As a whole, I believe the group worked well together by communicating and providing feedback throughout the whole process. Each group member did their share of their work and contributed as a whole to any discussion or questions we had as a group. In the process of brainstorming, Christopher discussed the topic about nuclear weapons and how it’s a big issue in today’s world not just in America but globally across the world. We agreed on the topic since all of us had an idea about the issue with nuclear weapons. Together as a group we helped formulate a group question and individual questions that relate to politics, economics, and the safety of our world. The discussions we had it was a new experience for us, we didn’t even know each …show more content…
As a group we helped each other and shared ideas to overcome the obstacles that we went through individually and as a team. During the research process, we individually conducted our own research for our specific questions. I had an issue on figuring out what lens my question relates to; I asked Marco and Christopher for their opinions on the lens that my question would relate to. They provided several ways to tackle the question by either science or ethics. Furthermore, had an issue on explaining the economic lens. As a group we agreed that Marco can show and explain the economic lens by using graphs and statistics to give some insight on how nuclear weapons affect the economy. Lastly, Christopher had trouble explaining the political lens. As a group we discussed the definition of politics and brainstormed ideas about our current president, political views, political parties, and politicians to guide him. I personally felt that we were all leaders, we listened and respected each other's ideas. For our solutions, we individually proposed solutions for our lens but we took the best solutions from each …show more content…
We decided that we need to abolish and ban nuclear weapons to maintain the world safe. It will require detailed plans and global cooperation; by the encouragement of the government to take leadership role to promote a nuclear free world globally. Also the people need to know how many weapons exist in their country and around the world in order to come up with detailed plans of getting rid of the weapons existence; with the government and the people’s cooperation we can achieve this goal. We agreed that this needed to be our group solution because individually we had all proposed to this solution. I proposed the abolishment and banning of the weapons following with the encouragement of the government which ties along with Marco’s proposed solution of detailed plans and global cooperation which also ties in with the cooperation of the people that Christopher proposed about educating the people all over the world about the number of weapons that exist today. Another part of our solution from Marco and I had to do with limiting the number of weapons and reduce nuclear testings and their development. In addition, to make the solution work I proposed the shut down of testings sites and blocking ships that carry nuclear weapon materials. Marco proposed the demand of states to renounce the no first-use of nuclear weapon in relation to what I proposed address the nuclear
Before his election to the presidency, Dwight Eisenhower sought to contain the atom’s destructive power (). Yet, in his first speech at the United Nations as President of the United States, Eisenhower argued for the normalization of the international proliferation of nuclear technology (Office of the President, 1953). The motivation behind his now famous “Atoms for Peace” speech illuminates an interesting contradiction between the obvious American nonproliferation objectives and the president’s political calculation. The key to understanding this contradiction is to separate Eisenhower’s contemporary political motivations from the consequences of the president’s choice to pursue international proliferation of peaceful nuclear technology.
Throughout the years of 1945 and 1991, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were involved in what is today is identified as the Cold War. During this dark time many lived in fear due to the newest weapon that would be used in war, nuclear weapons. These weapons caused fear throughout the whole world because of their capability to kill thousands with just one. Today many debate over the abolition of nuclear weapons in the United States. Some argue that the U.S. should abolish nuclear weapons, while others say nuclear weapons should not be abolished in the United States.
The art of fear is essential in nuclear deterrence. Using the film Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) I will argue that nuclear deterrence is hard to achieve when communication of nuclear capabilities is not well established amongst states. In this paper, I will use the film Dr. Strangelove (1964) to argue how theories such as deterrence theory, realist theory, security dilemma, preventative war, pre-emptive war as well as relative gains and zero sum game led to a failure to achieve nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To make my argument on how more nuclear weapons may hinder deterrence, this essay will proceed as follows; I will firstly discuss the how nuclear deterrence and mutually
This state of affairs has perpetuated a constant threat of nuclear warfare and has required continuous diplomatic efforts to prevent the use of these weapons. The dropping of the atomic bomb set a dangerous precedent and contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The use of atomic weapons in World War II established a precedent that the use of such devastating weapons could be justified under certain circumstances. This precedent has had far-reaching consequences, intensifying the arms race and undermining efforts towards disarmament and non-proliferation. The
My assignment for the writing 101 group project was to present how to conduct an interview. The information for this presentation came from The Curious Researcher by Bruce Ballinger. My group consisted of five people, we all would present this topic together. Knowing that we had a big group for a relatively small presentation, we had to divide the groups roles up very evenly so everyone could participate. This was the first thing we did as a group.
As with any type of group work, disagreements are likely to surface; but that’s why I have experience managing large groups of people and dealing with problems and complicated ideas. If needed be, I will step up and make myself useful, whether it is in a classroom setting, a lab, or the workplace. I am also determined to work side-by-side with people who have the same fascination with academics and who want to see the same change in the world as I do; but first, I have to start by graduating from
Being a passionate fan of science, I now support more collaborative efforts. I am also doing undergraduate research with the Statistics department here at NCSU. This more than anything else shows me how powerful a group working together can still be after first seeing it during my Order of the Arrow Ordeal many years ago. I have definitely gained a healthy respect for the power of group effort. I don’t consider much lost except that of a very polarizing, standoffish
The atrocities during the war (the Holocaust and atomic bombings) precipitated a worldwide dialogue concerning international cooperation and safeguarding human rights. Subsequently, one pivotal solution emerged in 1945 by establishing the United Nations to prevent future wars while engendering concordance amongst states. These events highlighted that nuclear weaponry's destructive capability significantly influenced views on arms control policies, compelling public advocacy for disarming efforts (Dower par. 17). The bombings also acted as a caution against the likelihood of disastrous destruction in the event of future confrontations. They aided in encouraging international efforts to inhibit the dispersion of nuclear weapons.
My small group experience was back in Secondary School where I was part of my school’s National Police Cadet Corps (NPCC) Cadet Leaders’ committee. The group lasted for approximately two years. Within the two years, we have meetings every fortnightly. This committee is a task group in which all members worked together to carry out activities for the school’s NPCC unit. The Cadet Leaders’ committee comprises of 10 members.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Some members were in charge of typing and designing the presentation to fit the required level, others handled the research and so on. Research has never been attractive to me because of the lots of work I have to do on my own. Group work made research so easy and enjoyable that I would want to do it over and over again. The group organized the members according to their skills and capabilities.
Introduction To date I have completed three classes and one group facilitation exam for this semester. The aim of this assignment is to demonstrate my personal and professional learning for the duration of the module. It will discuss the definition of group work; how I planned for my group exercise; it will outline my learning as a facilitator and observer for a thirty minute exercise. I will use Bruce Tuckman 's five stage group development model to outline the stages of the group process.
has developed a reputation as an erratic, unpredictable leader. Anyone suspected of disloyalty or uncooperative to the leadership could be removed. It is believed the new young leader views nuclear weapons as a symbol of power and prestige necessary to establish credibility as a military leader in the international community and crucial to regime preservation and survival. This penchant for nuclear weapons is apparently worth the risk of isolation COA 1: RETURN TO SIX PARTY TALKS
If nuclear weapons were ever used again it could wipe out all of humanity. The United States created the first nuclear weapon in 1945, and with those nuclear weapons they bombed two Japanese cities called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear Weapons should be banned, Countries should not have weapons that could wipe out the civilization. Nuclear weapons pose a direct threat to everyone. They cause distrust among nations and they are useless in addressing any of today 's real security threats.
Working together, you can develop solutions based on your collective insight, wisdom and creativity. Practicing a deeper level of awareness and taking responsibility for your words and