scholarly journals The Carter Administration and the Evolution of American Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy, 1977–1981

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Michael Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Nonproliferation ◽  
Nuclear Testing ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Subsequent Response ◽  
The World ◽  
Uncertain Time ◽  
First Time

In the wake of India's May 1998 decision to resume nuclear testing for the first time since 1974, as well as arch-rival Pakistan's subsequent response, the attention of the world again has focused on nuclear nonproliferation policy as a means of maintaining stability in politically troubled regions of the world. The 1990s proved to be an uncertain time for nonproliferation policy. Pakistan acquired nuclear capabilities. Iraq displayed its well-known intransigence by refusing to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arms inspectors access to facilities suspected of manufacturing nuclear weapons. North Korea maintained a nuclear weapons program despite opposition from many Western nations. Troubling questions about nuclear holdings persisted in Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa. New nuclear powers were created in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Even the renewal of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1995 failed to assuage the concerns of Western powers fearful of aggressive measures undertaken by rogue nuclear proliferants.

Modern domestic cinema and the legacy of shaken Aimanov

Keruen ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (69) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.S. Jumadilov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Film Industry ◽  
National Cinema ◽  
Soviet State ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet state of post-Soviet autonomous republics turned out to be the ideology for which cinematographers and screenwriters have to make a film epic of epoch - national cinema. In this article, the author can only use the ever-present cinematography, the unmerciful nationalistic culture, the ideological orientation of the film industry, the uniqueness or national identity. It's a good idea to have a world-renowned artisan who is doing all the same, seeking internationalization and gloss? Another - cinematic and astrophysical art of Shaken Aimanov, whose works live in volumes or polls, and others. For many years, many changes have taken place in the national cinema, such as national culture, a national emblem of national culture. For the first time in the history of national cinema, national cinema and the world of cinema, the future and future films have been transformed into a lot of changes. The Concept of distinguished singer Shaken Aimanova is embodied in the volume, which, unlike the researchers and artists all over the world of cinema Shaken Aimnayev, the director of which, as long as he is a filmmaker, creates a film studio as part of national culture.

The continuing threat of nuclear war

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Cirincione
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
The North ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Nuclear Winter

The American poet Robert Frost famously mused on whether the world will end in fire or in ice. Nuclear weapons can deliver both. The fire is obvious: modern hydrogen bombs duplicate on the surface of the earth the enormous thermonuclear energies of the Sun, with catastrophic consequences. But it might be a nuclear cold that kills the planet. A nuclear war with as few as 100 hundred weapons exploded in urban cores could blanket the Earth in smoke, ushering in a years-long nuclear winter, with global droughts and massive crop failures. The nuclear age is now entering its seventh decade. For most of these years, citizens and officials lived with the constant fear that long-range bombers and ballistic missiles would bring instant, total destruction to the United States, the Soviet Union, many other nations, and, perhaps, the entire planet. Fifty years ago, Nevil Shute’s best-selling novel, On the Beach, portrayed the terror of survivors as they awaited the radioactive clouds drifting to Australia from a northern hemisphere nuclear war. There were then some 7000 nuclear weapons in the world, with the United States outnumbering the Soviet Union 10 to 1. By the 1980s, the nuclear danger had grown to grotesque proportions. When Jonathan Schell’s chilling book, The Fate of the Earth, was published in 1982, there were then almost 60,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled with a destructive force equal to roughly 20,000 megatons (20 billion tons) of TNT, or over 1 million times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. President Ronald Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ anti-missile system was supposed to defeat a first-wave attack of some 5000 Soviet SS-18 and SS-19 missile warheads streaking over the North Pole. ‘These bombs’, Schell wrote, ‘were built as “weapons” for “war”, but their significance greatly transcends war and all its causes and outcomes. They grew out of history, yet they threaten to end history. They were made by men, yet they threaten to annihilate man’.

Inventory Control of Dual-Use Equipment

1995 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Franz
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Dual Use ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Biological Weapons Convention ◽  
The U.S

Proliferation of biological—as well as chemical and nuclear—weapons is a threat to the security of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era. The number of states with biological weapons (BW) programs or with a strong interest in having a BW program has increased significantly since the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) was signed in 1972 (Office of Technology Assessment, 1993). BW programs present difficult intelligence targets. Thus, the Soviet Union was a signatory to the BWC at the time of the Sverdlovsk incident in 1979, yet we knew little of the scope of its BW program until 1991 (Meselson et al., 1994). The spread of biotechnology throughout the world in recent years has made even more governments potentially BW capable.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency

1970 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
George H. Quester
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Atomic Energy Agency ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Atomic Energy ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Communist China

The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have put forward a Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond those five nations which currently possess them: France, the People's Republic of China (Communist China), the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The treaty requires that signatories already possessing such weapons not give them to other countries and that signatories not yet posses-sing nuclear weapons forego accepting them or manufacturing them indigenously. To reinforce the latter restraint the treaty obligates states renouncing weapons to accept inspection safeguards on their peaceful nuclear activities, inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Diplomacy and Revolution: The Dialectics of a Dispute

1961 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Richard Lowenthal
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
First Time ◽  
Total Impact

The policy declaration and the appeal to the peoples of the world adopted last December by the Moscow conference of eighty-one Communist parties mark the end of one phase in the dispute between the leaderships of the ruling parties of China and the Soviet Union—the phase in which the followers of Mao for the first time openly challenged the standing of the Soviet Communists as the fountain-head of ideological orthodoxy for the world movement. But the “ideological dispute” which began in April was neither a sudden nor a self-contained development: it grew out of acute differences between the two Communist Great Powers over concrete diplomatic issues, and it took its course in constant interaction with the changes in Soviet diplomatic tactics. Hence the total impact of that phase on Soviet foreign policy on one side, and on the ideology, organisation and strategy of international Communism on the other, cannot be evaluated from an interpretation of the Moscow documents alone, but only from a study of the process as a whole, as it developed during the past year on both planes.

Communist China's Attitude Towards Nuclear Tests

1965 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 96-107
Author(s):  
Hungdah Chiu
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
Western China ◽  
Technical Data ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People ◽  
The World ◽  
Communist China ◽  
Test Ban

On October 15, 1957, Communist China and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on new defence technology according to which the Soviet Union would supply China with technical data for manufacturing nuclear weapons. In May 1958 Foreign Minister Ch'en Yi told German correspondents in Peking that China would make atomic bombs. On June 20, 1959, the Soviet Union, according to China, unilaterally abrogated the 1957 agreements on weapons development. On July 31, 1963, China issued a statement denouncing the Moscow Partial Test Ban Treaty as “a big fraud to fool the people of the world.” On October 16, 1964, China announced that an atomic device had been exploded in western China and proposed that “a summit conference of all the countries of the world be convened to discuss the question of the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.”

The Anti-Nuclear Weapons Movements

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (01) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Michael Mandelbaum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Mass Movement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Modern Culture ◽  
The North ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
First Time

Of all modern machines, indeed of all the artifacts of modern culture, the bomb is the most frightening. It is the most dangerous of all human inventions. The American, European, and Soviet people have always known how dangerous it is. They have, nevertheless, left nuclear weapons in the hands of the nuclear priesthood. (In the Soviet Union this has not been a matter of choice.) In the 1980s some in the West resolved to take control of the bomb. They began to demand that disarmament replace deterrence as the principal nuclear business of the Atlantic alliance.Probably from 1945 onward the average American or European would, if asked, have said that he wanted to do away with all nuclear arsenals rather than refine or increase them. But the average Westerner was not asked, and did not say so, at least not in any way that influenced public policy. In the 1980s citizens of the West did begin to say so, publicly, loudly, and in growing numbers. For the first time, a mass movement dedicated to shaping the nuclear future appeared on both sides of the Atlantic.In this, as in other things, the North American and the European wings of NATO differ. Opposition to the alliance's nuclear weapons policies made itself known earlier in Europe than in the United States. Both European and American anti-nuclear weapons activists aimed ultimately to lift the nuclear siege that the world must endure as long as these weapons exist. But each rallied around a more immediate issue, and the issues were different. The Europeans opposed the stationing of 572 intermediate-range missiles on the continent, which the NATO governments deemed necessary to offset comparable Soviet weapons. In the United States a proposal to freeze the deployment, testing, and manufacture of all weapons by both superpowers attracted wide support.

The Republics as International Actors

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Clemens
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Nuclear Test ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Nuclear Testing ◽  
Nuclear War ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Public Protest ◽  
The World ◽  
Stage Process

To some extent I feel as Robert Lewis does, that the process leading from “national awakening” to “national liberation” is a worldwide tendency, and that the Soviet Union is part of a global Zeitgeist in this respect.Byway of illustrating this fifteen-stage process, I would like to just report on a couple of examples I came across in reading about the republics as independent actors. One such issue has to do with the attempts of the different republics, and the nations within them, to form transnational coalitions across borders. In a way, these attempts get around the problem of establishing formal diplomatic relations with other countries: maybe you do not need de jure recognition if in fact you can do things with other people. For instance, consider the anti-nuclear congress, organized in Kazakhstan by something called the Nevada-Semipalatinsk Movement, led by the poet Olzhas Suleimenov. In early 1989, a Soviet nuclear test in Kazakhstan was followed by a public protest, and Suleimenov became the leader of the movement. He and his people quickly decided to call it not the “Semipalatinsk Movement” but the “Nevada-Semipalatinsk Movement.” And they immediately brought in American Indians, Maoris, and other people from around the world, who are all being subjected to nuclear testing. He also established personal liaison with Dr. Bernard Lawn of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in Cambridge, Massachusetts; last summer three hundred doctors and scientists in Semipalatinsk talked to people who were immediately affected by military nuclear testing.

scholarly journals Why Do States Seek to Acquire Nuclear Weapons?

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Hamdan Hamedan
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Primary Motivation ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Security Concerns ◽  
The U.S

Conventional wisdom maintains that security concerns are the primary motivation for states to seek nuclear weapons. Indeed, history has shown that the predominant decisions to go nuclear (starting from the U.S., the Soviet Union, China, Israel, Pakistan, and to North Korea) appear to be motivated by security concerns. Yet, the fact there have been nuclear-capable states with precarious security concerns that have decided not to seek nuclear weapons serve to challenge the aforementioned conventional wisdom. Moreover, further research and case-by-case study coupled with understanding of the fact that each state in the world has different security condition and challenges show that security concerns are, in reality, not always the primary motivation.

The Soviet Union and Nuclear Proliferation

Slavic Review ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Potter
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Export ◽  
Control Policy ◽  
Nuclear Nonproliferation ◽  
Soviet Leadership ◽  
Export Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Test Ban

Prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons has long been a theme of the Soviet! Union's declaratory arms control policy. It has also found concrete expression in Moscow's endorsement of the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America of 1967 (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968, and, since 1958, in the stringent nuclear export policy of the Soviet Union. Although much of Moscow's nonproliferation rhetoric and elements of its nonproliferation behavior can be explained in terms of narrow self-interest (namely, prevention of access to nuclear weapons by traditional adversaries), the range and consistency of its nonproliferation efforts, as well as certain specific actions, indicate that the Soviet leadership appreciates the dangers posed by the diffusion of nuclear weapons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document