America's Nuclear Meltdown towards Global Zero - Essay Example

Analysis of ‘Americas Nuclear Meltdown towards "Global Zero"’ Purpose as accurately as possible, authors intent in writing article  The author, Lavina lee, has written the article as an analysis of the current global situation and attitudes with regards nuclear disarmament. While the focus of the article is divided between the strategy and policies of the four important countries involved in the situation, one important question as stated in the ending paragraph is America’s future action while anticipating the reactions of the other countries. What is the authors goal?  The article aims to inform the reader about the positions of the countries India, china, Pakistan, Russia and America on nuclear disarmament and the aim for ‘global zero’. By providing historical facts about possible conflicts of interest and results previous international treaties on the issue, Lee lets the reader understand the problems and reasons that are hindering reaching a global zero. Purpose well-stated or clearly implied?  The purpose is not explicitly stated in the article except for a brief mention in the end paragraph regarding the steps Obama Administration should take. The article reads more as a factual report rather than a discussion of the situation or country stances, though some analyses of the reasons behind the various nuclear positions are given. Could author have a hidden agenda?  Given that the author has not attempted to include personal (or otherwise) opinions about the situation and doesn’t seem to be reserving judgment on the actions of the countries involved any hidden agenda is not obviously apparent. Key Question  What is key question Author is addressing? Question well-stated?  The main question answered is the chances of success in achieving a ‘Global zero’ in nuclear weapons, describing a world where no country is in possession of deployed or non deployed nuclear armaments. This is discussed in the historical and current context of global political and geopolitical conflicts. Clear & unbiased?  Yes. The positions and reasons behind the stances of respective countries are explained without loaded comments or opinion. Does expression of question do justice to complexity of issue?  Yes. The general nature of the question means it can encompass a discussion of all the different factors that may have an impact on the countries future positions on the issue. Are the question & purpose directly relevant to each other?  Yes. By explaining the factors responsible the success of Global Zero (or failure) the author manages to impart the information required for the reader to reach their own conclusions about the situation. Information  Does author Cite relevant evidence, experiences, &/or info essential to issue?  There is ample and satisfactory information available for each country discussed; this information may be categorized as political, economical and military strategies which have been adopted by them. A lot of space has been given to inter-country relationships such as between China-India, India-Pakistan, China-US to further gain a perspective on why or why not will they support the ‘Global zero’ initiative; and to what extent. Treaties like New START, Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are discussed as well to give an idea of the historical and current scope for nuclear disarmament. Info accurate & taken from credible sources?  The information has been provided through publically available government reports, international summit reports, treaties signed between countries and data retrieved from news articles or journalist reports (the opinions and statements of politicians’ e.g.). The article would have benefitted however by the inclusion of a reference section for further verification and research. Data anecdotal or systematic?  A systematic data approach has been used, with the information progression from one country (China) and moving on to its relationship with India and then to a discussion about India’s motives in the global arena, particularly its relationship with Pakistan and the US. Finally the article concludes with an overview of the US policies for the moment and suggestions for the future ones. Address complexities of issue?  Not completely sufficiently; while the article provides an extensive overview of the relevant explicit information about the political and geographical conflicts which are deterring progress towards global zero, there should be more in depth discussion of the traditional relationships the countries had with one another and the implicit national emotions that may be a hindrance in reaching the required level of trust. Concepts  Most important concepts, theories, or ideas needed to understand & solve problem?  In order to understand the reluctance of countries towards achieving a unanimous agreement to abandon nuclear warfare, it is important to understand not only the reasons which led to the development and continued maintenance of their nuclear military sections (as given in the article) but also the reasons why a Global Zero is necessary and important for the security of the global population. Further, the warfare, political power plays and hidden motives and feelings of the countries should also be considered- what are they fearing or hoping? How author defines these?  For the author, these reasons revolve against geographical conflicts, defensive strategy and political decisions keeping in mind the actions of the rival countries. It appears from the article that all countries truly want to achieve a nuclear weapon free world but actions of the others are preventing them from reaching that level of trust. Does the author take any assumptions regarding these as for granted or make any questionable assumptions? The only assumption made is that the intention of the countries involved is to eventually get rid of nuclear armaments, as evidenced from explicit political statements. Even if this isn’t true, the implicit intentions cannot be judged as it would have moved the tone of the article away from neutral and factual grounds and into an opinionated piece. Inferences & Conclusions  Conclusions. Clearly follow from info provided by auth?  The final conclusion given is that at the moment the political decisions under play mean that complete support for Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or nuclear disarmament from China or India seems an unlikely prospect and any action US takes on its own should consider this fact. Unjustifiable?  This a justifiable conclusion given the information and precedent set by both the countries as well as their conflicts with each other (and India with Pakistan). Some of US actions such as an upgrade of conventional ballistic missile capabilities in a trade off for lower reliance on nuclear weapons also act as a deterrent for China who view this as something which could damage the strategic balance between the two countries and thus they wouldn’t want to lower their nuclear strength. Are alternative conclusions considered particularly where the issue is complex?  The author doesn’t give the option of a second possibility and a differing conclusion will ot be justified n any case. Is line of reasoning sound, logical?  Yes At this time it doesn’t seem that a unanimous agreement will be reached. Unless one of the countries in question agrees to take the risk and assume the leader position in the initiative towards complete nuclear disarmament, none of the other countries will be ready to follow the lead. It may be suggested that US takes the lead but doing so will leave it in a vulnerable strategic and offense/defense situation until and unless other countries follow lead; and ll evidence points that that is not a surety. Point of View  What author is looking at & how he/she sees it?  Lee gives all the arguments for or against the situation from the point of view of different countries, including their unique concerns, problems, conflicts and economic and political position in the international world. Does auth show sensitivity to alternative relevant p.o.v. or lines of reasoning?  Yes. There is no discrimination in the provision of facts and concerns from all the countries involved. Does auth consider & respond to objections framed from other relevant p.o.v.?  Given the impartial tone of the writing, the author does not need to take sides or provide justifications for the point of views of the countries; everything is stated factually and in the interest of providing an academic discussion on the issue. Implications  If we fail to accept line of reasoning, what are consequences & how should we act?  If we accept that the author has not logically proved the conclusion and there is a great chance that all countries will commit to take practical steps to reach a Global Zero initiative- this implies a more positive world view and as such there is no need for further action on the part of the nations for trust building etc. It might also be prudent for these nations to concentrate on advancing more conventional military capabilities. If we accept l.o.r., what are the consequences? & how should we act?  In accepting the original conclusion we recognize the need for further planning on how to remove the mistrust and strategically rivalries between the countries which are hindering progress in the situation. The position of China and US can be discussed in relevance to feasible treaties and possible compromise suggested in lieu of Global Zero; restrictions on nuclear weapon advances will still be preferable to no agreement at all. The importance of this initiative has to be conveyed again and again to the nations along with a presentation of the mutual benefits they stand to gain if all reach an agreement. What are the other implications? The conclusion also serves as a warning that the endeavor towards Global Zero might be more difficult than previously estimated and the countries might need to change their strategies in order to achieve it. Taking it further there is also the implication that the situation has the potential to worsen even if one misstep is taken from any one nation- all countries certainly are prepared for that situation. Works Cited Lee, Levina. Americas nuclear meltdown towards "global zero". Society for the Advancement of Education, Gale, Cengage Learning. The free library by Farlex. 2011. Web. 2nd Dec 2012. Read More