This variation is representable one, because this one is a main policy during the rest of Cold War. This variation as known as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’. This variation appeared with incensement of Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons. This variation’s definition is ‘Military theory of nuclear deterrence holding that neither side will attack the other if both sides are guaranteed to be totally destroyed in the conflict’. Hungarian mathmatition ‘John Von Neumann’ claimed this theory first, President J.F.Kennedy and Lyndon .B
Clausewitz would have a problem with this, because he would say, that war is only a continuation of peace or policy with other means. Would RANH have any comprehension of peace terms during warfighting? This may be the conflict of unmanned warfare. However, we are accelerating at such a pace in technology and capability, it is impossible to tell what this would look like before letting the first RANH spar with human and non human opponents. If RANH are focused on the ultimate distillation of war, destruction of an opponent through speed and force, holding relentlessly to the laws of war on the battlefield, like their predecessors on the chessboard, than we will see a purer form of war
The first challenge is the concept of "interconnected security." After the concept of the ideological war against terrorism and security interconnected entered the national strategy for the security of the United States, and the issue of nuclear terrorism has become connected in the Security interconnected world, the United States and the Middle East, and highlight Iran's nuclear energy program in a major threat to this security. On the other hand, linking these two concepts with global security and the United States authorizes Washington to explain the large-scale use of force, and therefore pre-emptive strikes against other countries. The second challenge is the formation of a global US-led coalition and the goals of domination behind the leadership of Washington. From the Iranian point of view, and the formation of a coalition in the framework of nuclear conferences constitute constraints and challenges against Iran in its quest towards achieving a peaceful nuclear program.
Weapons of mass destruction and disarmament form one of the toughest challenges for the world. Priorities should be remedies to challenges that do not respect borders. A world free of nuclear weapons is what we need to implement for the sake of humanity. Despite a longstanding taboo against using nuclear weapons, disarmament remains only an aspiration.
Kennedy starts off by telling us how the world and freedom is in major danger, being close to a nuclear war, telling us that it has the power to end the human species (3). The next point made is that we should “... never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate” (Kennedy 15). This means that we should negotiate to make a means with that someone not because we have to negotiate to stay safe from that someone. Kennedy then says that the goal would to have the world work together to explore problems, have a common arm control and be equal in weaponry power, and work together to unlock new sciences (16-18).
Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists’ belief is similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for the right to
The proliferation of nuclear arms during the Cold War was thus to deter against aggression from the other power by reducing benefits and raising the cost of facing retaliatory capabilities that will keep the other side in fear of striking first. Nuclear deterrence can also be precarious where missteps could easily spiral, as seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis when US and USSR came close to having a nuclear war. After the collapse of the USSR and with the increase in nuclear states, nuclear proliferation became a renewed security concern as the source for deterrence have changed and nuclear arms have increased destructive power. The incentive of nuclear deterrence in ensuring the security of states could cause a proliferation of nuclear weapons, further increasing the number of dyads in the already multipolar system. A neo-realist like John Mearsheimer will argue that since multipolarity breeds instability, the increase in dyads creates greater imbalances in power which makes deterrence harder and more prone to miscalculations that could easily escalate to nuclear war, and is hence a great security
We see in this Film crucial role of the president and his advisers how they solve this conflict without war. President Kennedy took a complex sentence, he promised that the United States not to invade Cuba if Russia withdrew its missiles. but if Khrushchev had not accepted the offer within 24 hours, it will attack Cuba. The president is under intense pressure from his military commanders, who want to shoot first but Kennedy does not want to make it the war. He knows that if war breaks out it will be a world war III.
People adapted this technique to suit themselves. They would take cover and hide behind a wall when a bomb was about to hit. Both of the superpowers saw the other as a threat to its continued survival and adopted many methods to make sure they were better than the other. Competition with each other for better nuclear weapons and space arms all contributed to the increasing tensions between the two countries. The Cold war was also caused by mistrust,misconceptions,and misunderstandings on both sides.
In addition, this concept defines the fact that the states in anarchical system could not let their national interests left behind and thus their national survival endangered. They must fight and struggle for the better. Regarding its definition, the government of each state must seek the resolution to protect their population from aggression. According to US invasion in Iraq, the US claimed Saddam Hussein obtained weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was close to achieving nuclear capabilities, which was believed to be a national security threat to the US (Riley, 2008), hence, the US used its military superiority to topple Saddam’s regime. As a result, in 1991 the UN and the international community came to support Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq, yet in 2003 the US unilaterally invaded Iraq and the UN was unable to stop the invasion.
Little did they know that the USSR and the rest of the Soviet Union and communist would fall instead because of lacking stability and leader. It was known that the first 2 nuclear powers were making bets that the other wouldn’t attack the other, but they would retaliate if they did. This then called for scientific and industrial advancements, investments, etc. This was so the Soviet Union wouldn’t fall behind any other nation. They wanted to be equal if not better.
When the government detected a threat, it acted swiftly as to prevent a bloody war that would destroy the world. The governments put in place in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, and South Vietnam were supposed to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union forces and therefore, protect the United States as a