U.S. Security Policy and Nuclear Proliferation

Introduction

After the international community through the United Nation’s Office for Disarmament Affairs discussed and passed a bill, the US government faced the pressure being required to consider the recommendations. However, it has been a problem for the US since some nations that supported the motion are seen in the front line among those that use the respective weapons (Rhodes, 2012). It is necessary to review possible measures in order to make every country comply with the proposed policy since each state seems to be dealing alone with their internal issues. For example, Russia is blamed for supporting Ukrainian rebels who are believed to be partly Russians in causing havoc in the country while supplying them with weapons, despite the 2009 treaty with USA. It is considered that the use of nuclear weapons emerged in the USA in 1930s, some years before Japanese Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked and entirely destroyed by the US forces (Rhodes, 2012).

In March 2015, the Russian government threatened that it would use nuclear weapons if the Ukrainian government did not offer a solution to the ongoing war. The burden lies with the government of the United States to implement the disarmament policy that was passed by the country together with the United Nations (UNODA UNODA, n.d). However, there are fears that after taking the first step, the US would be starting an international war with the supporters of nuclear weapons, such as Iran and Russia. The US government was able to convince and pursue many countries, which has brought positive results since such weapons maker as Iran has vowed to comply (Collina, 2014).

Recently, Iran declared its support to the debate by deciding to stop manufacturing nuclear weapons. However, there are still challenges due to other countries refusing to follow this policy. Regardless of the fact that the US government intends to assist the UNODA in order to ensure that the use of a nuclear weapon is the issue of the past, there is an urgent need to take care of the people. It is not appropriate for the US to implement the disarmament policy on nuclear weapons in the international scene since this would attract civil war in America as revenge.

Literature Review

A. Short History on Nuclear Weapons in U.S. Foreign / Security Policy

USA was the first country to design and use the nuclear weapons in warfare. This is faced by the world when the nuclear weapons use and the way to deter nations from its manufacturing is an urgent issue. The discussion of the legitimacy and appropriateness of the use of nuclear weapons began in August 1945 when the Americans logged nuclear warheads on Japanese Hiroshima and Nagasaki states (Rhodes, 2012). This is the worst history of nuclear weapons that has ever happened in the world. It is believed that between 1945 and 1996, the US government has spent more than USD 8.75 trillion for designing and manufacturing the nuclear weapons as well as their testing.

After Japan bombing, the international community joined together to condemn the use of nuclear bombs and the pressure on anti-nuclear movements, which started at that time. The use of nuclear weapons has immensely increased since the end of the Cold War. According to a video named Countdown to Zero, this increase is attributed to the growth of terror groups in the whole world. In the USA, the last time a nuclear weapon was tested for use was in 1992. Later, the focus changed from the manufacturer to deterrent and disarmament of the same weapons. The afore-mentioned policy does not allow any country to use nuclear weapons, either during defense or offense missions since they are put a permanent mark in the target location.

The US government has been on a standoff with the Iranian and Russian administrations due to the continuous pressure by the US on these nations to stop manufacturing and using these weapons (Caldicott, 2004). According to a report released by UNODA in 2002, the September attack in the US could have been the revenge for the support, which the US government was giving to the UN for fighting nuclear warheads. The reason is that there were advances by the Al Qaeda in attempting to access nuclear bombs before the motion intensified. Moreover, Iran and North Korea were barred from selling weapons to other countries.

According to The Helen Caldicott Foundation, the challenges faced during the implementation of the security policy by the US government are based on the relationship between the USA and Russia in terms of nuclear weapons holding. It is believed that both countries hold at least 94% of all the 16,400 nuclear weapons that exist globally (Kristensen & Norris, 2014). This makes the US one of the major party in the countries, which ignited the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In a symposium held on Feb 28- March 1, 2015 by The Helen Caldicott Foundation for two days at the New York Academy of Medicine, the main discussion was the possibility of a nuclear war between the US and Russia.

According to Richard Rhodes, (2012), it has been discovered that the use of nuclear bombs is a long term injury to the generations of people who survive and those who are born after the war (Rhodes, 2012). Thus, the history of the policy on nuclear manufacture and use can be extended to the 21^st century where the countries are still bargaining on the use of most appropriate methods. Currently, according to Rhodes, the only prevention to the success of the policy implementation is the standoff between Russia and the USA (Rhodes, 2010). This has threatened the two parties with a nuclear fight if any of them used force while expressing their standpoints.

B. US. Government / Mainstream Position

The government of the US remains actively committed in attempts to ensure that the world is free from any nuclear weapon (Taylor, n.d). This policy was introduced by the former president George Bush when he refused to allow his army using nuclear weapons while searching Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. According to Joseph Cirincione (2007), George Bush declared his willingness to meet the leaders of those nations that were alleged to be a nuclear manufacturer and discuss other alternatives to the nuclear technology in warfare.

It is considered that this decision was driven by the frustrating experience of Hiroshima, which was reduced after bombing in 1945, and the long term effects that Japan continues to suffer (Cirincione, 2007). Currently, the government under the leadership of President Obama believes that there will be an easier way to end the menace of nuclear weapons proliferation in the world. Researchers and war experts have been calling for a discussion between the government of the United States and that of Russia (Kristensen & Norris, 2014). The reason was to find an acceptable solution to the Russian persistent use of nuclear weapons (Taylor, n.d).

The government of the United States has put in place a security task force dubbed U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, which is supposed to ensure that there the trade of nuclear weapons is eliminated in all the nations. This task force is mandated to draft policies for the international community under the authority of the government and the UNODA in order to lower the rate of nuclear weapon manufacture and trade. It is considered that there will be better control over the access of nuclear weapons by the nations that do not produce them and also close the market for the manufacturers, hence deterring their use.

Barrack Obama intends to initiate a meeting with the Russian leaders and deliberate on the issues whether it is possible to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons and senseless civil wars. According to US Department of Defense, President Obama has recently gained support from Ukraine, Chile, and Canada for the intensifying fight against the use of nuclear weapons (Department of Defense, 2010). The most important concern with the government of the United States is the possibility of terrorists using nuclear weapons while attacking their victims. In such a situation, the world would become an unsafe place live since a nuclear bomb can be shot at a distance of 15,000km from the target (Kristensen & Norris, 2014). This would bring benefit to the attackers since there would be no defense against killing of innocent people. The USA remains committed both financially and military while supporting the UN in the policy directed at the disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Recently, the government of Iran announced that they stop manufacturing the nuclear weapons, and this decision was appreciated by the government of the USA. The reason is that Iran was one of the strongest states in terms of nuclear weapons, and also a stubborn country to make deals. The worries about another fight between the USA and Russia are raised by the fact that during the Cold War, Americans used nuclear weapons to prevent the Soviet soldiers from invading their land. This created a massive feeling of rivalry between the two countries (Taylor, n.d). According to the US Department of Defense, the use of nuclear weapons in the recent years has opened the world to an endless state of civil wars in the form of revenge. This is revenge for the destructions of these weapons. For this reason, the Ukrainian government is offering its support to the US and UNODA to disarm Russia for the sake of the future of Ukraine and the neighboring states (UNODA, n.d).

Following the recent threats issued by Russia on using nuclear bombs in order to stop the war on the borders of Ukraine, UNODA is now concerned that the government of Russia could be provoking USA. This may be considered as an attempt to call for a fight between the USA and Russia with the aim of protecting Ukraine (Department of Defense, 2010). In April 2015, The USA President Barrack Obama issued a warning to the Russian administration against releasing any of their nuclear bombs against Ukraine. Their failure to follow this request will result into war. This shows a high standpoint taken by the government of USA in seeing the success of this debate through sacrifice. Having been a major maker and a user of nuclear weapons, America has realized the negative side of having the weapons in the long run (Taylor, n.d).

Rhodes agrees with the statement made by George Bush that the world has become different from that of the past, and deterrence cannot be reached through talks. The countries should seek the ways of defending themselves using all means possible. However, he does not agree with Bush on the designing of new types of bombs that would replace the forbidden nuclear weapons. During the era of George Bush as the President, the USA used to engage in numerous fights with the countries of the Middle East due to the proliferation of terror gangs. However, he forbade his soldiers to use the nuclear bombs that had been already in stock by the time the government took a new direction on the matter (Department of Defense, 2010).

This shows that since the year 2001, USA has been actively supporting the war against the use of nuclear weapons, although there were claims that the US army wanted to use them in the Iraq War. According to the US report released by the Department of Defense in February 2015, the current intention of the US government is that all the countries in the world should sign a non-proliferation treaty. According to this document, it will be possible to  realize who is against the movement. Paul Ingram, who is an expert on the issues of nuclear disarmament, argues that it might not be appropriate for the US government to use force in order to make Russia comply with the international affairs. This is due to the long-lasting tension between the two nations.

The next target for the US government is Israel, which is being pursued to join the movement and surrender all the weapons in use. If Israel agrees to quit using nuclear warfare, the US government will manage to draw the attention of Russia and China without a fight (Department of Defense, 2010). Due to the numerous claims that the US war in Middle East had reached a point of using nuclear warheads, the taskforce has recommended that the government should do things transparently. is the aim is to remove any doubts and to attract trust from the followers in the call for cooperation. The next task will be to recommend for a military-to-military discussions between the US and China so that the two countries can reach an understanding that the issue of disarmament is for international sake.

China is believed to be a rival to the government of the US for economic reasons, and to make it more tricky, China is nuclear-armed even to-date. The government of the United States is ready to hold peaceful talks with Russian leaders and discuss the issue of disarmament, according to Department of Defense reports (Department of Defense, 2010). Nonetheless, there are traces of the USA wanting to abandon the discussion and embark on manufacturing the weapons again. This is following a trillion dollar project that was signed by President Obama in 2014, according to which the country should continue to make weapons for stocking in the oncoming thirty years. This creates a dilemma for the government which side to choose since it has been in the front line fighting against the menace of the manufacture and use of the nuclear weapons.

Since 2009, when he came to power, President Obama has kept condemning the wars in Israel, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, calling the countries to seek peace then conquest. However, it is considered that he has taken another decision where he is supporting the manufacture of these deadly weapons (Broad & Sanger, 2014). This story shocked the world when it was published by The New York Times in 2014 since, in 2009, the USA and Russia signed a deal, according to which these two countries should stop using nuclear weapons. This deal was not respected by Russia since the government has used those weapons while threatening to attack Ukraine.

US government has also accused Russia for continuing manufacture of the nuclear weapons. In addition, such situation can cause a nuclear standoff between these two nuclear strongholds and have unpredictable consequences for the whole world. Mostly, it is believed that the US government is committed to supporting the disarmament of countries but, on the other hand, it indicates a slight insincerity in the process (Broad & Sanger, 2014).

C. Critical Interpretations

Having realized that there are destructions that may be never recovered and permanent injuries from nuclear weapons have negative influence of people’s health and the environment, the organizations were formed to stop its use. One of the numerous anti-nuclear groups is Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (Laforge, 2014). This foundation was created in the year 1982 involving the nations from all over the world that support eliminating the use of the nuclear weapons. This foundation is one of many organizations that have decided to address the issue of peaceful coexistence between nations and the abolishment of the use of nuclear weapons in defense.

Many people have started to provide their views on the possible ways of stopping the war in the world without carrying grudges among the states (Collina, 2014). However, some nations seem to have approached this issue from a different angle since a country like USA did not decide to stop using nuclear weapons without any comment. The former US president George Bush complained to the international community in 2001 that the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs was plotting to expose the USA to attack from terrorists (UNODA, n.d). According to Bush, stopping to use nuclear weapons in defending America from possible attacks would mean that those countries with nuclear capacity can come and invade the country. For the same reason, Bush wanted to disarm the whole world at the same time in order to ensure the harmony (Laforge, 2014).

These are the same sentiments given by the current President Barrack Obama since he is consistently calling for the cooperation between all the nations to avoid opening new targets. According to Obama, leaving a fighting nation like Russia with nuclear capacity while the other countries have submitted to the non-proliferation treaty would give such countries a leeway to attack. Iranian government, when announcing its willingness to stop the nuclear projects, argued that it is time that all parties involved should cooperate together to eliminate this problem. This shows that there is no country that feels safe while conforming to the call without an assurance that others will follow the same policy (Collina, 2014).

Paul Ingram asserts that it is not entirely guaranteed that all nations will agree to conform and sign any treaty concerning nuclear warfare since some of them have already established their economies for the manufacture of the items. Mining of uranium remains a critical area of concern since this is a very crucial component in the production of nuclear weapons. There has been an evidential development in the field of nuclear weapons where those companies that initially made weapons are now decomposing them to make nuclear power for fuel (Laforge, 2014).

This means that there is another way to use the uranium that was previously necessary for making weapons. Paul Ingram advises the countries to adopt peaceful ways of solving differences and also better methods of protecting themselves from terrorists without risking lives of the citizens. These sentiments are shared by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation where the organization seeks peaceful ways of nations’ co-existence while sharing empathy with the innocent people who suffer during the war. According to this foundation, holding the strongest warfare does not mean that a country is better than others; instead, this makes it look hostile and unapproachable for business.

Related Free Political Essays