Non-fiction / Speech on the US Role in Nuclear Disarmament
Mr. Weiss, distinguished students, my fellow American colleagues, I come before you today to address an issue of prodigious international importance, nuclear proliferation and the United States’ role in global disarmament of these weapons of mass destruction. This country and its new generation of Americans are faced with a fundamental question: should the United States of America permits the proliferation of its own nuclear weapons, and if so, how should this generation of American leaders combat the political backlash of such a decision?
Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has regarded nuclear weapons as an intricate part of its foreign policy. During that era, we faced an enemy which threatened the stability of the world. The United States responded to that threat by increasing its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate. In the 90’s, that threat nearly disappeared, spurred by the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the Soviet Union, which left America with thousands of nuclear weapons and as the only world super power. Because of this, nations such as China, Iran, and North Korea set out to begin or increase production of nuclear weapons in fear that the United States would use them against any potential enemies. Some of these nations justified the research and development of these weapons by saying that they have a right to protect themselves from the United States and any other aggressor that threatens them with nuclear warfare. Some argue that failure to flaunt or show-off its nuclear weapons, whether it be on a small scale or large, should be a tactic to deter nations from attacking the United States and its interests abroad, yet the question remains, how would the international community act if the US began the active proliferation of its nuclear weapons?
Advocates against the US proliferation of nuclear weapons argue that while it might seem practical to deploy such weapons that may only be a fraction of the size of strategic nuclear weapons, the results from such detonations would be catastrophic to both the environment and to the area affected by the strike and would prompt nuclear capable nations to respond with their own nuclear weapons. They also believe that because of the fact that the United States would develop nuclear weapons, whether they are low-yield or high, other nations are inherently justified in creating their own nuclear weapons to deter the United States from waging an unrestricted low-yield nuclear war against a nation that has little or no nuclear capabilities. In their argument, they are absolutely correct.
Congress has become a strong proponent in the fight against the US’ proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such is true and underscored by a speech given by Senator Douglas Roche on May 13, 2004 when speaking about the role of the US in nuclear disarmament. He explicitly stated “A March 2004 Report to Congress reveals that the U.S. is employing a double standard concerning compliance with the NPT. Whereas the U.S. wants to move forward into a new generation of nuclear weaponry, it adamantly rejects the attempt of any other state to acquire any sort of nuclear weapon. The U.S. clearly wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons; of that there can be no doubt. But it does not want to be questioned on what it regards as its right to maintain enormous stocks (despite numerical reductions) and to keep nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of its military doctrine.” What is the world’s reaction to the US’ double standard towards nuclear disarmament? The world criticizes America openly. Nuclear and non-nuclear nations alike believe if the United States justifies having nuclear weapons, regardless of the progress they are making in disarmament, even though the appearance of disarming is cosmetic, that other nations have the same right to develop and use nuclear weapons in the same exact manner that the US claims to have the divine right to do. My fellow Americans, THIS is American rhetoric and hypocrisy at its best!
What do advocates for the development and use of America’s nuclear weapons think? They believe that the United States has a sovereign right to maintain and use its nuclear weapons based on the threat that looms with terrorism and rogue nation-states. They believe that the United States has a right to force or even strong-arm nations into refraining from the development and use of nuclear weapons and to make them disarm because they pose a threat to the security of the superior American nation. As objective as this speech may be, I must stop and ask you all a question…just how dangerous is this way of thinking? Better yet, how much of a hypocrite can a person be to not think that other nations will not respond to America’s open and deliberate threat of using nuclear weapons on a conventional basis? Apparently our government is full of these hypocrites because in 2003, the Defense Authorization bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the 2004 fiscal year, passed by Congress and signed into law on January 7, 2003, gave the United States the authorization to resume construction of nuclear weapons, an ability that America has not had in over 30 years. To nations around the globe, this signals a major shift in United States foreign policy because the nuclear devices being produced would be used on a more conventional level. In addition, both Senate Resolution 76, presented on March 5, 2003, and House Resolution 291, presented on July 19, 2003, detail what would happen if the US were to proliferate such weapons. House Resolution 291 specifically states three points: “1) the policies and programs of the United States are counter productive because our reliance on nuclear weapons encourages other states to acquire them, increasing the liklihood that nuclear weapons would be created and used, 2) such policies and programs are dangerous because the assertion of the US’ right to engage in preventive war encourages other states to assert the same right, and 3) such policies and programs are immoral because they place a threat of mass destruction, and the assertion of a right to initiate war at the core of United States foreign policy.” The United States must set an example. We must take a lead in the global destruction of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Taking the lead in this endeavour also means complying with our own demands that are being imposed upon all other nations of the world.
As a new generation, we must think deeply about the cause and effects of if the United States were to actively produce weapons of mass destruction, whether they are for conventional or strategic use. Since the current US government has enabled the US military to engage in the research, development, and testing of new nuclear weapons by appropriating funds and pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on December 13, 2001, the United States stands at a crossroads and it is our generation’s responsibility to ensure that the United States contiues to vye for global nuclear disarmament while abiding by the same international laws and treaties that we helped for so many decades, shape, for if we don’t, the crediblity of the United States will begin to waver and allied and international support in the global disarmament of nuclear weapons will be lost, creating an even greater threat to the existence of all humankind. Thank you and god bless.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
I must say, God should be a capital unless he is a lesser god. Firstly, who is the enemy we are talking of? Who?
secondly I would like to add a basic, little story. There were once three countries; one very aggressive, which spent all its money on soldiers, one very gentle and soft which spent all its time in cultural pursuits without any protection, and the third protected itself but also spent much time developing its cultural self.
The first disappeared because it was always at war, and in the end had nothing left..the second disappeared because it could not protect itself against enemies..and the third continued, having enough strength to defend itself but also enough strength to keep its people happy inbetween with its culture.
Sometimes it is necessary to look at things from a basic level.
- add/view comments (0)
Great job, I can actually picture hearing something like this…although I would expect my man G-Dubb to mispronounce some of the words you used. But you did a good job maintaining diplomacy while addressing the issue, all while being firm in tone. Excellent.
WELL SAID AND WELL DONE MY NEW POET FRIEND! WHAT A PIECE OF WORK YOU HAVE WRITTEN OUT HERE ABOUT THE TIMES OF THE WORLD TODAY! AWESOME WRITE!! PURPLE_VELVET
I agree with this article wholeheartedly and think it is well-written, top to bottom.The only real suggestion I have is that although the article does a great job to explain both sides of the argument, it obviously has a position, and it might be rhetorically more honest to go ahead and state as much right up front. In the fifth paragraph, it states, “As objective as this speech may be,” while a couple sentences before we get, “My fellow Americans, THIS is American rhetoric and hypocrisy at its best!” which seemed a little problematic to me, since you had already shown your hand and started making your case when you were claiming objectivity. An additional benefit of clarifying your position from the start is that you could then take the opportunity to rebut each of the points in the proliferation article, possibly in a paragraph immediately following. Also, I think you might consider adopting a slightly more urgent tone to the whole piece, e.g. lines like “for if we don’t, the crediblity of the United States will begin to waver and allied and international support in the global disarmament of nuclear weapons will be lost” seem to understate the problem somewhat at critical moments in the speech, because I think it’s pretty clear this kind of hypocrisy has already done quite a bit of damage to our credibility. But these are minor quibbles, and in general I thought the speech as a whole was well-constructed, clear, and persuasive.
Really good job. I think though that you might consider quoting more facts in the beginning of the speech. Also, in your thesis you ask how leaders would respond to political backlash, but I don’t see that question addressed in your speech.
is it a speech? or a script? cause at times it’s seems to be a little too much of a script rather than a speech. sometimes this doesn’t resembles much of an outline. but great job on the speech’s content and rather than persuasive, but informative tone on both sides.
Showing 1 - 6 of 6
Review item
Add to faves
GENERAL
REVIEW QUEUE
Ratings & Rankings
