Origins of the Accumulation of Armaments

Origins of the comp canium of ArmamentsRunning Head Contemporary and Historic Origins of the Accumulation of ArmamentsCONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF wherefore STATES NEEDS TO ACQUIRE AND ACCCUMULATE THE MEANS OF DESTROYING OTHERS AND WHY SO MUCH CONCERN FOR ARMS CONTROLROXY AGANIMO PEGGYThe issue of fortify acquisition has been widely debated among earths as well as new(prenominal) recreate groups, hence the question, why would anyone need accou terments? Arms as tell by the linked Nations ar any forms of military weaponry ranging from tanks, equip vehicles, submarines, aircraft carriers, surface to air missiles, surface to surface missiles, to any form of battleship or petrol boat, landmines or sub charges, heavy machine guns or even self-propelled guns1. Some may argue that we need build up for one or some of the chaseing reasons A. For protection- We may need guns and different weapons to help protect our family and new(prenominal) valuable possessions t hat be sto expiration in our homes. B. For defense- In case of a robbery we may need a gun to defend ourselves and family2 C. For recreation- Like going hunting or tar stay put shooting. How would you tonicity if you ar not allowed to own/do these? But those are on a relatively small scale, why would states (Countries) desire to accumulate the operator to destroy others? Could it be for alarm, recreation, defense or protection? This paper would gauge to expatiate on the reasons behind arms control, disarmament and most oddly how it all started i.e. despite the effective intent of armaments, the need for the regulation and enjoyment cannot be far-fetched, hence is acquisition should be curtailed. political sympathies is the activity in which conflicting interest crusades for advantage or dominance, or as other political scientists postulate, the study of influence and influential the influential being those who buy off the most of what there is to get3, one should not be s urprised that states struggle to get what there is to get, whether they be piece of land, or an island or (toys) weapons. meshings happens actually often, they are basically forms of disagreement, which can be subdivided into 2 groups, a. Conflict of interests such as territorial, economical and governmental issues which un doubtedly are tangible. The scheme of Lateral pressure explains why most conflict arises it states that economic offset of states leads to geographic expansion as they seek vivid resources beyond their borders which in turn leads to conflicts and sometimes struggle4. Next is b. Conflict of ideas such as ethical, ideological and religious ideas which are considered intangible elements. Both conflicts however, overlaps in their occurrence. In ossification with the Hobbesian theory of all against all, the foreign dodge is structurally a self-help surroundings i.e. anarchic (a state where there is no ball-shaped authority to carry out rules) where ever y state must strive to ensure its own surety and survival5. This philosophy reflects the Realist view of things- that mankind is not inherently benevolent exactly rather hostile, self-centered and competitive states are therefore inherently aggressive (offensive realism- the need to get to a greater extent queen) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism- the inspire to build more weapons in defense from war), and that expansion and amassing of resources is only restrain by opposing powers which in modern time are referred to as the striking powers. Thus, dealing between states are situated by their comparative degree level of power derived primarily from their military capabilities i.e. military force is relied upon when implementing the states overseas policies6.If one Great Power emerges as dominant, Realist theory predicts that other major(ip) and Great Powers will tend to form a coalition or an alliance so as to prevent that power or state from conquering the e ntire region7. Thus the inherent structure of the anarchic system necessitates that states play a support of power politics in which alliances are formed and reformed to maintain this balance. Realists philosophy views security as a zero-sum game(a situation where no one benefits/wins), in which only relative gains are possible, major and Great Powers always suspect each others intentions, and are endlessly engaged in mortal competition for power8. It overly sees the need to retain power as a necessity, Morgenthau cited the example of Great Britains foreign policy in 1939-1940 against Finland, he stated that the founding of the policy was not based on any legalistic-moralistic approach path only when on massive military aid in defense of the Soviet aggression that force break backfired on Britain alone9Over the days, territorial disputes has been a big issue, places/territories such as Bakassi -disputed by Nigeria and Cameroon, Chagos Archipelago- disputed by the United Kin gdom and Mauritius, Ceuta- disputed by Spain and Morocco, the spratly islands- claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan, Kashmir and Jammu region- claimed by the Peoples republic of China, India and Pakistan, and a host of many others. Man as quoted from ==== has uneasy desire for power, so foreign politics is marked by uninterrupted power play which makes cooperation much more difficult10. Wars as seen from the Marxist approach are as a result of clashes between capitalist whose interests are to create colonies11 which are all as a result of economic exploitation and political subjugation of weaker states.There has been behavioral revolution in social science throughout ages, hence the birth of system abstract/theory. Morton Kaplan, a major contri hardlyor to the system made mention of multinational and nation state system which he felt had coherence, regularity hence central in supranational dealings. He also made spirit of the fact that chan ge was possible, notwithstanding the role of states that is constantly being warnmined by the international system dividing the international system into 6 models- the starting line known as the Balance of power (BOP) system which happened between 1815- 191412. He noted that the system began to falter as major actors were seen in the international system, hence the breakout of the First World War. The conformity of Versailles was the peace village signed afterWorld War Onehad ended in 1918 in the shadow of theRussian Revolutionand other events inRussia. The pact, which was a prequel to Wilsons cardinal points of peace to the US congress in January 191813 was signed on June 28th 1919 at the capacious Versailles Palace pricey Paris hence its title between Germany and the Allies. The three most important politicians there were DavidLloyd Georgeof Britain, Clemenceauof France andWoodrowWilsonof America who after months of argument and negotiations, finally decided what the treat y should contain14. It was also referred to as Diktat- as it was being forced on the Germans who had no choice hardly to sign it. Although many people in Germany did not want the Treaty signed, the representatives there knew that they had no choice as German was incapable of restarting the war again15. Consequently, we can say Germany was disarmed the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons, but in modern day, disarmament is often taken to sloshed natural elimination of weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic arms. General and Complete Disarmament refers to the removal of all weaponry, including conventional arms.Initially, only the United States possessed atomic weapons, but in 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atomic flunk and the arms race began arms race. Both countries continued building more and larger bombs. In 1952, the United States tested a new and more virile weapon the hydrogen bomb. The Soviet Union followed with its own version in 1953.Einstein wa tched with growing dismay as the two superpowers seemed to move immediate and closer to atomic war. Convinced that the only way to prevent the annihilation of humankind was to prevent all future wars, Einstein spoke out more fervently than ever in favor of international cooperation and disarmament16.The first red scare, which happened in America between the years 1919-1920, left the Americas cherished civilized liberties threatened as communism claimed to subvert the American society17. To strident American anticommunists, the post- World War II Soviet danger lay not only in military aggression, but even more in the limitless prospect of Moscows ideological expansion aimed at world domination. To them the U.S.S.R.s self-assigned leading of world Communism possessed the power and will to incite and maintenance Communist-led revolutions everywhere, imposing on them its influence, if not its direct control. This presumption assigned to the Soviet Union the unprecedented power to extend its presence over vast distances without military force18. US, however carried out the Marshall plan which was a pecuniary aid to rebuild Europes economy as the fear that Soviet Union would invade Western Europe via provision of aid19.An arms race denotes a rapid, competitive increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military or naval power by adjoin states in peacetime. What it connotes is a game with a logic of its own. Typically, in habitual depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game sojourn obscure. As Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., has noted, The strange result is that the activity of theotherside, and not ones own resources, plans, and motives, becomes the determinant of ones behavior. And what constitutes the finish line of the game is the province of assertion, rather than analysis20. Many on scenters, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace. There is no doubt that the United States and its European allies are primarily concerned with weaponization, they might accept a scenario in which Iran stops of a sudden of a nuclear weapon. Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It is possible, then, that a verifiable commitment from Iran to stop short of a weapon could appease major Western powers but see the Israelis unsatisfied. Israel would be less intimidated by a virtual nuclear weapon than it would be by an actual one and therefore would apt(predicate) continue its risky efforts at subverting Irans nuclear program through undermine and assassination which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout cap energy is an short deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks21.Looking at the early forms of arms race, we see that states such as Israel is willing to use force (nuclear arms) to secure its nuclear monopoly in the region against Iraq as at 1981. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Israels proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to interrupt the nitty-gritty to prevent Israel from doing so again. Deterrence is the term for such action, In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long bosom East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored22.We may ask, why is there so much concern for arms control? First, on the 6th of august 1945,US President Harry Truman, during World War II (1939-45),gave others after the testing of bomb made w ith key materials for nuclear nuclear fissionuranium-235 and plutonium (Pu-239)in Mexico an American B-29 bomber dropped the worlds first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people tens of thousands more would later hap of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another Atomic-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Japans Emperor Hirohito announced his countrys unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of a new and most cruel bomb23.In 1961 East Germany build the Berlin Wall separating East from West Berlin. It symbolized the division of Europe by what Winston Churchill had called the put right curtain24. Despite the hostility of East-West relations during the Cold War, a relatively permanent framework of relations emerged, and conflicts never escalated to all-out war. In 1989, the wall fly symbolizing the end of the cold war, while 2007 marked the start of global economic crisis25.In contemporary times, we take a closer look at Iran- if it obtains a/the bomb, other states in that region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term proliferation means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred in fact, since 1970 as report states, there has been a marked slowdown in the topic of nuclear states26. Consequently, millions if not billions of dollars were spent on the procurements of their strategic arsenals and nuclear weapons these monies could have been spent on something more productive instead of the arms race27.In summary, Nuclear weapons, Robert McNamara wrote in the September 1983 issue of distant Affairs, serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are amount of moneyly useless except to deter ones opponents from using them. The stark reality of mutual assured destruction, grounded on citation of nuclear parity, led to an informal nuclear weapon taboo28 they claim that nuclear weapons are deterrents that prevent the world from breaking out in total war. Researchers are supporting this argument by declaring how nuclear weapons have been guardianship peace. However, other researchers and scientists deny the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as deterrents and declare that nuclear weapons will lead the world into total devastation29. National Treaty fashion (NTM) of verification are individual methods used by individual parties to monitor lizard treaty compliance30 also the Strategic arms reduction talks (START) as well as some embargos such as Intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement, plus negotiations as well as limits on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDV) and compliance with antiballistic missiles (ABM) as well as non-proliferation treaty has been effective in curtailing the spread of armaments.BibliographyBBC on this day- 1945 US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima. (2005, August). Retrieved work on 2014, from BBC unfermenteds http//news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stmbarrage fire of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (2009). (A+E Networks) Retrieved from History.com http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasakiEimer, M. . (1987, January 23). Verification and arms control. Science New Series, 235(4787), 406-414. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/ permanent/1698322Ghosh, P. (2009). worldwide Relations. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 2014Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Internatonal conflict. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), world-wide relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson precept Canada. Retrieved March 2014Nuclear arms race- The cold war. (2008). Retrieved March 2014, from American museum of natural history http//www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/ hotshot/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-raceSchiffrin, A. (1997, March April). The Cold War and the University Towards an Intellectual History. Foreign affairs, 76(2), 147-151. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/horse barn/20047943Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 1-16. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/ enduring/41054143 .Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New york Oxford University press. Retrieved March 2014Trading arms to terrorist organization. (2012). Retrieved March 2014, from Lawteacher.net http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.phpUclari. (2008). foreign relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from peter teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=2205392Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb- Nuclear balancing would mean stabilty. Retrieved March 2014, from Foreign affairs www.foreignaffairs.comWoodrow wilsons fourteen points. (2013). Retrieved March 2014, from History learning site www.historylearningsite.co.uk11Retrieved from http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.php2 http//hotessays.blogspot.ca/2010/12/essay-on-right-to-bear-arms.html3 Heard, A. (2011). political Culture and Socialization The Media and Other Mind Sharpers. In R. Dyck, Studying Politics An Introduction to Political Science (pp. 6). Toronto Nelson Education4 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). multinational conflict. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse S. Witworth, International relations (2nd ed., pp. 174). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Cana da. Retrieved March 20145 Uclari. (2008). International relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from Rooster teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=22053926 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 20147 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Introduction- The Cold war, 1945-1990. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), International relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 20148 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 20149 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. ( pp.27). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. R etrieved March 201410 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 201411 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. (pp. 35). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 201412 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. (pp. 35). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 201413Retrieved from http//www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm14 http//www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm15 Retrieved from History.com http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasak16 Retrieved from http//www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-race17 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 2. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/ invariable/4105414318 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 2. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/4105414319 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Introduction- The Cold war, 1945-1990. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), International relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 201420 Uclari. (2008). International relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from Rooster teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=220539221 Retrieved from http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.phpixzz2wXYbvfUj22Retrieved from http//www.foreignaffairs.com/ members/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb23 http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki24 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Evolution of International society. In J . Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 38). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 201425 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011).International . In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 63). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 201426 Waltz, K. N. (2012, August). Why Iran should get the bomb- Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Retrieved March 2014, from Foreign affairs www.foreignaffairs.com27 Waltz, 228 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, Vol. 28 (2), pp8. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/4105414329Retrieved from http//www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/466412/The-World-Does-Not-Need-Nuclear-Weapons/30 Eimer, M. . (1987, January 23). Verification and arms control. Science New Series, v ol.235 No. 4787, pp 406. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/1698322