Security Issue Facing the United States: Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear Proliferation
Student’s Name
Course
Date
Institution
Introduction
Since the cold war era, nuclear proliferation has been one of the most significant security threats the United States has had to contend with. In the history of the military world, nuclear weapons are the most inhumane, destructive, and indiscriminate weapons human beings have ever invented (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons n.d., par. 1). They have short and long-term effects, including mass killings of innocent people and contaminating the environment, which, in turn, breeds long-term health complications, such as cancer. Additionally, using nuclear weapons can have devastating and far-reaching socio-economic implications since it involves the misuse of public funds. That said, the United States has been at the forefront of fighting nuclear proliferation propagated by some of its fiercest rivals. For instance, the U.S. confronted the Soviet Union in 1962 after the latter began constructing nuclear sites in Cuba (Office of the Historian n.d., par. 2). After thirteen days of threats and counter-threats, the two titans managed to strike an amicable deal. It also paved the way for an international treaty to stop nuclear weapons proliferation. To devise incisive mechanisms for mitigating nuclear proliferation, it is paramount to consider the international relations perspective, devise a decisive strategy, analyze the risks involved, and evaluate their viability.
When engaging in the mitigation of the unnecessary and dangerous use of nuclear technology, it is enormously critical for the United States to consider the impact of such an endeavor on international relations. Undeniably, nuclear weapons and energy pose an enormous threat to international relations and stability. This is because many countries acknowledge that having a remarkable nuclear muscle provides a political and military advantage over their perceived rivals (Udum 2017, 58). To others, nuclear technology is an instrument of prestige and status, which translates to power. As such, they blatantly contravene stipulated regulations that govern the use of nuclear technology, which inevitably strains international relations. For instance, the international regime is specific that nuclear technology should be used for peaceful purposes only, but some countries think otherwise. For example, Russia believes that no one should dictate or restrict its nuclear technology (Bradley 2015, 76). Given the adverse consequences that would result from the use of nuclear technology in international conflicts, the United States must embrace diplomatic approaches. To this connection, the new U.S. administration, for example, is obligated to handle the Iran nuclear deal with absolute care since its view on the same is critical for the regime and region (Udum 2017, 59). In addition, it behooves the administration to explore appropriate mechanisms to enforce safeguards and agreements that can improve international relations in the face of nuclear technology. Further, the international community, led by the United States, is concerned about terrorist attacks using nuclear technology. The growing concern results from an increasing number of nuclear plants and material trade that has enhanced the vulnerability of nuclear facilities and materials, making them new targets for terrorist groups. Since nuclear security norms that would help prevent sabotage and unauthorized access to nuclear facilities are yet to develop, international relations reel under immense threat. As such, this is one area the United States should centrally focus on, and policymakers have a duty to institute measures to curb the challenges facing international relations through the proliferation of nuclear materials. To this end, the United States could take the pole position by suggesting decisive means of fighting nuclear proliferation. The strategies should not necessarily compromise the components of international relations, especially stability.
In the security context, strategy means how countries use available power to influence people and events to achieve desired objectives. A comprehensive and effective strategy includes three fundamental components, ends, ways, and means (Department of the Army: United States of America 2018, 1). In essence, it entails using appropriate instruments of power to accomplish specific goals. That said, one strategy that can be fundamental in governing nuclear proliferation is deterrence. Deterrence refers to measures that effectively prevent an actor from taking a specific action, which has been a central factor in keeping the peace since the 1970s (U.S. Department of Defense n.d., par, 1). Deterrence is a grand strategy since it advances a nation’s enduring, long-term, and core interests over time (Department of the Army: United States of America 2018, 4). Since the security environment is continuously evolving, it is paramount for relevant entities to tailor enduring concepts of deterrence. One strategic approach to achieve the same is building a formidable nuclear force. This means having a combination of diverse, sophisticated, and resilient nuclear forces strategically positioned on land and at sea. Such a show of nuclear might would considerably deter perceived rivals from engaging in nuclear activities with catastrophic ramifications. Second, the United States is obligated to employ missile defense as a nuclear deterrent. This essentially means using a comprehensive approach to mitigate, neutralize, and intercept potential missile attacks (U.S. Department of Defense n.d., par. 3). The strategy can serve as a critical cog in protecting the United States, its overseas military forces, and allies from possible ballistic missiles attacks of all ranges. Third, modernizing the nuclear technology that is in the throes of becoming obsolete would play a pivotal role in deterring nuclear proliferation. This is immensely critical since it would guarantee the effectiven...