Difference between revisions of "The Death of Arms Control"
(Create page) |
(Create section on background, arguments against) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The Death of Arms Control is a topic of discussion following the failure to further continue disarmament after the massive reductions made immediately around the era of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, many scholars today feel we're on the edge of a whole ''new'' arms race, where new countries like Iran and North Korea enter the nuclear sphere, and in which existing nuclear-armed countries like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all simultaneously looking to expand their arsenals beyond their current capabilities. This article seeks to document both how and why the last two decades of Arms Control have fundamentally failed to succeed at concrete reductions. |
The Death of Arms Control is a topic of discussion following the failure to further continue disarmament after the massive reductions made immediately around the era of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, many scholars today feel we're on the edge of a whole ''new'' arms race, where new countries like Iran and North Korea enter the nuclear sphere, and in which existing nuclear-armed countries like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all simultaneously looking to expand their arsenals beyond their current capabilities. This article seeks to document both how and why the last two decades of Arms Control have fundamentally failed to succeed at concrete reductions. |
||
| + | |||
| + | == Sagan-Waltz Debate == |
||
| + | {{Main|Book:The Spread of Nuclear Weapons}} |
||
| + | Before we can answer the question of whether arms control as we currently know it is a good thing, it's important to realize the background arguments for and against the spread of nuclear weapons. For example, it can be argued that until China demonstrated their own nuclear capabilities, the prevalence of Racism in America prevented strategists from taking them as a serious threat. As such, it can be argued that traditionally disempowered nations gaining nuclear weapons can be a ''good'' thing for overall strategic stability. On the other hand, Sagan only needs to be right once about the risk of a limited nuclear war for us to realize that such a system, inherently, is anything but stable. |
||
| + | |||
| + | == Arguments Against == |
||
| + | [[todo]]<ref>https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/reports-of-the-death-of-arms-control-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | == References == |
||
| + | <references /> |
||
Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2021
The Death of Arms Control is a topic of discussion following the failure to further continue disarmament after the massive reductions made immediately around the era of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, many scholars today feel we're on the edge of a whole new arms race, where new countries like Iran and North Korea enter the nuclear sphere, and in which existing nuclear-armed countries like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all simultaneously looking to expand their arsenals beyond their current capabilities. This article seeks to document both how and why the last two decades of Arms Control have fundamentally failed to succeed at concrete reductions.
Sagan-Waltz Debate
Before we can answer the question of whether arms control as we currently know it is a good thing, it's important to realize the background arguments for and against the spread of nuclear weapons. For example, it can be argued that until China demonstrated their own nuclear capabilities, the prevalence of Racism in America prevented strategists from taking them as a serious threat. As such, it can be argued that traditionally disempowered nations gaining nuclear weapons can be a good thing for overall strategic stability. On the other hand, Sagan only needs to be right once about the risk of a limited nuclear war for us to realize that such a system, inherently, is anything but stable.