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
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