What implications do horizontal nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons modernization programs have for global strategy?
Concern over nuclear proliferation more frequently focuses on nuclear weapons spread to new nations. A single nuclear bomb will kill and ruin a city. Various nuclear blasts will destroy tens of millions of civilians across modern cities. Hundreds of millions of casualties will come from a global nuclear war between the US and Russia. Nuclear proliferation means a spread to countries other than those recognized as ‘Nuclear Weapon States’ by the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, widely called ‘Non-Proliferation Treaty,’ of nuclear weapons, fissionable and arms-related nuclear technologies, and intelligence. (Futter, 2021). Many nations with and without nuclear weapons opposed proliferated, as policymakers fear that more nuclear weapons countries could increase the likelihood of nuclear warfare, destabilize foreign or regional ties, or breach the national sovereignty of nation-states (up to and including counter value targeting of nuclear-armed civilians). Nuclear proliferation, the distribution of nuclear arms, nuclear devices, or fissile material to non-EU countries. This term has also been used to refer to the potential possession by extremist or other militant forces of nuclear weapons.
Although there was less horizontal nuclear proliferation than was feared during the 1960s, it was nevertheless significant. Since the first nuclear arms were first filed and used by the U.S. in 1945, nine countries (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and the UK) produced nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons testing programs were launched in many other nations, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Taiwan, South Korea, and Sweden, but they were scrapped on different lines. One (South Africa) government abolished nuclear weapons and, in the aftermath of a break-up of the Soviet Union, three countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine) lost nuclear weapons remaining on its territory and returned them to Russia. Today nine countries have arsenals of nuclear missiles, and total nuclear warheads are expected to be 13,410. Russia and the United States, who together have about 6,000 nuclear warheads, control the vast majority of the arsenal. Both two arsenals are abnormally high. No other nuclear-powered state is convinced that more than a few hundred warheads are needed to prevent serious nuclear or conventional attacks. Each nuclear-armed country modernizes its and adapts its nuclear capability.
One of the main difficulties facing us as a global community is the control of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Given that public health is what we do together to guarantee healthy living circumstances, regulating and ultimately eradicating the spread of nuclear weapons must be an important global health objective.
There are three key components of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation:
- Develop the capacity of countries that now lack nuclear weapons to produce or acquire nuclear weapons (horizontal proliferation).
- Increasing the arsenal of nuclear-armed countries, enhancing technological sophistication and dependability in these weapons, and developing new weapons like “mini-nukes” or nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
- The acquisition of nuclear weapons or materials and expertise by people or non-statutory entities is frequently referred to as ‘terrorists’ (another form of horizontal proliferation).
The role of nuclear weapons in the modern world has contributed to the development of a large literature on the causes and effects of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear missiles play a major role in deterring possible opponents from attacking the USA, our allies, or our vital interests. Any objectives need nuclear weapons energy to be destroyed. But precision targeting will significantly decrease the nuclear output needed to kill those targets. The frequency, timing, length, and outcomes of wars can change, and the political influence of the state can be affected by nuclear weapons. Secondly, it is pointless whether or not states like nuclear weapons if they cannot have them. Our main point is that nuclear weapons increase the safety and diplomacy of their owners on average, through a large range of metrics and based on the tradition of true and safety-oriented approaches to nuclear proliferation and nuclear deterrence. Controlling nuclear proliferation is one of our greatest threats as a global society. That public health is “what we individually do as a company to maintain environments under which people will remain safer and monitor and effectively eliminate the spread of nuclear weapons must be a global goal for health. The distribution systems are another significant aspect of nuclear proliferation. Nations or other organizations require these weapons not only, they also need rockets or other means of supplying them to pose a nuclear danger.
Each nuclear-armed country modernizes its arsenals and adapts its nuclear capability. Cycles of nuclear modernization do not inherently inter-country overlap but rely on where and how long they last. In addition, various countries do not always have their nuclear powers in the same fashion; some tend to use completely new arms while some are focused on keeping and updating advanced ones. It is also inaccurate for us to argue that “we are behind” nuclear modernizations in other countries. As is now the case, nuclear modernization programs will become more important and useful in the signalizing and adding of increased strategic capability – additional or more warheads – to “strengthen deterrence,” as the deterioration in relations and military rivalry intensifies (Graham, & Mullins,2019). Shortly before the present crisis, however, the Trump administration greatly expanded investment introduced new arms and adopted a more competitive and opposition approach. If nuclear disarmament is – and is – a very complex issue it is at least a threat to be addressed through human experience and wisdom. There is no need for a sea change around, for vanished rainforests or dead seas to come back to life, or for heavenly artifacts to be taken away from conflict with the Earth. It means shifting the minds of decision-makers and changing the sense of focus and what is in their overwhelming interest if long-term. In the light of fresh facts and logic, it is in the ability of intelligent human beings to change their beliefs.
On the one hand, the use of nuclear bombs is significantly different from that of anti-personnel mines and ammunition. These differences not only arise from their comparative disruptive quantities but also refer to their uses or use of their possessors’ sets, and circumstances in which speeches have been held concerning their utility, validity, and continuing presence. Nevertheless, the Ottawa and Oslo processes resulted in re-forming international speeches, which focused on the arguments about the planned uses of such arms. Although the components of the new nuclear arms control system, including the NPT, are essential, analysts have noted that they reflect a status quo that fits nuclear-armed states and infantilizes non-nuclear-weapons-NPT countries.
The latter regularly complain that the government legitimizes nuclear weapons, although political outliers such as the DCP and the Islamic Republic of Iran are dominated by non-proliferation and enforcement crises. It is a familiar dynamic of blocking and circular speech controlled by ownership states (Acheson, 2018). Efforts to remove nuclear weapons remain unaffected by its potential to delegitimize the international community. The nuclear weapons norm will inevitably be eroded. The application of nuclear weapons from a humanitarians perspective will also allow nations to eliminate accumulated ideological gaps or restrictive geographical caucuses, as in the case of landmines and cluster bombs, which prevent substantive collective change. And this lens could help to address the common view of nuclear weapons strategists as ‘peace enforcers’ a (mistaken) view which, amid numerous internal conceptual inconsistencies of nuclear disorder and the lack of solid evidence for supporting it, has still trickled public awareness in many countries. In short, recent humanitarian processes in counter-personnel mining and cluster bombs have revealed questions about these weapons and their legality. This was necessary for the context of a humanitarian objective and mechanism to pursue these questions in a realistic and meaningful manner.
Public health professionals have contributed in several ways and written in a wide variety of places to deter war and particularly to control nuclear proliferation. A large range of public health programs to deter war are covered by any contribution. 69 Any of them are unique to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Any concern blocking the production of nuclear weapons of fissionable material. Any people address local communities’ views of the dangers of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The practices of health personnel employed in conflict zones are some of the most dangerous for public health care workers to deter war from going on. There are more threats than ever before faced by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While those concerns can appear well removed from public policy practices at government or municipal health, healthcare, or public health practice settings daily, public health professionals have plenty to do to overcome the problems faced by the spread of nuclear weapons. These topics should be trained and disseminated by public health staff to peers, decision leaders, and the general public (Kristensen, 2019). They should promote stricter domestic and foreign nuclear arms control policies.
Since then there has also been a scientific investigation into evidence of the immediate and long-term effects of the use and testing of nuclear weapons. In a significant 1987 paper, the WHO outlined current studies into the effects of a nuclear detonation on health and health care.
The study states, inter alia, that nuclear blasts have catastrophic short- and long-term impacts on human bodies due to the blast wave, thermal wave, radiation, and toxic impact, and that current health systems cannot significantly mitigate these effects. Nuclear weapons in or around the region can cause major deaths and damage, large-scale displacement, and cause long-lasting harm to people’s health or well-being and long-term damage to the atmosphere, facilities, societal growth, and a social environment by the explosion of the blast wave and heavy contamination and radiation, as well as radioactive fallout. Also, small-scale use of some 100 nuclear bombs against urban goals will, in addition to radiation spreading across the planet, lead to a freezing of the air, shortened seasons of development, food shortages, and global famine.
No national frontier can contain the effects of nuclear detonations, particularly the radioactive downwind impact. After a nuclear explosion in or near a residential place, the extent of damage and pollution can create serious social or political disturbances, since the infrastructure is reconstructed and economic operations are restored, business, communication, health services, and schools are regenerated for many decades.
No state and/or foreign entity may adequately tackle a humanitarian urgent emergency, or offer adequate aid to those concerned, the long-term effects of the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a populated region. Due to the massive devastation and devastation of nuclear disaster, even if an effort to achieve coordinated readiness can also be of benefit in alleviating the consequences of an explosion of an improvised nuclear device, it would still not be feasible to detect such capabilities. vulnerability of human error and cyber-attacks in nuclear weapons command-and-control networks. maintain high-level alert nuclear arsenals that are ready for deployment in minutes thousands of missiles. The hazards of access by non-state parties to nuclear weapons and associated resources are some other replications associated with it.
Risk is the product of the probability of an adverse occurrence and is multiplied by the effects. The probability of one government or another using nuclear weapons intentionally has declined from the end of the Cold War although it would have huge implications. This chance has however by no means vanished. Particularly in a regional war, nuclear weapons may be used. In the past, the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, restricted the possibility of proliferation of nuclear weapons among countries. Five nations are de facto owners of nuclear weapons, and the Convention acknowledges only five have nuclear weapons, while three others are non-partisan. As the ‘Non-Nuclear Weapons States’ all other nations in the world have entered into the Pact, but one country (North Korea) has withdrawn. Some nations, including Iran, and Iraq before Saddam Hussein has been expelled, are still striving to acquire nuclear weapons. Much more nations have sought, but have been forced to drop, nuclear weapons programs in the past.
The most dangerous, cruel, and indiscriminate weapons ever created are nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons They are different from all other missiles, both in the scope of their destruction and in their uniquely enduring, spreading, genetically harmful radioactive fallout (Kmentt, 2015). A single nuclear bomb shoot could destroy millions of people over a large city. The use of tens or hundreds of nuclear weapons will disturb the global atmosphere and cause mass starvation. Nuclear bombs emit ionizing, killing or sickness exposed ones, contaminating the air and having long-term effects for wellbeing, including cancer and genetic damage and adversely Nuclear bombs emit ionizing, killing or sickness exposed ones, contaminating the air and having long-term effects for wellbeing, including cancer and genetic damage.
The NPT is a dynamic negotiation between countries and countries that do not have one. The countries have not agreed to not accept nuclear arms, materials, or material specific to them, although the States with Nuclear Weapons consent not to provide those articles (Warren & Baxter,2020). The countries with nuclear weapons are obliged to provide other countries with the peaceful use of nuclear technology to decrease the unequal character of the deal. Most important, Nuclear Weapons States have committed to reduce and operate in good faith for the abolition of the role of nuclear weapons in foreign affairs. The United States was most inadequate about this latter obligation. Indeed, the latest Nuclear Posture Review by the current Bush administration estimates that several thousand nuclear weapons are needed indefinitely, and also searches for new missions for them.
There is an increasing possibility that terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons. Deterrence kept the US and the former Soviet Union from directly conflicting armed forces for several years and now in so-called “states of concern” such as North Korea, deterrence maintains its control. But dissuasion would not restrict fanatical beliefs-driven (Panofsky, 2003). The avoidance of a jihadist nuclear disaster must therefore be either based on the interdiction or the prevention of hostile distribution of nuclear weapons of explosive materials necessary for nuclear weapons (in particular high-enriched uranium and plutonium). The threats faced by nuclear weapons could be the most dangerous outcome of scientific and technological interaction with human activities.
Acheson, R. (2018). Impacts of the nuclear ban: how outlawing nuclear weapons is changing the world. Global Change, Peace & Security, 30(2), 243-250.
Futter, A. (2021). Horizontal Proliferation Challenges: The Nuclear Outliers. In The Politics of Nuclear Weapons (pp. 143-169). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Gibbons, R. D. (2018). The humanitarian turn in nuclear disarmament and the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, 25(1-2), 11-36.
Graham, T. W., & Mullins, A. F. (2019). Arms Control, Military Strategy and Nuclear Proliferation. In Nuclear Deterrence and Global Security in Transition (pp. 157-170). Routledge.
Hanson, M. (2018). Normalizing zero nuclear weapons: The humanitarian road to the Prohibition Treaty. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(3), 464-486.
Hymans, J. E. (2019). Do nuclear crises vaccinate against nuclear war? When Proliferation Causes Peace: The Psychology of Nuclear Crises, Michael D. Cohen (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2017), 304 pages, $34.95.
Kmentt, A. (2015). The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate. Int’l Rev. Red Cross, 97, 681.
Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2013). The new era of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and conflict. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 3-14.
Panofsky, W. K. (2003). Nuclear proliferation risks, new and old. Issues in Science and Technology, 19(4), 73-75.
Warren, A., & Baxter, P. M. (Eds.). (2020). Nuclear Modernization in the 21st Century: A Technical, Policy, and Strategic Review.
Williams, H. (2018). A nuclear babel: narratives around the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, 25(1-2), 51-63.
Kristensen, H. M. (2019). Global nuclear arsenals, 1990–2018. In Nuclear Safeguards, Security, and Nonproliferation (pp. 3-35). Butterworth-Heinemann.
KRISTENSEN, H. M. Nuclear Weapons Modernization, And Nuclear Proliferation Triggers. THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, 21.
Download the complete solution for POLS5003 National Security and Strategy and many more, or order a fresh one. Order Online Now!