Essay : Disarmament
English Essay on "Disarmament"Disarmament
Disarmament means limiting, regulating, reducing, or eliminating a nation's armed forces and weapons. Most disarmament agreements are treaties approved by many nations. Disarmament is also called arms control.
Disarmament proposals have ranged from general and complete disarmament to various forms of limited arms control. General and complete disarmament would allow nations to keep only those weapons and forces necessary to provide police services and support international peacekeeping units. Today, an increasing number of nations are developing the ability to make nuclear weapons. This trend has led to a growing campaign for arms control. People who favor arms control' use the following arguments:
The overwhelming power of modern weapons exceeds any reasonable purpose. Today, one submarine can carry missiles and nuclear warheads that contain more destructive power than all the weapons used during World War II (1939-1945). The use of all existing nuclear warheads in an attack would almost certainly destroy the countries attacked.
A nuclear war might produce enough dust and other debris to cause a major Change in the earth's climate. Many scientists believe that such a change would threaten every form of life in part or the entire world.
The threat to use nuclear weapons against a country might itself cause a war. A threatened country might question its ability to survive an attack. As a result, it might attack first if it feared that it was about to be attacked.(4essay.blogspot.com) Arms control is intended to reduce such fears.
Arms control reduces the need for countries to acquire' nuclear weapons or increase their supply of other weapons. Arms control thus eases world tensioned limits other conditions that might lead to nuclear war.
Nations that first try to agree on arms control raise false hopes that may cause people to oppose spending the money necessary for defense.
Arms control agreements between an open, free society and a secret, totalitarian society are risky. The totalitarian national often will not permit adequate inspection to assure that it is keeping its part of the agreements.
Disarmament may damage a nation's military defence. Arms control agreements may call for the destruction of some existing weapons and may also prevent the replacement improvement of other weapons systems.
Some nations want to build nuclear weapons because they regard them as a symbol of technological achievement and postage. In addition many people feel more secure if their country is militarily strong.(4essay.blogspot.com) People who oppose arms control use the following arguments:
Armed forces and weapons by themselves do not cause international disputes or tension. They merely reflect political, economic and other kinds of disputes. These disputes must be settled before nations can agree on disarmament.
After two and a half ears of complex negotiations, the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) has produced the text' of a comprehensive test ban (CTB) treaty that would permanently end all nuclear testing. Although almost all of the conference's 60 participating states support the text, the CD failed to reach the required consensus on the treaty due to Indian opposition and was unable to forward it to the United Nations. Despite these procedural problems the over wheeling support for a test ban wail almost certainly result in a treaty based on this text in the not too distant future.
The CTB would apply to the five nuclear weapon states (Britain. China, France, Russia and the United States), all of which have now endorsed the text, the existing prohibition on nuclear explosions covering the 177 non-nuclear-weapon states that are members of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The test ban would also cover the three nuclear "threshold" states. India, Israel and Pakistan the only non-NPT member-states that have the technical capability to conduct a nuclear J explosion because as drafted the treaty cannot enter into force without their ratification. Israel has endorsed the present text. but India has rejected the draft treaty and Pakistan will probably not join until India does.
The entry into force problem and India's refusal to sign the treaty should not obscure the historic significance of the fact that the five nuclear weapon states have endorsed the current draft CTB treaty and have for the first time simultaneously instituted a moratorium on nuclear testing. Israel has also announced its intention to sign the treaty, and Pakistan has indicated its willingness to sign if India does. While India will not sign the CTB in the near future, New Delhi will find it very difficult to test in the lace 01 almost universal support of a global ban. Consequently even if the CTB does not formally enter into force for several years, the CD has already produced a de facto ban on nuclear testing which after signature will become de jury for the signatories under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thus, the CTB will establish a new international norm against nuclear testing, even if India 'and others choose for the time being not to adhere to the formal agreement.
India said the nuclear weapon states were practicing nuclear apartheid, keeping nuclear weapons among a select club and prohibiting the rest of the world from getting them. This argument has a certain appeal because there is tremendous resistance to the idea that certain states should be able to maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons while denying the same weapons to other states.
There is a sense at he CD that the nuclear weapon states, particularly the L:nited States and Russia, practice an arrogance in regards to their own nuclear arsenals and are moving much too slowly toward the elimination of these weapons.
There have been 2,046 nuclear explosions over the last 51 years, two months and four days. That averages one nuclear explosion every nine days. The US. has set off a nuclear explosion the equivalent of once every 17 days during that time. It is very likely that there will not be another US nuclear explosion. It is quite likely that there' will never be another explosion in the world period.
By signing this treaty the nuclear weapon states assume the obligation to do nothing that would obstruct the purpose and object of the treaty. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties obligates states to uphold treaties they have signed while they await their entry into force.
The Limited Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty limited underground nuclear weapon explosions test, including peaceful nuclear explosions, to 150 kilotons. With the CTBT negotiating record, It is clear that the treaty bans not only nuclear explosions but any nuclear explosions, but any nuclear energy release from a nuclear explosion. It bans 150 kilotons; it bans one kiloton. It bans 2 kilograms of high-explosive release, which is the amount of yield from the hydro nuclear tests the United States conducted during the moratorium from 1958 to 1961, The negotiating record is clear not even I gram of energy released from a nuclear explosion is permitted.
Disarmament proposals have ranged from general and complete disarmament to various forms of limited arms control. General and complete disarmament would allow nations to keep only those weapons and forces necessary to provide police services and support international peacekeeping units. Today, an increasing number of nations are developing the ability to make nuclear weapons. This trend has led to a growing campaign for arms control. People who favor arms control' use the following arguments:
The overwhelming power of modern weapons exceeds any reasonable purpose. Today, one submarine can carry missiles and nuclear warheads that contain more destructive power than all the weapons used during World War II (1939-1945). The use of all existing nuclear warheads in an attack would almost certainly destroy the countries attacked.
A nuclear war might produce enough dust and other debris to cause a major Change in the earth's climate. Many scientists believe that such a change would threaten every form of life in part or the entire world.
The threat to use nuclear weapons against a country might itself cause a war. A threatened country might question its ability to survive an attack. As a result, it might attack first if it feared that it was about to be attacked.(4essay.blogspot.com) Arms control is intended to reduce such fears.
Arms control reduces the need for countries to acquire' nuclear weapons or increase their supply of other weapons. Arms control thus eases world tensioned limits other conditions that might lead to nuclear war.
Nations that first try to agree on arms control raise false hopes that may cause people to oppose spending the money necessary for defense.
Arms control agreements between an open, free society and a secret, totalitarian society are risky. The totalitarian national often will not permit adequate inspection to assure that it is keeping its part of the agreements.
Disarmament may damage a nation's military defence. Arms control agreements may call for the destruction of some existing weapons and may also prevent the replacement improvement of other weapons systems.
Some nations want to build nuclear weapons because they regard them as a symbol of technological achievement and postage. In addition many people feel more secure if their country is militarily strong.(4essay.blogspot.com) People who oppose arms control use the following arguments:
Armed forces and weapons by themselves do not cause international disputes or tension. They merely reflect political, economic and other kinds of disputes. These disputes must be settled before nations can agree on disarmament.
After two and a half ears of complex negotiations, the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) has produced the text' of a comprehensive test ban (CTB) treaty that would permanently end all nuclear testing. Although almost all of the conference's 60 participating states support the text, the CD failed to reach the required consensus on the treaty due to Indian opposition and was unable to forward it to the United Nations. Despite these procedural problems the over wheeling support for a test ban wail almost certainly result in a treaty based on this text in the not too distant future.
The CTB would apply to the five nuclear weapon states (Britain. China, France, Russia and the United States), all of which have now endorsed the text, the existing prohibition on nuclear explosions covering the 177 non-nuclear-weapon states that are members of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The test ban would also cover the three nuclear "threshold" states. India, Israel and Pakistan the only non-NPT member-states that have the technical capability to conduct a nuclear J explosion because as drafted the treaty cannot enter into force without their ratification. Israel has endorsed the present text. but India has rejected the draft treaty and Pakistan will probably not join until India does.
The entry into force problem and India's refusal to sign the treaty should not obscure the historic significance of the fact that the five nuclear weapon states have endorsed the current draft CTB treaty and have for the first time simultaneously instituted a moratorium on nuclear testing. Israel has also announced its intention to sign the treaty, and Pakistan has indicated its willingness to sign if India does. While India will not sign the CTB in the near future, New Delhi will find it very difficult to test in the lace 01 almost universal support of a global ban. Consequently even if the CTB does not formally enter into force for several years, the CD has already produced a de facto ban on nuclear testing which after signature will become de jury for the signatories under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thus, the CTB will establish a new international norm against nuclear testing, even if India 'and others choose for the time being not to adhere to the formal agreement.
India said the nuclear weapon states were practicing nuclear apartheid, keeping nuclear weapons among a select club and prohibiting the rest of the world from getting them. This argument has a certain appeal because there is tremendous resistance to the idea that certain states should be able to maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons while denying the same weapons to other states.
There is a sense at he CD that the nuclear weapon states, particularly the L:nited States and Russia, practice an arrogance in regards to their own nuclear arsenals and are moving much too slowly toward the elimination of these weapons.
There have been 2,046 nuclear explosions over the last 51 years, two months and four days. That averages one nuclear explosion every nine days. The US. has set off a nuclear explosion the equivalent of once every 17 days during that time. It is very likely that there will not be another US nuclear explosion. It is quite likely that there' will never be another explosion in the world period.
By signing this treaty the nuclear weapon states assume the obligation to do nothing that would obstruct the purpose and object of the treaty. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties obligates states to uphold treaties they have signed while they await their entry into force.
The Limited Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty limited underground nuclear weapon explosions test, including peaceful nuclear explosions, to 150 kilotons. With the CTBT negotiating record, It is clear that the treaty bans not only nuclear explosions but any nuclear explosions, but any nuclear energy release from a nuclear explosion. It bans 150 kilotons; it bans one kiloton. It bans 2 kilograms of high-explosive release, which is the amount of yield from the hydro nuclear tests the United States conducted during the moratorium from 1958 to 1961, The negotiating record is clear not even I gram of energy released from a nuclear explosion is permitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment