The debate on the threats imposed by the countries possessing nuclear weapons has brewed political reactions in the United States for many years. The geopolitical spheres have been redefined by the threats directed towards the American people. The move by President Trump to reimpose sanctions on Iran because of nuclear activities will change the relations of these two countries. As pertains to this debate, there are two scholars with different opinions on the effects of allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. For Waltz, there is no problem while for Segan they must be stopped. This discussion evaluates their arguments and provides a conclusion to the same issue.
According to Kenneth Waltz, the principle of deterrence where people are induced to refrain from performing a given action through threats where they are shown the negative consequences of engaging in such actions. Again he pegs his reasoning to the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which makes nuclear war unfathomable within the global space. Also, Waltz believes in the existence of the second strike where a nation can still strike even after an aggressor has attacked. Besides, nuclear weapons can be built by states with political stabilities with no possibility for coup de tat. Therefore, Waltz opposes the idea of controlling the Iranian nuclear base. In contrary, Scott Sagan believes that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea as it will lead to international insecurity. From his argument, it is learned that the military’s main goal is to control more resources and have more men in uniform a factor which will lead to invasion. Sagan believes that nuclear weapons’ destructive outcomes should not form the basis at which the world would seek peace. In essence, he believes that threats imposed by the people owning nuclear weapons should not form the basis for believing in peace and stability
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conclusion
It is appropriate to take into consideration Scott’s views that Iran should be controlled in terms of nuclear production. This is because there is a likelihood that they might engage in nuclear wars with a country which has no control over the second strike and may not be in a position to hit back.
References
UChannel. (2010, October 4). A Nuclear Iran - Promoting Stability or Courting Disaster? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xupuaqu_ruk
