Possession Of Nuclear Weapons Research Articles

Sharing the Burden and Dodging the Blame: NATO as a Western Instrument of Nuclear Advocacy

The West often indicate in discourse their desire to disarm. However, Western pro-nuclear disarmament rhetoric is often contested, since Western nuclear powers claim there are impeding factors to disarmament. These factors usually include the compromise of the security of their allies and generic ‘security reasons’. The argument is that concrete disarmament efforts are unfeasible and unrealistic because they do not consider the wide range of security concerns that nuclear weapons help mitigate. Oftentimes, the security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies is invoked to justify the need for nuclear weapons. In that sense, I argue that the West instrumentalizes the NATO to rationalize and legitimize their nuclear weapons possession. They do so by 1) deflecting criticism related to nuclear policy to the organization; 2) passing the buck regarding the blame of maintaining nuclear weapons; 3) coercing NATO allies to adopt pro-nuclear policies; and 4) creating threats to justify these policies. Nuclear weapons symbolize material and reputational power and nuclear disarmament represents a severe loss of power for these States. The West creates a narrative wherein nuclear weapons are a ‘necessary evil’ to guarantee their own security and their allies.

REVISITING THE NUCLEAR DEBATE IN SOUTH ASIAN SECURITY

Grand strategy and nuclear deterrence have been the most distinct strategies of the last century. The principal objective of a grand strategy for a major state is to achieve some grand strategic objectives, and for other states, it is to preserve their security in an anarchic world. However, contrary to the central assumption of the nuclear deterrence theory, evidence shows that in certain situations, mere possession of nuclear weapons does not automatically translate into deterrence. The central argument of this article is based on the idea that deterrence strategy is neither a static concept nor should be taken as such. Nuclear deterrence. It is a dynamic concept in nature and its utilization depends on the ingenuity of the Nuclear Weapon State (NWS). While citing a history of incidents, especially the Pulwama crisis in 2019 between India and Pakistan, this article explores how nuclear deterrence worked when the fear of a nuclear war was hanging in the region and how these states were able to use the nuclear deterrence strategy to their benefit. It also discusses whether there was a need for either side to operationalize nuclear deterrence through some physical and tangible steps

Francis and the Bomb: On the Immorality of Nuclear Deterrence

ABSTRACT This essay investigates the change in the Catholic attitude toward nuclear weapons as articulated by Pope Francis. Francis has generally followed the position of his immediate predecessors with regard to the Catholic teaching on just war. While the resort to armed force remains a morally justifiable option if the principles of just war have been met, the pope forcefully emphasises the tools of nonviolent peacebuilding. Recently, however, Francis made an original just war argument when he broke with the Church’s established position on nuclear weapons. The pope declared both the use and possession of nuclear weapons “immoral” and, thus, abandoned the Church’s reluctant acceptance of nuclear deterrence that had survived the end of the Cold War. In this essay, I analyse the rationale behind Francis’s decision to break with nuclear deterrence, which is mainly grounded in the disillusionment about the failed promise of nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, I assess the impact of the new position with regard to Catholic soldiers serving in nuclear armed militaries.

How leader's type shapes the effect of nuclear latency on dispute involvement

What is the effect of nuclear latency on states’ conflict behaviors? Defined as the ability to produce fissile material without the actual possession of nuclear weapons, nuclear latency is much more common in the international system than nuclear weapons are. Yet present studies might have underestimated its impact on conflict. We argue that, given its ambiguous nature as a dual-use technology, nuclear latency has the potential to significantly alter the effect of leader type on conflict. In particular, while conventional wisdom about hawks and doves suggests that the former should be more prone to conflict than the latter, nuclear latency blurs the distinction between leader's types. Bridging together studies of nuclear latency and leader type, we study how nuclear latency shapes the impact of leader type on the propensity of initiating conflict or being targeted. We find that in the absence of latency, hawkish leaders are more likely to initiate disputes than dovish leaders. However, latency muddies the waters. Thus, leader characteristics does not affect dispute initiation for latent states.

Research on the Prediction of world nuclear weapons Quantity based on Topsis Comprehensive Evaluation method

First, based on the data collected, the countries that have ever possessed nuclear weapons are screened, and the nuclear bomb stockpiles of each country in the last 20 years are counted, and the change in the total number of nuclear weapons of each country is found, and the most change in the nuclear weapon stockpile of the United States in 20 years is obtained. Immediately afterwards, the number of nuclear tests by country was added up by year and the five years with the highest number of nuclear tests worldwide were 1962, 1958, 1968, 1966 and 1961. Subsequently, the stockpile of nuclear bombs and the number of nuclear tests were selected as measures of nuclear weapons research activity, and the Topsis model (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) was used to obtain a score for each country to determine the level of activity, with the United States ultimately having the highest level of activity. Finally, the speed of transition from disregard to possession of nuclear weapons is found, and the final ranking gives the country with the fastest transition speed, again giving the fastest transition speed for the USA.

Comparing the Cold War to the Present, Why Is International Law Increasingly Failing to Limit Nuclear Proliferation?

Since the possession of nuclear weapons has always been a global issue, from the introduction of nuclear disarmament to its implementation, states have bound each other consistently through international law. However, is this the only effective way? Moreover, is it necessarily the best? From this question, this paper examines the nature of international law. It explores the problem of international law in stopping nuclear proliferation from three counterpoints: the refinement of the global economy, moral capital, and the subjective interpretation of the possession of nuclear weapons, concluding that nuclear proliferation is more likely to go unchecked from the Cold War onward.

Did Russia Invade International Law in Ukraine

Background: It has been a year since Russia heavily invaded Ukraine, leading to prolonged violence and devastation. Russia had previously disregarded international law by annexing Crimea, violating the principle of the use of force, and breaking numerous treaties that safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite the invasion occurring a year ago, Ukraine remains in a dire situation, with the conflict causing significant harm to its people and infrastructure. This paper aims to examine the legal implications of Russia’s invasion from an international perspective, and to consider the potential repercussions of such actions. Methods: This research paper analyses the legal implications of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, focusing on Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea. Through the application of legal positivism, which seeks to analyse the law in a way that is objective and value-neutral, the paper argues that Russia’s actions contravene Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Conclusion and recommendations: The Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent territorial seizure constitutes a violation of international law. While there are ways to address this violation, the possession of nuclear weapons by a state may make it difficult to take action. The ICC is investigating the situation in Ukraine and can prosecute individuals for international crimes, but national courts also have a crucial role in ensuring justice. Notwithstanding, it is imperative for the international community to unite and condemn aggression against independent nations, with a critical mass of states prepared to take measures to halt or decrease acts of aggression while also providing assistance to victims. It is vital to demonstrate that international law remains valid and binding, and that the illegitimate use of force will never be accepted or even tolerated.

Military law: current state and prospects of development

The aim of the article was to analyze the current state and prospects of development of military law. The methodological basis of the study was the use of empirical research methods, theoretical knowledge and logical research techniques. The research was based on several certainties: The first systemic certainty is the limited or conditional commitment of some states to international law. The second systemic certainty is the state perspective of international security. The third is the structural deficiencies of the United Nations. The fourth systemic certainty is that horror in the context of armed conflict is present and that war is always a humanitarian catastrophe. Finally, the fifth systemic certainty is the defensibility of a state in possession of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. It is concluded that it is necessary to create a military justice system for modern police practice, i.e., to enact military law directly. Based on the idea that military justice is a system of organs, it should include: an organ that conducts pre-trial investigation or ensures law and order and an organ that monitors the rule of law; military courts.

Nuclear Deterrence, Strategic Stability, Missile Defense

Some nuclear-free states believe that only the possession of nuclear weapons ensures real security. In reality, the choice is between solving the security problem by political means and following the path of North Korea, with all the ensuing consequences.

Assumptive Foreword

Remarkably, it is nuclear powers (Russia, the U.S. and Israel) that are actively involved in confrontations—direct or indirect. Possession of nuclear weapons deters them from head-on collision, but by no means reduces the intensity of the antagonism.

Nuclear Weapons and Low-Level Military Conflict

AbstractDo nuclear weapons deter low-level military conflict? Although the political effects of nuclear weapons have been debated for more than seventy years, scholarship has yet to produce a clear answer. We design a study that reduces the risk of omitted variable bias relative to prior research. Our analysis compares the rates of conflict among eventual nuclear powers in the periods before and after they obtained an arsenal. We include two-way fixed effects to control for time-invariant state-specific confounders and address common shocks. Our findings indicate that switching from nonnuclear status to a nuclear arsenal decreases the risk of being targeted in militarized interstate disputes (MID) by nonnuclear challengers. However, when it comes to low-level conflict, nuclear powers do not appear to be deterred from instigating disputes with other nuclear-armed states. This result stands in contrast to most prior studies, which conclude that the possession of nuclear weapons increases or does not reliably decrease the risk of being targeted—even for nonnuclear challengers. Although there are clear limits to the deterrence benefits of nuclear weapons at low levels of conflict, states can reduce their vulnerability to some degree by developing a nuclear arsenal.

The Principles of Sustainability in Economics and the War in Europe

Can we talk about “community hegemony” when we talk about choosing or removing a government leadership as in the case of Russian dictatorship and of tragic and terrible war in Ukraine? The Russian people, literally bombarded with fake news and manipulations of reality about war (directly coming from the old Soviet “dezinformatzija" дезинформация), may seem completely bewitched by censorship. Nevertheless, we must believe that the responsibilities always entrusted to the community in terms of life and choice freedom can never be completely extinguished. As saying that the longing for the freedoms guaranteed by democracy has been part of the DNA of Earth peoples starting from birth. For this reason, the possibility of removing the dictatorship in Russia lies with the community, although the conditions are not yet favorable for a democratic power alternation in Russia. Therefore, this is the real final goal that the Western countries must set, by continuing to support the defense of brave Ukrainian people by providing money and weapons. All the more true if we believe that the final goal of humankind is to ban the war and above all to dismiss even just the simple eventuality of an atomic war; which would only bring the destruction of life on Earth, This is in contrast to the goal that all living beings have in concert with nature, that is, the preservation of life on Earth. In my opinion, it’s therefore necessary that the great democracies take the common decision to remove the atomic arsenals from the control of leaders of those countries in possession of nuclear weapons and then entrust the whole nuclear arsenal to a global supranational authority, that would keep the atomic weapons in a “new Fort Knox” and later would dispose for their progressive reuse, but for peace purposes.

USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN HUMANITER LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Human life and technological developments are closely related to the legal awareness of the international community. The discovery of nuclear weapons for the first time was by the United States (US). It was used in World War II to attack and bomb the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The incident resulted in the death of 160,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand) people, and damage to almost all the ecosystem. The devastating negative effects resulting from the use of nuclear weapons were then regulated and contradicted the norms outlined in Additional Protocol I of 1977, to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which regulates the methods and methods of war. Although it has been regulated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions (international humanitarian law), however, it turns out that there are still many countries that continue to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of national security. The research method used is a type of normative juridical research and uses a statutory approach and conceptual thinking. The results of the study indicate that the governing norms regarding; research and possession of nuclear weapons are still discriminatory. In practice, there is a distinction between a nuclear state and a non-nuclear state. Furthermore, in the current reality, there are still countries that are classified as not having good intentions to carry out the agenda of disarming and stopping the development of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, according to the results of this study, to overcome these problems, it is necessary to have new legal principles that can be universally binding.

Ukrainian crisis: «Nuclear» aspect

In the article, the author conducts a thorough and objective analysis of the Ukrainian crisis, it would seem, from a completely obvious, but rather unexpected side. The author believes that when considering the Ukrainian problem, it is necessary to focus on its "nuclear aspect". According to the author, the acuteness of the Ukrainian crisis after the collapse of the USSR and Ukraine's independence was exacerbated, first of all, because of the desire to acquire its own "nuclear status" to "contain Russia", but to ensure which it did not have the appropriate resources. The author tells about the dramatic situation that developed during the division of the nuclear arsenal of the former USSR after its collapse. The author convincingly substantiates Russia's position regarding the confirmation of its rights to the absolute possession of nuclear weapons, since it was necessary to put them under reliable and unified control. The author rightly believes that after the collapse of the USSR and the formation of four nuclear states instead of one at once, on the territory of which nuclear arsenals were located, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, 1968) would be violated. The author analyzes in detail the Budapest memorandum of 1994 and proves that its main essence was to convince Ukraine to confirm its "non-nuclear status". The author reveals the role of the US and NATO in providing "guarantees" to Ukraine to confirm its "non-nuclear status". In the current situation, according to the author, it was necessary to preserve international nuclear security as a single system, which also met the interests of Russia. A special place in the article is occupied by the analysis of the "Crimean issue", which is part of the Ukrainian crisis. The author reveals the essence of "nuclear parity" and argues that the "spread" of nuclear weapons breaks the entire existing system of international nuclear security and will not be able to ensure peace. The author comes to the conclusion that the "nuclear aspect" is the main meaning of the Ukrainian crisis, which should be resolved not by unilateral, but by universal efforts.

Constructing nuclear responsibility in US–India relations

Abstract In 2005, the United States recognized India as a ‘responsible state with advanced nuclear technology’. How did India go from pariah to a legitimate nuclear state? This article historicizes the concept of nuclear responsibility to explain India's shifting place in the nuclear regime. Existing perspectives view responsibility as a function of discrete state behaviors to the detriment of understanding the relationship between power and responsibility as a discourse. This article tracks the evolving discourse of early proliferators, such as the US, UK and France, who legitimated their possession of nuclear weapons by linking responsibility with deterrence. In its early nuclear history, India challenged these hegemonic perspectives but more recently adopted the deterrence model of responsibility to be granted recognition and legitimacy in the global nuclear regime. The article concludes that nuclear states’ success in linking deterrence with responsibility complicates the place of disarmament as an alternative nuclear responsibility discourse. Tying deterrence to responsibility reshaped the global order around the continual presence of nuclear weapons, narrowing moral agency and limiting a nuclear weapon-free future. Reclaiming responsibility will require moving beyond the typical state-centric politics of blame towards institutional and structural approaches to moral agency.

Consequences of U.S Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear deal on Iraq: (A study to assess Political and Security Aspects)

The aim of this research is to make an overall assessment of American Withdrawal from Iranian Nuclear Program and its impacting on political and security aspects in Iraq; however this study took a year 2013, as launching point due to this year Iran retains of its a nuclear program. Besides Iran has also announced that it is working on a new Nuclear Power reactor. The findings of this research shows that the continuing of Iran's government to reject any intention regarding the developing of nuclear bombs. But stepping away from its obligations rather Iran seeks to increasing stockpiles of enriched uranium that may will bring the country nearer to possess the ability to do so.The findings of this research also explore that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons, that will create instability in the Arab Gulf region in particular Saudi Arabia, Emerita and other countries

The United Arab Emirates as a Case Study in Assessing Over-the-Horizon Nuclear Proliferation

This article uses a comprehensive examination of Emirati strategic culture and its national role conception to examine the likelihood that the United Arab Emirates would pursue the possession of a nuclear weapons program. The article concludes that the UAE is predisposed to reject the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons due to its dominant national role as a regional and global collaborator; the high value it places in its conventional military capabilities and alliance with the United States; Emirati identity as a regional leader in social and technological innovation with the intent to elevate the country beyond regional stereotypes of violence, repudiation of progress, and political Islam; and its unique perceptual lens on productive strategies for operating within Iran’s sphere of influence. Continued rejection of a nuclear weapons program hinges on U.S. engagement in the region, where the United States has a willing and like-minded ally.

Military and Political Influence on the Portfolio of Global Reserve Currencies

This paper analyses a new concept presented in the works of B. Eichengreen, A.J. Mehl, L. Chitu “Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice”, according to which the state’s possession of nuclear weapons is linked to its possession of reserve currency. The paper aims to provide a detailed assessment of how gaining reserve currency status depends on the military and political potential of the state issuer. The research method is an analysis of the historical material and the current state of the issue under discussion. The study shows the relationship between the global military and political leadership and control over the global financial infrastructure, which increases its importance as a space for interstate conflicts. It has been proven that neither the presence of military power nor the ability and willingness to provide partners with security guarantees do not predetermine the acquisition of the reserve status by the national currency. This status is acquired as a result of control over global investment processes, in the implementation of which military power plays a significant, but not exclusive role. This power, as the potential for economic and financial dominance, is a derivative of the scale and level of development of the national economy, with a key factor in its deep involvement in international trade. From the point of view of practical forecasting of economic, military and political development, the authors conclude that in the foreseeable future, despite the strengthening of its military potential, the PRC will not be able and, most likely, will not try to obtain the status of the yuan as a reserve currency. The United States, in turn, will increasingly use its dominance in the capital market and control over the global financial infrastructure as a tool to maintain global leadership. Further study of the considered issues will significantly increase the efficiency of forecasting economic processes in relation to the military and political situation.

PROBLEMS OF EU-CHINA RELATIONS IN SOLVING THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM'S ISSUE

It is proven in the paper that the chosen topic is relevant due to the impact of China and the EU on the negotiations about the regulation of the Iranian nuclear program’s issue. In the article, it is done a comparative analysis of the policy of the EU and China regarding the regulation of the Iranian nuclear program’s problem. It is also mentioned in the paper that since the time of the US presidential administration of Donald Trump, the EU and China have been seen as valuable actors in resolving the Iranian nuclear program’s issue. For this reason, the main purpose of the work is a review of the influence that China’s and EU’s policies regarding the development of the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) exert on European security. The history of China-Iran relations in the nuclear sphere and the important role of China in the development of the Iranian nuclear program is mentioned in the paper. It is also noted that the fact that the EU countries are partners or allies of the United States, which is the main rival of the IRI, has complicated the dialogue between the European Union and Iran. It is shown in the paper that during Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s presidency, the Iranian nuclear program was not controlled by the international community, and because of that China supported sanctions of the UN Security Council against Iran. As it is mentioned in the article, until the end of the 2000s, the EU, as well as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), did not support the US policy toward Iran. The Iranian-Chinese relations in the nuclear field were studied. It is mentioned that despite the fact that China is interested in exporting Iranian energy resources, Beijing will never accept Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons. It is assumed that the fact that China does not support the nuclear weapons status of Iran gives it the opportunity to cooperate with the EU in case Iran decides to acquire nuclear weapons. It is noticed that China had a major impact on the negotiations related to signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), i. e. the nuclear agreement with Iran. The further actions of the EU and the PRC after the dissolution of the JCPOA are mentioned in the paper. The scenarios of further development of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program were reviewed. As a result of the research, it is concluded that China and the EU have played a significant role in achieving the JCPOA and conducting diplomatic negotiations with Iran. The strengthening of Beijing’s role as a key partner of Teheran and the decrease of the EU’s impact on Iran’s foreign policy were mentioned in the paper.

The ‘ultimate insurance’ or an ‘irrelevance’ for national security needs? Partisanship, foreign policy attitudes, and the gender gap in British public opinion towards nuclear weapons

AbstractOnly two European countries – France and the UK, both NATO members – have nuclear weapons, and leading politicians have called for the UK and EU to maintain close military and security links post-Brexit. In the context of the Trident renewal debate and the UK government's recently published integrated defence and security review, this article uses data from the new UK Security Survey to analyse attitudes towards the possession of nuclear weapons among the British public. It assesses three key theorical strands in the wider scholarly literature on public opinion and states’ use of military force: domestic political attitudes, foreign policy predispositions, and the ‘gender gap’. We find that all three theoretical perspectives contribute to the underpinnings of contemporary public opinion towards nuclear weapons. Support for the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent is associated with being a Conservative Party supporter, favouring Brexit, endorsing superior military power worldwide as an important foreign policy goal, wanting to protect the transatlantic relationship, and with being male. The article makes a distinctive contribution to the growing subfield of research on public opinion and foreign policy, while the findings advance wider empirical understanding of contemporary citizen engagement in a key dimension of security policy.