Nuclear WMD a Real Threat

Nuclear WMD a Real Threat within the Next 10 Years Q 2) the value of non-proliferation treaties in today's environment The United States has been seen to use the Non-Prolific Treaty in a way that satisfies is selfish interests. They are proud of the idea that their greatest rival has reduced the production of nuclear arsenals and have stopped other states from developing original arsenals. This is how the non-prolific treaty may possibly affect foreign policies in the United States.

Other countries are under the fear of nuclear weapons that are spreading across the globe (Forsberg, 2005). NPT was developed so that countries could protect their boarders from the nuclear warfare that was pending. During the commissioning of this treaty, United States and the Soviet Union were still in a continuous fight trying to depict the most powerful state. When a country is entangled in a war in the course of trying to quench its thirst for absolute gains with its enemy, a state of insecurity is created.

This creates a scenario where each of the fighting rivals builds a foundation for their strength at the risk of other countries following the path of protecting themselves from the first state. This took place in the race for nuclear arms during the Cold War. Even after the signing of the NPT, every state tried to be a step ahead of the other. The Soviet Union lost the battle of supremacy to the United States, which became the power of the Post Cold War regime (Kessler, 2005).

The NPT regime was still running and strong. United State feared for its survival even after being the super power, it stilled battled for more power. NPT at first was a neutral body with neutral policy stance until the United States saw the potential it possessed on the international regime. This led the U.S. To take advantage and use it for its own interests. States can do as they wish provided it is within their interest.

For a long time, the interest of the United State has been security and protection for its people. The social contract of establishing a formal government provided unrestricted powers to the federal government. It was to invest all its resources ensuring the citizens are protected. U.S. came into the limelight of the international arena as the super power, which gave its policies an advantage of being accepted by other nations (Gallacher, Blacker & Bellany, 2005). The United States tried eliminating and limiting the number of threats faced.

The terrorist attack on September 11 came as a bombshell and could seriously threaten their existence. At the international level, the production and spread of nuclear weapons is a key threat to nations. In the 9/11 era, what reinforced the U.S. foreign policy was the threats they were receiving (Forsberg, 2005). Nuclear weapons were a great threat. The United States had a strong influence on control of the NPT. It has been viewed to manipulate the treaty for its gains in terms of securing security.

After the treaty was signed, the international community's interest to agree to rules that had been accepted created a source of safety. The current world has termed the treaty as a regime. In the U.S. context, their aim is to provide security for their citizens because of the nuclear weapons threat. The treaty has been signed by more than 180 states worldwide.

In order to ensure that there is safety while nations continue with their nuclear program, a separate organization was created to oversee the process of monitoring such activities: the International Energy Atomic Agency (IAEA). U.S. As the hegemonic state has the power to protect other nations from harm: other nations view this as a mutual benefit. While the U.S.

gain more power plus safety from states that are within the NPT treaty, smaller states are convinced instead of investing in nuclear programs for safety, to look up to U.S. For protection (Gallacher, Blacker & Bellany, 2005). Many states view this mutual benefit as a substantial gain even in anarchic unstable world. However, within the NPT there is a loophole in subsection 2 of article 4 of the treaty.

This loophole states that all the nations in the treaty should undertake have a right to participate fully in the exchange of materials, equipment, and scientific and technological information in peaceful use of nuclear weapons. The section permits member states to develop nuclear material as long as its use is peaceful and production sourced from clean energy (Kessler, 2005). With Pakistan and India having exemplified the creation of nuclear materials from peaceful energy means to weapons, this poses a serious.