Thinking in Time
The emphasis of the book is on the role that history plays when it comes to formulation and adoption of different policies. History has a way of reminding any given community of its core values and the relevant issues that are prioritized over others. Therefore, regardless of the current trends of a community, history will always inform the fundamental aspects of decision-making. Historical research, for instance, offers accurate data that once applied can be helpful in making better-informed initiatives that enhance the well-being of individuals ( May & Neustadt, 1986). For example, the adoption of nuclear weaponry as an engagement strategy can be traced back to the inability of nations to confront their adversaries. Thus, it comes about as an option that sets a nation apart from its enemies in that they can claim their stake on different issues ( May & Neustadt, 1986) . At the same time, historical evidence serves to show that superpowers have always been better-positioned to act and benefit from decisions made from a global perspective.
Therefore, nations are working towards attaining superiority in addition to making it easier for them to navigate through different life aspects that offer threats to their economic and social concepts. The usefulness of history is not in predicting the future although it can be the basis of making better choices and seeking better alternatives so that the ugly aspects recorded in history are not repeated. On a different note, the role that history plays is to avoid the side of history which enhances poorly informed constructs that are diminishing of society and jeopardize its well-being. Thinking in time, thus, is an assessment of the authors on the mannerism that characterizes modern reasoning. Choices that are made on different issues can have far-reaching repercussions which make it necessary to limit the adverse effects. Policies are being developed for the general good of society. The position held by those in influential positions is considered although the good of the majority is given central focus ( May & Neustadt, 1986) . At times, however, professionalism is prioritized based on the fact that a society’s future at times relies on the need to make tough decisions that might appear hard to meet but lucrative in the long run. All in all, those in authoritative positions have the mandate to make most decisions on behalf of their subordinates and history is one of the tools that they are consistently using.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Strategy in the Second Nuclear Age
The introduction section of this book aims at creating awareness on the concept of nuclear weaponry and the logic behind its geometry. The authors explain that there was a need by superpowers to develop an engagement strategy that they could use to showcase their superiority and dominance over other nations. At the time of the incorporation of nuclear weapons as an engagement strategy, there was little advanced knowledge on its effects. Time has had the advantage of enhancing understanding although the nuclear option has remained to be vastly applicable in many other sectors such as energy production. Moreover, it serves to distinguish a nation’s capabilities from others making it even difficult to forego the strategy. The rationale and the manner in which it is used as a strategy that is being adopted as a nuclear strategy have been on the low. It explains the high level of carelessness by some nations although this is changing. All the same, advancing knowledge and weaponry in the nuclear age is a modern strategy being adopted as a strategy.
Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation
The focus of chapter 2 of this publication is a review of nuclear policies that are adopted in five of the countries that are leading in the production of nuclear weapons. The countries that are considered in the second chapter are the USA, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, as well these countries are the ones that can spearhead nuclear deterrence although their policies and efforts do not work along meeting this goal. One of the fundamentals that is consistent with the policies developed by all these nations is that nuclear weapons are unsuitable for available security threats although it remains a viable option when dealing with nuclear-armed adversaries. Thus, the assertion made by Pant (2012) is that nuclear deterrence is a language that can be communicated to these nations. Convincing them to dispose of their nuclear weapons is not an option although there is the possibility of convincing them to reduce their level of production (Pant, 2012). Chapter 3, on the other hand, centers on the three de facto nuclear states which are India, Pakistan, and Israel. Reasons behind nuclear proliferation in these three states can be used to assess the trends in most Asian nations. Pant (2012) explains that these nations are trying to develop an effective approach that they can readily adopt to the external threats posed by nuclear-armed states that surround them. Therefore, their policies are based on the need to have a counter-measure to threats presented by other nations. Dealing with security threats, especially those that extend from border limits can be helpful in informing their threats thus enhancing nuclear deterrence. In addition to this, nuclear materials are fast-growing as alternatives for energy sources that are being threatened by greenhouse gases. Therefore, it is easy to deflect from this course and direct the nuclear materials for military use. It explains nuclear proliferation in de facto nuclear states.
Never Say Never Again
In “Never Say Never Again,” the author focuses on establishing the extent of the gap that exists in scholarly understanding of nuclear proliferation. Although the main focus of the writings is on the issue, Levite (2003) fails to expound on the topic by not defining nuclear proliferation. All the same, the main reasons as to why there are gaps (according to Levite) is due to the high influence of bias as well as limitations inherent in the empirical data employed when it comes to studying proliferation. Thus, the concept of nuclear hedging is defined with the aim of ascertaining its effectiveness as a means of enhancing nuclear roll-back. One of the nations that Levite pays attention to is the United States which he explains to be one of the nations which are spearheading control of the spread of nuclear weapons. Among the current proliferation concerns that are given by the author which can be helpful in reducing the knowledge gap that exists in Latin America and South Africa turned to be the countries that were venturing into developing nuclear weapons which were unlike the earlier anticipations. South Asia, East Asia, as well as the Middle East have turned to be the area of concern, unlike the earlier expectations that it would be from Europe. The absence of a regime to control the spread of nuclear technologies can be faulted as one of the leading factors. The gap can also be explained by challenges in studies relating to nuclear reversal. Most of the emphasis has been on proliferation trends rather than means that can be adopted to encourage renouncing of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the gap is huge due to the absence of information and publications on nuclear reversals. Theoretical and methodological problems on nuclear reversal also contribute to the inconstant information. Recommendations made by the author are to avoid manipulating the data that reaches the public in addition to enhancing extensive research on a nuclear reversal.
References
Levite, A. E. (2003). Never say never again: nuclear reversal revisited. International Security , 27 (3), 59-88.
May, N., & Neustadt, R. (1986). Thinking in time.
Pant, H. V. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of nuclear proliferation . Routledge.
Yoshihara, T., & Holmes, J. R. (Eds.). (2012). Strategy in the Second Nuclear Age: Power, Ambition, and the Ultimate Weapon . Georgetown University Press.
