Nuclear Weapons example essay topic

I feel that this school of thought is a particularly negative discourse, if not a highly pessimistic one! However it would be na " ive too ignore it, as it is clear that nuclear proliferation is a highly volatile and explosive situation. This does not warrant the acclaim the media has given it though, as there are far more devastating and relevant threats that are facing the planet already. i.e. HIV / Aids, terrorism, etc When we critically assess the given texts, it is important that we understand the context of all of them. As they are with out a doubt voiced within and around a specific discourse and ideology.

This being that throughout the given texts there are a lot of uncertainty, speculation, and here say. More important than this is the fact that throughout the readings there is a realisation that nuclear weapons bring about a certain sort of power and control. This is formed within the dichotomy of both national and international power. There is a consistent sentiment to this throughout the texts, as according to Singh (1998), nuclear weapons remain a key indicator of state and international power. (This becomes plausible if we consider the most powerful countries both economically and politically are the countries that have the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons. i.e. United States of America, Britain all have a substantial amounts of nuclear weapons, this is in accordance with the article in 'Time Magazine.

' It is within this paradigm that the answer too the question posed lies. Most countries that are still acquiring their nuclear arsenals, like India for example are doing so with a particular discourse, just as the United States and Britain have done in the past. This being, to invoke the persona that they too are amongst the elite and thus should have the same sort of perceived power and authority enjoyed by the United States and Britain. It is clearly debatable whether these countries will use these weapons of mass destruction, however what is certain is the fact that with nuclear proliferation comes the perceived notion of security as they are able too defend their borders and as such the state. And this is why nuclear proliferation is not the biggest threat to our planet.

When we examine the reasons why certain countries arm themselves we are able too see that it is done for the sake of protection and not for evil. However this sort of stance would be na " ive as not all countries that arm themselves do so for protection. Iraq is a good example of this as they in the early 1990's used their military power to invade Kuwait. Where as in the Indian example, they were arming themselves so as to strengthen their borders from further attacks from their neighbours and old enemies, Pakistan. In closing it should be clear too see that nuclear proliferation is more a psychological threat than a physical one. As most countries don't intend too use their nuclear arsenals too invoke fear, but rather too provide the peace of mind that if they were to be attacked that they could defend themselves adequately.

Therefore nuclear proliferation isn't the greatest threat to our planet yet!