Proliferation Good/Bad Prolif Good



Download 57.14 Kb.
Page13/14
Date21.05.2021
Size57.14 Kb.
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14

Prolif bad

Prolif Bad – War

Prolif drastically increases the risk of accidents – guarantees nuclear war


Sturm 09 – (Frankie Sturm is aFellow at the National Truman Security Project, a national security based institute in Washington DC, “Nuclear Weapons: A New Paradigm for the 21st Century, Truman National Security Project”)//SQR

Accidents happen, but the price of a nuclear accident is impermissible. Yet, past incidents over the last several decades far less known than “Chernobyl” could very well have led to more catastrophic results: 1979, U.S. Mistakes Computer Exercise for Soviet Nuclear Strike. When a realistic training tape was mistakenly inserted into the computer running the United States’ early warning system, launch control centers for Minuteman missiles received preliminary warning that the U.S. was under attack, while the entire continental air defense interceptor force was put on alert. In a country with less sophisticated systems, such an incident could have provoked a hasty retaliatory strike and accidental nuclear war. 1988, Pakistan Mistakes Explosion for Indian Nuclear Attack. When a massive conventional munitions explosion occurred at a secret ammunition dump near Rawalpindi, some Pakistani officials mistook it for the start of an Indian nuclear strike. Given the size of Pakistan’s conventional forces compared to India’s – and the proximity of the two nations, cutting down the decision time in the event of a launch – such an incident could easily have resulted in accidental nuclear war. 1995, Russia Mistakes Weather Balloon for U.S. Nuclear Strike. When Norway launched a weather rocket to investigate the Northern Lights, Russian radars mistook the rocket for a missile launched by a U.S. submarine. Russian officials scrambled their nuclear forces into position and activated President Boris Yeltsin’s “nuclear brief- case.” A nation that feels vulnerable to nuclear attack might feel obligated to launch a retaliatory strike before all the facts are in, leading to an accidental nuclear war. The list of nuclear accidents and potential calamities goes on. As clearly put by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Mistakes are made in every other human endeavor. Why should nuclear weapons be exempt?” In addition to the threat of discrete nuclear accidents lies the broader problem of loose nuclear material. Russia possesses more than 10,000 nuclear warheads, many of which are poorly guarded and vulnerable to theft. Although the U.S. and Russia have worked together through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative to secure nuclear material and deactivate thousands of warheads, analysts fear that underpaid scientists and lax security could create a situation in which a terrorist group could buy or steal a bomb. Meanwhile, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal remains in question, stoking fears that state collapse in that volatile country could also enable terrorists to acquire a nuclear weapon. The accidental detonation of a single nuclear weapon could kill thousands; an accidental nuclear war could kill millions worldwide. This threat has been with us for decades, but the prospect that mistakes or mishaps could inadvertently help terrorists obtain nuclear weapons adds extra gravity to the threat.


Nuclear prolif changes strategic calculations – guarantees escalating nuclear arms race
Krieger & Ong, 02 (David Krieger is a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Councilor – World Future ,Carah Ong is at the Research at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, “No First Use,” http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/04/00_krieger_no-first-use.htm)//SQR


In March 2002, major US media reported that the new and still classified US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) indicated contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven states: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China. This indication of US planning to use nuclear weapons is contrary to international law as well as to long-standing US assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. It also constitutes a disturbing threat to the named states and others as well as to international peace and security overall. The provocative US approach to planning nuclear weapons use will affect the approach taken to non-proliferation by all countries, promoting nuclear proliferation and further eroding the non-proliferation regime. US policy toward nuclear weapons use, combined with its plans to develop and deploy missile defenses, will encourage the expansion of nuclear weapons programs by Russia and China as well as the development of nuclear weapons by other countries. This could also lead to destructive new nuclear arms races. The fact that the US is developing contingency plans to use nuclear weapons is viewed by most of the world as a dangerous expression of bad faith. In the past, nuclear weapons have been viewed as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by other states. The US Nuclear Posture Review reveals that nuclear weapons are apparently being integrated into a full spectrum of war fighting capabilities. US policy makes nuclear weapons no longer weapons of last resort, but rather instruments that may be used in fighting wars, even against non-nuclear weapons states. Following the US lead, the UK also announced that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that may attack it with a weapon of mass destruction




Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page