Donovan Emerson Instructor Rima H. Duncan Public Speaking 04 March 2005 The Impact That the START Treaties Have On Public Safety. Have you ever thought about a nuclear bomb hitting Wichita? What could we do to prevent this from happening? There have been several attempts to rid the world of nuclear threat. None of these attempts has actually prevailed to the lofty goal of unilaterally removing the threat of nuclear war.
Seemingly, the unilateral limitation of nuclear arsenals would be a good idea. To begin, I need to define terms in layman’s to reveal the total meaning of this topic. Each delivery system has a different range. Inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) have the farthest range of 13, 000 kilometers, whereas, submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) can only reach as far as 12, 000 kilometers (Friedman).
Unilateral action means that each separate side will act identically. If Russia disassembles 100 ICBMs then the United States has to disassemble 100 ICBMs to create equality.
The bloc of treaties designed to assure the unilateral reduction of nuclear arms is the strategic arms reduction treaty (START).
The START treaties have three sections; each designed to reduce the number of specific nuclear weapons. I will discuss each version of START in order to show what influence it will have on global safety. START I set the groundwork to begin the gradual decline of nuclear weapons for the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Essay on 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty went into effect in 1970 and requires the 189 Nations involved to review the Treaty every five years. This treaty represents the foundation to keep the spread of weapons of mass destruction from spreading to every nation on the globe. The next review is set for May, 2010 and faces a situation where it is believed that Iran has acquired nuclear capability despite ...
Each party had approximately 10, 000 nuclear weapons of various ranges (Friedman).
Under START I the number of total nuclear weapons deployed will unilaterally be reduced to a total not to exceed 6, 000 warheads (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
Which is a step in the right direction. Both the United States and Russia signed the START I treaty on July 31, 1991 (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
Although the Soviet Union dissolved around this time, the four countries that remained ratified the treaty. START I entered into force on December 5, 1994, when the five treaty parties exchanged instruments of ratification in Budapest (Kimball).
START II continued to reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads to a total to 4, 250 per party (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
This second treaty further limited the number of ICBMs and SLBMs that can be deployed with nuclear warheads. START II was signed on January 3, 1993 in Moscow (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
The only changes seen in START II over START I were the numbers of nuclear warheads allowed to have on ICBMs and SLBMs. START III is the last and final stage of the START bloc of treaties.
Then U. S. President Bill Clinton traveled to Russia to work on START III negotiations. At the Moscow Summit in September 1998, Clinton and Yeltsin reiterated their commitment to begin formal negotiations on START III as soon as Russia ratified START II. (Kimball).
START III was replaced by the strategic offensive reductions treaty (SORT).
SORT is different than START III in that it reduced the number of allowable deployed nuclear warheads to around 2, 000 (as opposed to 2, 500) (Kimball).
SORT furthered START’s cause but did not give credit to START program. The risk of an accidental nuclear attack has increased in recent years, threatening a disaster of unprecedented scale (Wits chi).
Even with all of the policies and safeguards that we, as civilized people, have implemented there is room for much to go wrong.
The Term Paper on Nuclear Nonproliferation part 1
Nuclear Nonproliferation In this paper, I will discover the views of different world countries on the inevitability of nuclear proliferation. I will address what will become of the rising proliferation of nuclear technology. I believe that allowing nuclear weapons to spread will only endanger the world in the long run and that unless we act now, we will not be able to see another two thousand ...
The current international block on (increasing nuclear stockpiles) isn’t going to endure (Preston).
Even though our best efforts to control the Pandora’s box of nuclear weaponry are not ideal we, at least, are making a concerted effort to control the looming dagger over our heads.
