US Policy on Nuclear Weapons

The author begins with World fight II because he feels "that the fight had a pro install pretend in shaping the nature of postwarf atomic number 18 participation." He notes that the war developed differently in the United States than it did anywhere else--the U.S. came to the war later, fought overseas, experienced no devastation at position, and gained a trustingness that would last beyond the war. During and after the war, various conferences were held among the Allies, conferences that would become statements of doctrine and the basis of post-war institutions like the United Nations. After the war, American society had to face impudent challenges with the polarization of the world into two oppose camps, the proliferation of thermo thermonuclear weaponry, the war in Korea showing a wise power in China and a new impressiveness for Asia, and fears of communist propaganda and infiltration at home. The catch created of the period, through the 1950s, is an image of a society in fear, a society with new enemies, enemies not as clearly defined as originally enemies. This was a society at war without there be a war, and thus the "war" was now at home as well as abroad.

It was in this context that fears of nuclear proliferation first developed. During the 1960s, it was predicted by many that if nothing were done some the possibility, there would be 20 or 30 declare nucle

nuclear supplier controls, and the internationalist Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards systemhad failed to detect the Iraki nuclear program or to stop it:

For all sorts of reasons, a regime like that of Kim Il Sung merits nothing precisely disdain. And it is with disdain that his regime should be treated. With or without nuclear arms, compass north Korea deserves neither attention nor respect. The insurance of the United States, in design with its allies, should be to marginalize, isolate and ignore North Korea, refusing absolutely and chthonian any conditions to bend to any efforts at intimidation, real or implied. As long as the current regime body in Pyongyang, North Korea forget remain utterly unfit to join the community of nations.

Burdened with an accumulation of useless military paraphernalia and laid low by decades of misrule, North Korea forget soon enough collapse of its own weight. That collapse will serve as an object lesson to others tempted by nuclear pretensions that would scupper the world.

Many Americans are vaguely aware that there are mechanisms in place to control the spread of nuclear weapons, though it is not clear that these mechanisms are understood by the public. Indeed, it has been found that there is little consensus in the post-Cold War world as to what constitutes America's vital interests and thus as to what sorts of policies should be implemented in matters of nuclear proliferation as in other foreign policy issues. The Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press in a 1993 survey found that protecting American anoint supplies and preventing nuclear proliferation were the only foreign policy goals shared by both the general public and groups of opinion leaders in nine professional fields, including business, religion, and science. Polls indicate that there is hard support for using force to prevent a buildup of nuclear weapons in North Korea, for instance, and 1993 surveys found majority support for U.S. noise to preempt
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.