Spring Break
U.S. should get rid of nukes, stop being hypocritical
Ali Mirza
Issue date: 2/25/09 Section: Commentary
In our post-Cold War world, global dynamics are rapidly changing due to many factors. The balance of global power is shifting and the 21st century has witnessed the rise of other powers. The emergence of India and China as formidable economic forces, as well as Russia's re-assertion of its influence has begun to challenge the largely unipolar power structure that has dominated global affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Even though the Cold War is officially over, we still see its affects across the globe. Afghanistan is struggling to climb out of the bondage of decades of occupation, including the Soviet Union's brutal presence there during the '80s. Vietnamese citizens are still suffering the effects of chemical warfare initiated by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, and countless other nations have been affected to this day by the Cold War's historic struggle of two imperial powers.
One of the greatest challenges we face as a global community in the post-Cold War era, however, is the specter of nuclear warfare. It is now understood that, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world came within a hair of destruction. Today, though this threat has been diminished greatly, nuclear proliferation is a major problem. The U.S. and Russia are in possession of thousands of warheads as well as the means to deliver them. France, the UK and China also posses hundreds of nuclear warheads.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), arguably the cornerstone of international law regarding the issue, is something that we Americans should examine to find solutions to the problem.
The NPT, created in 1968, was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weaponry in three main ways:
The first way was to prohibit signatory nations from acquiring or seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The second calls for disarmament by states who were already in possession of nuclear weapons when the treaty was made, namely the five permanent members of the UN security council (the U.S., UK, France, China and Russia).
Even though the Cold War is officially over, we still see its affects across the globe. Afghanistan is struggling to climb out of the bondage of decades of occupation, including the Soviet Union's brutal presence there during the '80s. Vietnamese citizens are still suffering the effects of chemical warfare initiated by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, and countless other nations have been affected to this day by the Cold War's historic struggle of two imperial powers.
One of the greatest challenges we face as a global community in the post-Cold War era, however, is the specter of nuclear warfare. It is now understood that, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world came within a hair of destruction. Today, though this threat has been diminished greatly, nuclear proliferation is a major problem. The U.S. and Russia are in possession of thousands of warheads as well as the means to deliver them. France, the UK and China also posses hundreds of nuclear warheads.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), arguably the cornerstone of international law regarding the issue, is something that we Americans should examine to find solutions to the problem.
The NPT, created in 1968, was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weaponry in three main ways:
The first way was to prohibit signatory nations from acquiring or seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The second calls for disarmament by states who were already in possession of nuclear weapons when the treaty was made, namely the five permanent members of the UN security council (the U.S., UK, France, China and Russia).
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Joshua
posted 2/25/09 @ 12:41 PM EST
While I certainly applaud the general thrust of this editorial, I think it is one that was written through 'rose colored' glasses. The 'getting to zero' argument with regard to nuclear weapons is certainly a noble one. (Continued…)
Joshua H
posted 2/25/09 @ 12:54 PM EST
While I certainly applaud the general thrust of this editorial, I think it is one that was written through 'rose colored' glasses. The 'getting to zero' argument with regard to nuclear weapons is certainly a noble one. (Continued…)
Post a Comment