Should More Countries Acquire Nuclear Weapons? Why or Why Not.

Should More Countries Acquire Nuclear Weapons? Why or Why Not.
Assignment
Date of Submission
1915 words
Student Name
University Name
More Countries Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
This essay is aimed to argue about the acquisition of nuclear weapons and their implication for regional security. The argument is to deal with the threat as they develop rather than realize it is critical. The argument arises from the emergence of threats. In response, the offense-defensive theory is evidence of the International Relations theories to support the argument. However, societal responsibility, environmental concern, and ethical paradigms oppose the theory of threat. Besides, these factors support reducing violence and act more peacefully. Correspondingly, the weapon of mass destruction (WMD) they expect to use has been adapted by many regions. The massive adoption of the offense-defense theory to detain the threats from realization has given rise to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. These weapons contradict the fundamentals of societal, environmental, and even economic components of a region. Therefore, no more acquisition of nuclear weapons should be practiced. In support, the causes of adoption of the act of acquiring nuclear weapons and its destructive outcomes are illustrated in this paper.[Shiping, Tang. "Offence-defence theory: towards a definitive understanding." The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3, no. 2 (2010): 213-260.] [Choi, Jong Kun, and Jong-Yun Bae. "Security implications of a nuclear North Korea: Crisis stability and imperatives for engagement." Korea Observer 47, no. 4 (2016): 807.] [Ibid1]
Undoubtedly, the role of globalization in this practice is pivotal. It is because globalization has influenced the political forces and induced control over it. For illustration, political issues are no more restricted to regional concerns. Instead, any issues in the political spectrum are dealt unanimously by non-governing bodies of associated regions. The practice of integrated measures to address political issues has declined the rate of political challenges. For example, no massive destruction as experienced during the world war has taken place after establishing the United Nations. Conversely, the negative aspect of an integrated response to the political challenges is the cause of cold-wars. Even though such wars are not massively destructive, yet their impact is negative. In association with the fundamentals of offense-defense theory, the states are free to take initiatives against stateless and militant terrorist groups. The ethical spectrum, on the other hand, suggests considering relevance for designing any actions against the threat.[Potter, William C. "The unfulfilled promise of the 2015 NPT review conference." Survival 58, no. 1 (2016): 151-178.] [Ibid1]
Between the lines, it is essential to focus on investigating the causes and effects of such threats before setting a destructive measure to address it. Such a concept is preferably defined as pre-emption. A study defines pre-emption as an intervention from a third party to resolve a dispute among two nations. The action to be prepared with resources to deal with the threat before it realizes is termed as prevention. Both the concepts, prevention, and pre-emption, are, controlling strategies for political issues. However, the basis of both strategies is different. On one side, prevention assumes that the use of force by the adversaries is an opportunity to prepare oneself with forces. On the other side, pre-emption is formulated with coercive strategies, which assume that the adversary’s actions can be controlled by highlighting the consequences—for example, two countries X and Y conflict. Due to the strength of nuclear power to defend the vital interests, X confidently deterred Y. Such deterrence would work as Y cannot threaten X, yet it tries to be in a conflict mode and deal threats through prevention. In this scenario, if X responds, Y will be destroyed. Conclusively, the use of nuclear weapons to defend a country’s interest is critical for the national security of the other country. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons must be defamed.[Freedman, Lawrence. "Prevention, not preemption." The Washington Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2003): 105-114.]
Reasons for not Allowing More Countries to Acquire Nuclear Weapons
Regarding the suggestion that nuclear weapons are more harmful to the countries than they are useful, the non-governing bodies are making efforts to control the adaptation of it. One of the most outstanding examples is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also referred to as the nuclear deal of Iran. The deal is comprehended between Iran and P5+1 members of the United Nations, and International Automatic Energy Agency or IAEA governs it. According to that contract, Iran has shown consent to abolish the production of semi-enriched Uranium and reduce the stock of mildly potent Uranium by nearly 100% to yield production of only to 3.6% for 15 years. Besides, the construction of the new heavy-water facilities is also projected in the same period. In response, Iran will be aided with relief from the United Nations. Simply, the United Nations adopted pre-emption to control the adaptation of Nuclear weapons by limiting the production of Uranium. For the next 15 years, Iran will not produce a threatening situation for which the UN will aid it.[Ibid2] [Waltz, Kenneth N. "Why Iran should get the bomb: Nuclear balancing would mean stability." Foreign Affairs (2012): 2-5.] [Martellini, Maurizio, and Massimo Zucchetti. "The Iranian Nuclear Agreement: A Scientifically Reliable, Transactional and Verifiable Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." In Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law-Volume III, pp. 471-488. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2016.]
Conversely, Iran is exposed to the national security risk due to its nuclear deal. It is because the members of the UN are aiding Iran, but other regions are free to harm the sovereignty of Iran with their power determination. Hence, Iran is deterred by the powerful nations concerning its mission to emerge as another nuclear power. The states build nuclear weapons to ensure the long-term future of international security. Hence, this objective is pre-empted for Iran through the stated deal. Nevertheless, the current foreign policy efforts are directed towards preventing the adoption of destructive weapons on a large scale. Furthermore, measures like Iran nuclear deal are a significant step to exemplify the consequences of peaceful and integrated international relations. According to the realism theory of International Relations, the national interests motivates the moral concerns of the nation-states. Thus, the efforts being made by the current foreign policy to promote integrated international relations is essential.[Ibid8]
The central proliferation of nuclear weapons among the developing states is still a puzzle for the general public. In general, Iran will encounter deterrence as it reaches the nuclear threshold. Besides, other countries in the region are prevented from owning their nuclear capabilities. Consequently, the implemented Iran Nuclear deal is enhancing the regional security of the US with some benefit to Iran’s economy as well. Yet, the threat to the sovereignty of Iran is concealed under the deal. Thus, this act will strike back to the regional security of the US. Iran will be developed with aids from the US and can ally with other regions to threaten the US. Therefo...