Image from Reuters |
To understand the situation completely, we must examine the statuses of each controversial nation claiming their acquisition of nuclear weapons. North Korea is currently one of the most feared nations due to its secrecy and unpredictable actions and a nuclear test may arrive sooner than later. According to an ABC News article by Eric Talmadge, due to the nation’s recent long-range missile launch failure, the communist leader Kim Jong-Un has been rumored to respond to this failure with a nuclear weapons test. “Satellite imagery also suggested stepped-up activity at the North’s Punggye-ri nuclear testing site,” and “sooner or later, however, a test is highly likely.” Even if this future test does not succeed to the fullest, the communist nation will be satisfied with a partial success with its nuclear weapons testing. Another reason why North Korea is such a nation to fear is due to the possibility of sharing its nuclear weaponry with terrorist organizations.
Image from Reuters |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S President Barack Obama Image from Digital Group |
Shifting to the Middle East, the
nation of Iran has been in the spotlight due to its recent accusations of being
close to obtaining a nuclear arsenal.
Like North Korea, Iran is on the list of most feared nations, likely
even more worrisome. “A nuclear Iran
would alter the strategic balance in the tense Middle East and, some say,
possibly trigger a regional atomic arms race,” (Rising Tension). Despite sanctions from the United States and
Europe, Iran has been unfazed by these actions and has yet reduce the
enrichment of uranium or correctively operating their nuclear program to the
right standards (Rising Tension). The
nation most threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions is the United States’ close
ally, Israel. An extremely close physical
proximity to Iran, Israel should also be on the spotlight regarding this
issue. Not only has the Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly state
“Israel must be wiped off the map,” but with the added support of the Palestine
state, the president continued to preach by saying “the establishment of a
Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.” Ahmadinejad will likely not think twice when
it comes to striking Israel with a full frontal nuclear arsenal as he did
publicly say such a thing without hesitation.
Corresponding back to a statement by Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission
Chairman Ernst David Bergmann in 1952, “we shall never again be led as lambs to
the slaughter,” referencing the Holocaust (Nuclear Proliferation). This will likely stand as Israel’s current
state of mind with regarding any lethal attacks made by opposing nations.
Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility in Iran Image from The Christian Science Monitor |
Israel also plays a vital role, as
it is currently the sole nation in the Middle East to contain nuclear
weaponry. This could also pose as a
threat to Iran and I believe Ahmadinejad would use this fact as leverage for
making a pre-emptive strike on the Jewish state. In addition, with the recent allegations
of an Israeli Mossad spy for killing an Iranian nuclear scientist at Tehran
University in 2010, Ahmadinejad responded by hanging the one responsible. Iran claims “he was trained by Israel’s spy
agency to carry out one of the first attack on Iranian scientists in a
suspected shadow war against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” This new “shadow war” is the perfect term to
describe the current situation between the two nations as a future war may very
well be foreshadowed from this execution, as did many wars in the past such as
World War I. On the other hand, Israel has made it clear
that a pre-emptive strike on their behalf is more realistic. “Israel has
long contended that if the West waits to see if sanctions work, Iran will have
time to bury key nuclear facilities deep inside mountain bunkers, making them
inaccessible to even the most powerful bombs,” (Rising Tension). The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, responded by saying that retaliation on their behalf “would be 10 times worse for the interests of
the United States” than for their own (Rising Tension). These three nations are currently in this standoff,
cold war-like situation and each country awaiting any forthcoming actions to be
made. It seems it is every nation for themself
at this point. The nation that should be
worried the most at this point is actually the United States. According to the U.S
News World and Report, “A U.S or Israeli military strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear
weapons facilities is unlikely this year, but could happen as soon as 2013, say
several senior American officials.” One
of the main reason for which is that it is currently an election year and
President Barack Obama will not submit the nation into another unnecessary
Middle East dilemma to sustain his presidency for his hopeful second term in
office. He is also working with Israeli
officials to also avoid any plans for a pre-emptive strike that would result in
American involvement. Nicholas Burns,
undersecretary of state under the Bush administration, simply stated the
earliest a strike would occur: “It’s
2013.”
As for the sole, dire solution to
this issue that has been urged for decades ever since the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, disarmament is the only way out of this global mess. The first attempts at doing so were the two
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT II). SALT I occurred from
November 1969 to May 1972. During this
time period, “the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the first
agreements to place limits and restraints on some of their central and most
important armaments.” This attempt,
however, landed no success. The SALT II negotiations
occurred in November 1972 and the main goal “was to replace the Interim
Agreement (from SALT I) with a long-term comprehensive Treaty providing broad
limits on strategic offensive weapons systems.”
Today, there have been several attempts from important figures around
the world striving for the reduction of nuclear arms. Ban Ki-Moon, the current Secretary General of
the United Nations, started a disarmament campaign in 2009 called WMD (We Must
Disarm). As you can see in his
promotional video, Ban Ki-Moon urges the world to join his nuclear disarmament
awareness campaign by warning the public that “nuclear terrorism is real” and
proclaiming: “I have a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.” As stated earlier, in addition to the
Secretary General’s campaign, China has also strived for global disarmament and
having the world’s top economic power demanding such actions is crucial for the
rest of the world.
As fearsome as it sounds, a nuclear weapons based war may soon become a reality rather than a brushed off thought. A war like this is will leave the world more crippled than it's ever been if it turns nuclear and by spreading the awareness of
disarmament throughout the globe, it will only react positively with when it to
peace and prosperity between all nations on this planet. With additional nuclear disarmament awareness campaigns such as the We Must Disarm. By having the United Nations represent campaigns such as these, issues regarding nuclear arms will become a more relevent issue to talk about and subject to debate during the United States presidential election of 2012 and beyond. Nuclear weapons nations guarded by the non-proliferation treaty must act now and collaborate together to negotiate what needs to be done to initiate the beginning steps of disarmament.
Works Cited:
Bennett, John T. "Former Officials: 2012 U.S., Israel Attack on Iran Unlikely." U.S News World and Report. 14 May 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <www.usnews.com>.
Dahl, Frederik. "China Wants "drastic" U.S., Russia
Nuclear Arms Cuts." Reuters. 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 12 May 2012.
<reuters.com>.
Fathi, Nazila. "Wipe Israel 'off the Map' Iranian
Says." The New York Times. 27 Oct. 2005. Web. 11 May 2012.
<www.nytimes.com>.
Flamini, Roland. "Nuclear Proliferation." CQ
Global Researcher 1 Jan. 2007: 1-26. Web. 17 May 2012.
lamini,
Roland. "Rising Tension Over Iran." CQ Global Researcher 7
Feb. 2012: 57-80. Web. 17 May 2012
"Iran Hangs Alleged Mossad Agent in Widening Shadow War over
Tehran’s Nuclear Ambitions." The Washington Post. Associated
Press, 15 May 2012. Web. 15 May 2012. <www.washingtonpost.com>.
"Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT II)." Arms
Control Association. Department of State. Web. <www.armscontrol.org>.
"Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I)." Arms
Control Association. Department of State. Web. <www.armscontrol.org>.
Talmadge, Eric. "N. Korean Nuclear Weapons: How Real Is the
Threat?" ABC News. Assiciated Press, 8 May 2012. Web. 12 May
2012. <abcnews.com>.
United States. Cong. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. North
Korea's Sea of Fire: Bullying, Brinkmanship and Blackmail. 112 Cong., 1st
sess. H. Rept. 112-6. Washington, D.C: U.S Government Printing Office,
2011. Www.gpo.gov. U.S Government Printing Office, 10 Mar. 2011.
Web. 12 May 2012. <www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/>.
We Must Disarm. Perf. Ban Ki-Moon. Youtube.
United Nations, 6 Aug. 2009. Web. 16 May 2012. <www.youtube.com>.
1.) Does the essay make a clear argument? Yes__x_ No____
ReplyDeleteI think the argument is that Nuclear warfare is dangerous and that countries with the most Nuclear weapons like the U.S, Russia, China, France and England need to work together to destroy the nuclear weapons so that the peaceful world can live without risk of their world being destroyed by the most powerful countries.
2.) Find on sentence that you think best describes the thesis of the blog essay.
“The ambassador continues by saying, “as countries with (the) largest nuclear arsenals, U.S and Russia should continue reductions in their nuclear arsenals in a verifiable and irreversible manner.”
3.) Does the article clearly identify a problem so that the reader understands who was involved, what happened, where it happened, when and why?
Yes, so far we have a good idea from the article about who is mainly involved in the world’s potential nuclear disaster.
4.) Does the article provide plenty of level-1 abstractions to support their argument?
Yes , I see six so far
5.) Are there any images or video in the essay? If so, are the significances of all videos and images clearly explained in the essay?
Yes, an image that helps the reader better understand the amount of nuclear weapons each country has.
6.) Are there any claims in the essay that you are skeptical of?
No, all the statements made seem to be backed up pretty well by sources and good placements of abstractions.
7.) Are there aspects of the essay that you found to be very interesting or effective?
I like how the writer gave some statistics to the most powerful nuclear countries,. The writer gave the quote by Cheng Jingye, this quote did a great job at showing the reader that countries realize that Nuclear weapons are not a good idea to have, and they should start working towards decreasing the amount of Nuclear weaponry on the planet.