What Is The Theme Of The Seventh Decade By Martin Schell

Improved Essays
The other driving factor of the Busch doctrine that the book focuses on for causing a more dangerous world is that of the preemptive actions that President Busch has taken to stop proliferation to countries. The doctrine that the United States has adopted means that they must act before enemy nations have the capability or are in possession of nuclear weapons. This is particularly the case for countries that harbour terrorists. Schell uses the example of the Iraq invasion of 2003 and how that was how the USA invade on the suspicion that they had nuclear weapons, this in fact was false. Yet regime change was implemented. This caused a stir in other proclaimed enemies of the United States both Iran, and North Korea. Schell points out that North …show more content…
I like how he uses historical events to back up his arguments and keeps reverting back to key themes such as nuclear apartheid and the double standard. He also brings up many thought provoking questions that do not have direct answers such as why do the United States and Russia still hold each other’s population hostage to a nuclear strike 20 after the end of the Cold War? Schell also brings up many rationale theories as to why in the 21st century countries are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. His explanation of how “the realists fear, the romantics ambition for greatness, and the Wilsonian’s yearning for peace flowed together to provide a flexible, new, encompassing rationale for possessing nuclear arsenals in the 21st century” (Schell, p.81). This quote, for me, sums up all the reasons as to why a nation in the modern world would want to obtain nuclear weapons, and Schell synthesized perfectly. The other point that he brings up that I found myself in agreeance with is the argument that “Sometimes it is said the world could be free of nuclear weapons if it had the political will to do so”, then he argues that this will is overmatched by a counterwill among the most powerful nations to possess nuclear arsenals, leading to the double standard (Schell, p.211). Overall …show more content…
He creates a scenario stating that if the USA and Russia were disarming that would lead to the disarmament of China’s Nuclear weapons, that would influence India to do the same, and that would lead to Pakistan disarming. Then there would be a whole international push to abolish nuclear weapons, and this would happen because there would be no cause to rebel against the double standard anymore (Schell, p.215). I find this argument to be somewhat naïve of him, because I find it hard to believe even if the major powers do disarm there would be even more influence for a smaller developing country that has been oppressed by these great powers to obtain nuclear weapons to make themselves a powerful global force. His counter argument to that point is that the previous possessors of nuclear weapons have the know how to create them and could do so quickly, and this effect would deter the “cheater nations” to build them (Schell, p.218). Yet by the time the time the rest of the world reacts to the cheater nation could be possibly too late. Also if the only thing that is keeping a nation from building nuclear weapons is the threat that other nations have the “know how” to build them and use them against you. What is stopping that nation from building nuclear weapons, because once they possess them they know they will not be

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Well there are lots of pros and cons to both sides of this argument. Some say one day nuclear weapons will be our demise, and others say nuclear weapons are the only reason we are still safe from nuclear war today. People that feel we should keep our nuclear arsenal make the arguments of nuclear weapons give the U.S a fear factor, or edge over other nations ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 5 ).…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Clarke also wrote that, “it would be morally unjust to nuke North Korea just because they are expanding their reach with their nuclear weapons”. A first strike would be uncalled for. The regime has only threatened the United States, a strike on them from the United States would destroy all of their land and would be devastating to our partnership with China. A first strike would most likely result in a war between North Korea and the United States with help from South KOREA. Clarke argues that if the United States were to go to war with North Korea, a war on their…

    • 1937 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is because of the concept of MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. All major powers are forced to rethink the notion of war due to the Mutually Assured Destruction nature of nuclear weapons. Possible total destruction of the states presents too many risks to the rational leaders of the respective states. For rational…

    • 1047 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Schlosser agrees with this point but he also states that since the deterrence is psychological and not physical it could not work in the future and bring about disastrous results. For example, if India and Pakistan used their nuclear weapons on each other, more that one billion people would be killed. The next point that examined is nuclear weapons violate international law. This is true as nuclear deterrence is like holding a nation hostage. Also nuclear weapons cannot differentiate between military targets and civilians it violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians.…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sovereignty In North Korea

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages

    However, North Korea has recently been threating us with their nuclear capabilities that can supposedly reach the U.S. mainland’s. This is having an impact on the worlds international relations. International relations are the relationship between states governments and the connection to actors and social and geographical influences. Recently North Korea has released the fact that they have enough power to release a hydrogen bomb in the top of a missile. This is a perfect example because the North Koreans know they should not be able to have nuclear power yet they flaunt their power and threaten the United States.…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Waltz makes an absurd claim that since “[…] an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now” (p. 5). He goes as far as claiming that once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply and no other states in the region will have an incentive to develop or acquire nuclear weapons (p. 5). I believe that Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous in the region for all states concerned with proliferation of nuclear technology and its future militarization. States who are members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and utilize nuclear energy programs for civilian use may feel threatened by Iran’s acquirement of nuclear weapons, motivating them to utilize their nuclear energy programs for militarization. Iran’s ambition for nuclear weapons has already created deep-seated tensions within the region and its development of nuclear weapons holds the dangerous probability of destroying the peace created by regional international regimes.…

    • 1015 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The world needs nuclear weapons; they are a powerful tool in negotiation and war prevention, however they need to be treated with respect and managed properly. Nuclear weapons are very powerful and necessary tools for world peace. However ironic that statement sounds, it is a fact that is too important not to consider. During the cold war, a theory called mutually assured destruction, known by the acronym MAD (Opposing Viewpoints), came about. The philosophy stated that any countries attacked with a nuclear bomb would retaliate to the launch of a nuclear device of their own,causing the destruction of both parties.…

    • 1026 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The difference between them; however, is how they present the idea of why we would use the atomic bomb in this circumstance. Document B, leaves the ending more open, letting the reader infer why we would drop the bomb. The author, a commander in the air force, would have known the true reasons, but yet again, like Truman, does not want to scare the public. He ends his argument in saying that “atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.” He wants the reader to understand what he is saying, which is that the U.S.A. was strictly doing this to scare Soviet Russia. Document F on the other hand, written by a physicist states this fact blatantly, that we need to do this to scare the Soviet Union.…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the realm of counterfactual historical analysis, the atomic weapons attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among some of the most deeply scrutinized events. The attacks fully embody the scale of human slaughter characteristic of the 20th century but are tragically trivialized and distorted. In search of historical insights, some analysts strip the question of atomic warfare down to its condensed operational and political considerations. While these realities played an extraordinary role in America’s struggle to conclude the deadliest war in human history, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are most importantly lessons about the power of unchecked dehumanization. As such, it is extremely important that 21st-century observers do not project moral standards…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jfk Response

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages

    JFK’s Responses and their Consequences The two aforementioned men set up this crisis. However, President John F. Kennedy had the world’s fate in his hands. Every decision that he made would be vital in the way that the crisis played out, and if he had made just a couple more mistakes, then a nuclear war might’ve started. But what the American citizens did not know at the time was that his decisions were based more off of his personal experiences rather than off the information from his advisory council. Both him and Khrushchev “almost blundered into a nuclear war through the crisis management approaches of their advisory systems, but then managed to extricate themselves using personal diplomacy”(Richard, 2001, p. 1).…

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays