understand why these countries did what they did. They are feeling the security dilemma since a lot of countries have the capability to destroy them, but they don't. Also, more weapons means less security, and these countries are just looking out for themselves.
Malati
1. There are a number of problems, one is that the United States has a political stigma against continued development of nuclear arms. Another is that nuclear scientists are becoming increasingly rare in the US. So in the event of a need for such weapons it is possible that they will not be reliable, if not now then in the future.
ReplyDelete2. The article pushed the realist point if we push for nuclear disarmament then we are setting ourselves up for failure, plus we have an umbrella policy of protection that stops more wide spread nuclear proliferation with allies. This is not true for rogue states and potential enemies, Iran they say is a tipping point and North Korea is a loose cannon so it is a nice thought to have a world with out nuclear weapons but it would be unrealistic.
3. Total liberal perspective but it works if the rogue states are taken out of the equation, the proliferation and the thought of a non-state actor makes the treaties less powerful.
Iran and N. Korea feel that if they are threatened than it is in their best interest create and proliferate nuclear arms, that is according to realists. They become the outlier in a liberal model so even the author supports the US realist view that the us can't rely on other but others can rely on the US, and because of a threat the US needs to be ready and funding should at least be provided to maintain out dated weapons systems.
3. Which theoretical perspectives do help to justify the position of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons such as Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
4. Today, North Korea and Iran intend to obtain their own nuclear weapon capability as a tool to achieve their own foreign policy goals.Which theoretical perspectives do justify their action? Explain why.
1. Nuclear proliferation of one country supports nuclear proliferation for ten other countries. Naturally that country's enemies and neighbors will want to arm themselves for protection. It could turn into a worldwide arms race.
ReplyDelete2. Realists would support nuclear proliferation. A realist would argue that every country has the right to protect themselves from other nuclear armed countries,
3. A liberalist would support prevention of proliferation. A liberalist would have the ultimate goal of worldwide disarment. Preventing nuclear proliferation would be a good start toward this goal.
4. A realist theory could support this. N. Korea and Iran may feel threatened by the world powers. This could be looked at as a defensive strategy to prevent world powers from attacking them. It would not be of anyones interest to attack a nuclear armed country.
-Brent Stapleton
The problem is proliferation of nuclear weapons. Many countries or nations are opposed to it because countries with nuclear weapons will have the power to destroy other countries and will have power to do whatever they please. If a country is spreading nuclear weapon to another country, then there is going to be a problem because the more nuclear weapons a country has the harder it is going to be to take control over that country or to stop them from using the nuclear weapons. The more countries involved in proliferation of nuclear weapons, the harder it is going to be to stop them and it is going to turn the world upside down.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe realist theoretical perspective helps to justify a state obtaining a nuclear program and nuclear weapons. In relation to North Korea situation it is developing nuclear weapons to attain a balance of power. They believe that they need these weapons to maintain security. North Korea also believes that the United States is the main threat to there security. So it is in their own best interest(national interest)to build nuclear weapons. Over the past few months it is easy to see the North Koreans "realist" approach. They have no problem in using their capability as a deterrence. They have fired several missiles in the direction of Japan and have threaten to fire some at the U.S. in case we try to act against the North Koreans. They have also shown that they have conducted an underground test of a nuclear device. Again they are increasing their power and acting in the own best interest by pursuing a balance of power.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with North Korea's increased aggressive stance as made security in the region problematic and is leading to a "security dilemma". This can cause other states such as the U.S.,South Korea, China, Russia or Japan to feel the need to increase their power in the region. Since, the liberalist approach has broken down and North Korea refuses to return to the negotiation table the prospect of conflict in the region has increased because of the shifting balance of power.
The promble with this the free spread of Nuclear weapons world wide and the development of of nuclear weapons. The Mega countries like the U.S. feel and obligation to control this process. The view that the U.S. have is based on the theoretical prospective of a realist. Realist believe that "...individuallys are selfish and power seeking" (pg 63). The purpose of the control of these weapons is to form one world were every country feels safe and would not haave to feel treaten with this type off weapons. This can be done through the forming of an organization composed of differrent parties all over the world. The view that would allow the development of these weapons would be the view of an liberalist which believes "...human nature is good..."(pg59). This view is in complete contrast to the belief of a realist.
ReplyDeleteTamara Robinson
1. The problem is that people don't trust other people. The security dilema is a major factor. If one state decides to proliferate then the other surrounding states are going to feel insecure and start to proliferate themselves. Then it creates anarchy because people did not know what another state is thinking.
ReplyDelete4. The theory that supports why Iran and North Korea should obtain nuclear weapons is the realist theory. The two states are there in place to obtain nuclear weapons are looking at their own self-interests. They are trying to protect their own country. This strategy would put these two states on a world market. They would be able to protect themselves from attacks on them.
Elizabeth Lukowski
1. it’s the security dilemma, in one state has nukes then other countries feel less secure. Examples are the United States has a LOT of nukes, Bush call Iran, Iraq and North Korea the axis of evil. We invaded Iraq, then Iran and North Korea want nuclear. Not a conquincidence, they know a good way to prevent invasion is to have nuclear weapons. The goal of a nuclear free world is further away then it was 10 years ago, but the prospects of American/ Russian partial disarmament is better today, though.
ReplyDelete2. The realist prospective is a bull’s eye. Nuclear weapons are a trump card that ensures a state will not be invaded and will be listen to on the world stage. If North Korea wasn't nuclear the international community would be handling them much differently, but since they are, we have to put up with their backwards, poor, starving, sad little country. if they didn’t have nukes we could just go back to ignoring.
3. The liberal theory I feel is best for explaining the current situation. They believe that people are good deep down but sometimes they need a little help to get there. Also people can't be good if their a smoldering pile of ash. These treaties help limit the use and technology needed to bring about nuclear war.
4. Examples are the United States has a LOT of nukes, Bush call Iran, Iraq and North Korea the axis of evil. we invaded Iraq, then Iran and north Korea want nuclear. Not a c conquincidence, they know a good way to prevent invasion is to have nuclear weapons. The goal of a nuclear free world is further away then it was 10 years ago, but the prospects of American/ Russian partial disarmament is better today, though.
joe puleo
ps2810
Antoinette Golston
ReplyDeletePreventing Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
I liked the notion President Obama stated his goal "No Nation hold nuclear weapons. Is this even possible. I likely believe it. This is a problem because how could you possibly go around the world telling everyone to eliminate and give up all of their Nuclear Weapons. This outweighs the Prisoners Dilemma. There is a 1/4 chance that they give up none of the nuclear weapons. There is a 2/4 chance that they give up some of there nuclear weapons. There is a 4/4 chance that they give up half of their weapons. The thing is, what reassurance have you gave that state, or country that you can be trusted. It's like going to an openned fire, any place of violence and you go to that location without any protection, there is a high precent that you will get hurt and the worst part about it is that you will not even be able to protect or defend yourself. Another concern of mines that where will these nuclear weapons be stored at. And, whom ever suppose to protect these thrown away nuclear weapons, how do anyone if they will try to use it on the rest of the world. I believe that realists are the ones that want to obtain nuclear weapons, constuctivists will investigate and way all options, and liberals would eliminate all of their Nuclear Weapons. If someone came knocking at my door, and told me to ban all of my nuclear weapons, I would be happy that they were going around eliminating nuclear weapons yet, I do not know if I would be willing to give mines up subjecting myself at a rest of not being protected.
1- One of the many problems with nuclear proliferation is that it increases the likelihood of them being used. More frightening than the possibility of their deliberate use is the fact that they may be triggered accidently or used as a response to a false alarm.
ReplyDelete2- The realist perspective justifies states pursuing nuclear weapons. The goal is to maximize power in relative terms. Because a state's security diminishes when another one acquires nuclear weapons, it is in its best interest to do likewise. Radicalism might also justify acquiring nukes especially with respect to less developed countries. Acquiring nuclear weapons might help break the cycle of imperialism and exploitation, at least symbolically.
3- The liberal perspective favors non-proliferation. Because individuals are essentially good, cooperation will be the key to achieving security rather than possessing nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are international agreements aimed at preventing war and insecurity in a cooperative spirit. This the liberal tradition in classic form.
4- The realist perspective justifies these countries’ pursuit of nuclear technology. North Korea shares a border with a potential aggressor and therefore must, in its thinking, acquire the weapon. South Korea is likely to provoke its neighbor to the north, according to this view. Similarly, Iran faces threats from Israel and possibly Iraq and Saudi Arabia, so must take steps to strengthen its security.