The for military purposes. States have nuclear weapons

The proliferation of nuclear weapons, both by States and by non-State
actors, is one of the greatest threats to international security and world
affairs. A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive
power from nuclear reactions. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons
that have been created. There are two ways to make nuclear weapons:

1.      fissile weapons (also called atomic bombs or
bombs) and

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2.      fusion weapons (also called hydrogen bombs,
H-bombs or thermonuclear weapons).

And how nuclear explosive energy is different in these nuclear manufacturing
technologies. Nuclear fission produces the atomic bomb, a weapon of mass
destruction that uses the force released by dividing atomic nuclei. When a free
neutron hits one atomic nucleus of radioactive material such as uranium or
plutonium, it knocks two or three other neutrons free of charge.

Nuclear weapons are
nuclear power, nuclear power used for 2 purposes; one is civilian purpose and
another one is military purpose. The use of nuclear energy for civilian
purposes is not prohibited. In the 1950s, attention shifted to the peaceful
purposes of nuclear fission and its capture of power generation. Today, the
world produces a lot of electricity from nuclear power as it did from all
sources combined in the early years of nuclear power. But some countries are
also used for military purposes. States have nuclear weapons to show their
military power. “The nine countries possessing nuclear weapons, and only
five out of nine countries have legally recognized nuclear weapons.

North Korea has claimed to have conducted the first successful test of
hydrogen bombs, but other countries have nuclear warheads. A report from the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said only nine countries in
the world had access to nuclear weapons. In total, there are believed to be
around 16,300 nuclear weapons spread between these nine nations.

The United States, Russia, the UK, France, China, North Korea, India,
Pakistan, and Israel all control some nuclear weaponry. Russia and the US share
93 per cent of all nuclear warheads, but they have been asked to reduce the
number of weapons they have under the new START treaty (Treaty on Measures for
the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms).” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-nine-countries-that-have-nuclear-weapons-a6798756.html
cited on 16th January 16, 2018) According to this report, there are nine
countries with nuclear weapons. The main problem of nuclear weapons is the
disruption of the balance of power among nations. In essence, the balance of
power is a kind of international order. But theorists differ from the normal
operation of the balance of power. Structural realists describe an
“automatic version” of theory, because the balance of order is an
automatic, self-regulating and unintended consequence of countries striving to
achieve their narrow interests. Previous versions of the balance of power were
more consistent with the “semi-automatic” formula of the theory,
which required “balancing” the state to throw its weight on one side
of one scale or another, depending on which lighter, to regulate the system.
The process of balance is the function of human coexistence, focusing on the
skill of diplomats and state officials, a sense of community of nations, shared
responsibility, desire, and the need to maintain a balance of the energy
system. But because of this nuclear weapon this balance is disrupted. Because
of these nuclear weapons nearest nations are most affected if another nearest
country has nuclear weapons. Example if India has nuclear weapon our Sri Lanka,
Pakistan and other nearest nations mostly affect by India’s nuclear weapon.

Another problem is that terrorists have nuclear weapons, and problems
will multiply. “The threat posed by terrorists trying to launch a nuclear
attack would change our world,” President Barack Obama said, and the world
took “concrete” steps to prevent nuclear terrorism, according to the
Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. On a nuclear weapon is “one of the
biggest threats to global security” The summit was attended by more than
fifty countries. (BBC news 02nd April 2016). It shows how Problem will arise if
terrorists have nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is an essential element of the
global nuclear non-proliferation regime and establishes a comprehensive and
legally binding framework based on three principles.

1.      States that do not possess nuclear weapons as
of 1967 – one year before the treaty is opened for signature – agree not to
acquire them.

2.      the five States known to have tested nuclear
weapons as of 1967 – the nuclear-weapon States – not to assist other States in
acquiring them and moving towards eventual disarmament; and

3.      To ensure access by non-nuclear-weapon States
to civilian nuclear technology and energy development.

The objective of the NPT is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and weapons technology, to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and to promote the goal of disarmament. The Treaty establishes a safeguards
regime under the responsibility of IAEA, which also plays a central role under
the Treaty in the areas of technology transfer for peaceful purposes. This
Treaty signed on 1 July 1968 and effective 5 March 1970. That is how most
States (1960 States) signed with this Treaty. But five countries have not
signed this treaty. India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan have
not signed with this treaty. It is one of the weaknesses of the Treaty.

Scientists should be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and see the role that technology can play in mitigating the threat.
Although it is natural for scientists to want to simplify the problem in such a
way as to make it seem concrete and solvable, the formation of a very simple
global model can lead to inappropriate, monotonous and even counterproductive
solutions. Tensions surrounding nuclear weapons over decades have simplified
the models of problems, giving us some simple answers. Nuclear proliferation
concerns should place constraints on the growth of nuclear energy, but there
are no rapid reforms to the problem of proliferation. Unfortunately, scientists
are the worst criminals who seek easy answers through technological reform.
During the 1960s, this model prompted many physicists and others to predict
that there were 20 or more nuclear-weapon States by 1980. The failure of this
prediction in the early 1980s led to the re-evaluation of this model. The main
problem in the original model is that there is no basic need for states to
produce nuclear weapons. For most States, nuclear weapons do not have a clear
benefit to enhance security, either as a component of a military strategy or as
a political tool. The nuclear-weapon States have done so from their naive and
theoretical point of view.

The continued success of the NPT requires strengthening the system and
providing a variety of incentives for countries to remain within the system.
Security assurances have provided incentives in the past for countries to
accede to and remain in the NPT. It is not known how long it can last
successfully, especially if one day weakens the influence of the United States.
UU. In world affairs. Other measures must be considered to keep the system
united.

In the original negotiations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT), countries that have committed themselves as
non-nuclear-weapon States will, in turn, receive assistance in developing their
civil nuclear energy programs. This was an incentive for countries not to
abandon the non-proliferation regime and were at that time a strong argument
for non-proliferation of civilian nuclear energy. We must remember that there
is much greater optimism about the future of commercial nuclear energy when the
regime began; the prospects for nuclear energy were almost limitless. Although
this incentive was not strong enough to attract India and Pakistan, it was
possible to attract North Korea to join it in 1985. At present, the NPT
negotiation is designed for most countries for mutual security, cost reduction,
and abandonment Nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear attack falls below the
enormous cost of maintaining and maintaining an independent deterrent. The
treaty itself has never been amended.

The Treaty has been at risk over the past decade because of clandestine
activity within signatory States. It has been discovered that one (Iraq) has
operated secret nuclear programs in defiance of its obligations under the NPT.
The other country (North Korea) continues to resist IAEA efforts to verify
compliance with its safeguards agreement under the NPT.

To date, the commercial nuclear industry has played little or no role as
a bridge to enter the country into a nuclear arms race, and there are no known
cases in which persons or subnational groups steal nuclear weapons facilities.
However, this does not mean that there is nothing to worry about. It is
important to address the need of developing countries to increase energy
supplies. To reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, it is desirable that the
developed world share nuclear technology with them, with appropriate
safeguards, as provided for in article IV of the NPT. It is time to look
cautiously at increasing the use of nuclear energy under the most stringent
protection standards. Energy reactors (below cost) could be provided to host
countries under the clean development mechanism under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Other forms of energy
production can also be exported under this mechanism, leaving the option of
technology to a bilateral agreement. However, the recipient will have to ratify
the NPT and accept the latest IAEA safeguards to receive subsidized reactors. A
full range of initial inspections will be needed. Fuel cycles that produce
materials that can be used for weapons in any part of the process cannot
receive financial incentives. It will provide further support for nuclear
non-proliferation in the world affairs.

Written by