Assessment of the Necessity of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty

Perceptions regarding thermo atomic weapons presents a contradiction in cost of the existence of a peaceful atomic past and a fearful atomic future (Sagan 66). Such a contradiction exists in terms of our current ca work regarding nuclear weapons and deterrence. Consider for example that during the cool War period, nuclear weapons were wide believed to be one of the most important factors in honoring the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union (Cimbali 224).Currently, on the other hand, it is widely believed that enabling the continuing spread and victimization of nuclear weapons go out only improver the peril of the reading of a nuclear war. This is base upon the boldness that rival countries that atomic number 18 considered nuclear powers are unlikely to maintain stable deterrence. Due to this concern regarding the prevention of such an event, the thermonuclear non-proliferation conformity was formulated during 1968. The treaty imposed an trans peop leal limitation to the spread of nuclear weapons. It is based upon three main tenets non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament of nuclear weapons, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. What follows is an analysis of the nuclear proliferation argument.As was domaind above, the main rule for the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was the prevention of nuclear wars originatord by the unstable deterrence between nuclear weapons states. fit in to the Canadian Foreign minister of religion Lloyd Axworthy, the agreement is based upon international mechanisms that course within the foundations of international laws and norms.Anxworthy further states that the NPT opts to farm and achieve a world without nuclear weapons hence a world without a nuclear war impending in its historical future (1). As unlike to this, it has been argued by political scientists that if the main rationale for the treaty was the prevention of nuclear wars, then the treaty by prohibiting the prolifera tion of nuclear weapons defied itself in so far as enabling the proliferation of nuclear weapons ensures the prevention of nuclear wars.According to Kenneth trip the light fantastic toe, nuclear weapons have been given a bad name (731). dance argues that it is double-tongued to assume that since nuclear weapons may cause catastrophic nuclear exchanges, nuclear wars leave alone thereby cause global destruction. Waltz argues that nuclear weapons will enable the development of stability and peace since a nation will be deterred from attacking if it believes that there is a possibility that its adversary will retaliate (734).It is important to consider that Waltzs claim is based upon the assumption that major wars amongst states occur as a result of the estimation of zero or low retaliation costs of a state from another state. In view of this, it is thereby possible to conclude that allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons lessens the possibility of the development of nuclear wars since it ensures that countries will consider the high amount of risk involved in launching a nuclear attack towards a state with similar military capacities.In billet of this, I would like to conclude that it is then true that the choice between a more peaceful and co-operative versus a belligerent and hostile world is highly hooklike or critically dependent on the future of nuclear weapons however, it does not inescapably necessitate the prevention of their further spread. work CitedCimbali, Stephen. The Dead Volcano The Background and cause of Nuclear War Complacency. Portsmouth, NH Praeger/Greenwood, 2002Halard, Muller, David Fischer, and Wolfgang Kotter. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Global Order. Oxford Oxford Univ. P., 1994.Waltz, Kenneth. Nuclear Myths and Political Realities. American Political Science Reviews 84. 3 (September 1990).