The USA Science and Technology Arms Control Policy - Case Study Example

United s of America science and technology Arms Control policy Introduction The congress established Science and Technology department in May 1976. The department is located in the executive office of the president and its core duty is to design Science and technology policies in the United States of America. The department plan and program the use of scientific information and knowledge that have been acquired over time. In addition, the science and technology department plan and program all relevant investment necessary to achieve best and adequate information that guides development of relevant and effective policies. Science and technology applies to national security, food production, management of the environment, and telecommunication, transportation and energy production among others. Since science and technology policies are varied and wide in scope, Arms Control Policy is the basis of this discussion. National security (Homeland security) refers to the protection of citizens against all forms of danger as well as country’s secrets. It also involves reducing vulnerability of the country to rogue nations and terrorists’ devastating attacks and schemes. United States have and continue to apply science and technology to assure the citizens and residents of their safety. There are various national security policies that United States of America is pursuing. One of the key policies is the Arms Control policy on nuclear strategy and weapons employment that has been enshrined in the national security policy and strategy. Arms Control refers to restricting the development, spread and use of weapons that can cause extensive or mass destruction to their targets. World leading countries in weaponry development and production such as United States of America, China, United Kingdom and Russia have realized that weapons that cause mass destruction must be stopped. This is because weapons of mass destruction make their defense systems and that of the entire world vulnerable to untold suffering and destruction if used by enemies of the world. In addition, limitations on destructive weapons seek to minimize extensive damages to civilians and the natural environment during the period of war. Diplomacy is one of the approaches that highly weaponry sophisticated countries try to use to ask others to stop the production, spread and use of weapons of mass destruction. Through diplomacy, limitations on the production, spread and use of most destructive weapons are imposed to consenting and collaborating partners. Limitations are normally implemented through agreements and treaties that are internationally recognized and accepted. Theoretical and practicability of the Arms Control Policy on nuclear strategy and weapons employment Bull, Steinbruner, Dean and Croft are scholars and practitioners who have contributed ideas that helped to formulate arms control. Arms control policies aim at improving security of the world. Arms control initiatives can be traced back to ancient Greece. Ancient Greece laid down rules and regulation that guided war. The Roman Catholic Church came up with the Peace of God aimed at protecting civilians, agricultural infrastructure, economic infrastructure and church property during the time of war. Truce of God was also developed to prevent violence between Christians. Advancement in weaponry technology made wars extremely destructive. As war became more brutal, rules were developed to prevent inhuman treatment of war prisoners or the wounded. Furthermore, rules were developed to protect the civilians and their properties. In 1675, France and Roman Empire signed the Strasbourg Agreement that limited the use of poisonous bullets. In 1817, United States of America and United Kingdom signed the Rush-Bagot Treaty aimed limiting the arms. 1871 was the Washington Treaty that demilitarized Great lakes and Lake Champlain. Leaders of twenty-six nations came together in 1899 and signed Hague convention that defined conduct of war. This led to setting up Permanent Arbitration Court. League of Nations meant to control arms was set after the devastation witnessed in the First World War. In 1925, the Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed. In 1925, Geneva Protocol banned the use of poisonous weapons. In 1928, Kellogg-Briand Pact aimed at refusing war as a tool as part of the national policy. United Nations was set to promote the world peace in 1957. In the same year, International Atomic Energy Agency was set to scrutinize the spread of global nuclear technology and weapons. Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959. Outer Space Treaty was signed in1967. In 1968, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed to prevent diffusion of nuclear weapons outside China, United States, United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union. In 1972, Biological Weapons Convention was signed. In 1972, Seabed Arms Control Treaty was signed. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) by the United States of America and the Soviet Union to control the weapons and this lead to Anti-Balistic Missile Treaty in 1972. In 1987, United States of America and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which required the two parties to destroy missiles within fie hundred and five thousand five hundred kilometers. In 1991, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed in 1991. Chemical Weapons Convention was signed in1993. It placed banned on production, spread and use of chemical weapons. In 1996, a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty came into existence. It banned nuclear explosions everywhere no matter the cause. In 1992, Open Skies Treaty was signed. In 1997, Ottawa treaty was signed. In 2002, Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty was signed. Finally in 2008, Convention on Cluster Munitions was signed. Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Nuclear Weapons Conventions and Space Preservation Treaty are three proposed treaties that are being developed to help arms control efforts. The major threat in today’s world is the nuclear and chemical weapons proliferation. Nuclear and chemical weapons are extremely dangerous because it can cause devastating effects in a massive scale. United States government has and continues to take measures that will limit production and distributions of deadly arsenals of war. For example, United States is engaging the services of talented and skilled personnel to develop defenses against possible chemical, biological as well as a nuclear attack from rogue nations, individual or terrorist like Al Qaeda. Science and technology help to develop ways of responding and recovering if an attack occurs. Advanced technology help to develop data management software that combine various data bases including terrorist watch list and allow centralization of all forms of necessary data. This will enhance security vigilance at all parts of the country. Good technology has also made it possible for confirming the identity of all persons via application of biometric technologies to ensure that right people are given access. Furthermore, technology aid development of early warning systems (nuclear detection equipments) to prevent threats from being implemented. It is also possible to develop decontaminations as well as regulate clean up of buildings and equipments contaminated with radio active substances. EOP (2005 p.9) asserts that the policy on nuclear strategy and weapons employment provides directions on the size, quantity and framework as well as its application of weapons of war by United States, especially the use of nuclear weapons to enhance its national security. Clinton administration stated that it would not apply chemicals or biological weapons to attack or respond to attacks by non-nuclear weapons states. According to Woolf (2010), the United States initiated a dialogue with Russia to reduce the amount and scope of production and applications of strategic arms. Developed countries are trying to agree on how to limit or reduce production and application of nuclear as well as biological and chemical weapons. As much as the United States promises to minimize the quantity and the scope of application of strategic arms, it continues to apply anti-ballistic missiles in their national security pursuits thus making it extremely difficult to honor their dialogue with Russia to lower application of the offensive weapons. This is because anti-ballistic missiles are best known current weapons that are effective against hidden and buried targets in countries like Iraq. As a result, countries like China and Iran may become more aggressive and intense in pursuing production and application of the offensive weapons. Secondly, the United States under the Clinton administration promised not to use nuclear weapons against countries without the nuclear. However, the country intends to apply nuclear weapons against enemies, which use chemical and biological weapons in their attacks. The intention of the United States to continue producing the nuclear weapons encourage nuclear proliferation; reduce distinctions between conventional and nuclear weapons; hamper nuclear disarmament and directly violates negative security promises and reaffirmation that is taking root globally. Therefore, the policy has some contradictions that must be addressed to limit and minimize proliferation of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Evidence whether the Arms Control Policy on nuclear strategy and weapons employment is effective Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has renewed efforts to reduce nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This has been done through a series of high levels meeting with countries believed to posses the nuclear weapons. Schoenbauer et al (2010), unlike immediate former President Bush, President Obama has pledged to reduce nuclear dangers and hopefully end worldwide dependency on nuclear Weapons. United States of America have used a number of agreements and treaties to address global arms control. Arms Control was cited as key to maintaining United States National Security and world peace. United States of America has made concerted efforts through many treaties and agreements with countries such as China, Russia, Taiwan, United Kingdom and India among others. There are various evidences on the progress and effectiveness of Arms Control Policy. There have been simmering tensions between Russia and United States of America concerning the nuclear weapons and other related developments. According to Boese (2009), Russian officials led by Ryabkov accused the United States of failing to reduce its nuclear deployments as earlier agreed. United States of America also failed to honor their pledge to allow permanent Russian presence in selected military bases in the United States. This is to monitor nuclear development and ensure that the United States comply with the NPT. In addition, Russians officials felt that United States deployments were aimed at countering the Russian nuclear forces and not Iranian Missile capabilities. Russia is also concerned over the United States proposal develop ten missiles interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. For the agreement and treaties to be effective between Russia and United States of America, Russia has suggested that United States should stop deployment of weapons to Poland and Czech Republic. Furthermore, United States should agree to partner with Russia in assessing the Iranian missile threats to promote equal partnership and productive dialogues between two countries to counter the missile threats. Disarmament time table has been set to provide timeline when all nuclear arsenals will be eliminated. China requested NWS to speed up operations and produce a report to the PrepCom Meeting in 2014. Strong monitoring and reporting system ensure that nuclear ban is being complied. This will promote the drive towards free nuclear weapons world. Despite these efforts, China has blamed United States for not being transparent in their dealings. Chinese are not happy with the United States nuclear weapons modernization. They question the scope and capabilities of the new nuclear war heads being developed by the United States. China is also worried of increased United States nuclear expenditures and does not accept mutual vulnerability with the United States of America. China is not also happy with United States Prompt Global Strike. United States of America refused to reduce nuclear war heads below one thousand in numbers. This will not make the world a free nuclear world. United States of America forces in Iraq used anti-ballistic missiles against Al Qaeda strong holds to weaken and over power them. This is against the agreement made with other countries that discourage the application of anti-ballistic missiles. Geneva protocol seemed to be more successful as compared to other treaties though some nations have violated the term at will. Politics have been cited has the main reasons that have led to violation of the treaties and agreements. Unfortunately, violators do not suffer painful consequences because their political enemies were on the fore front advocating for the imposition of stiffer sanctions and penalties. On the other hand, political allies have ignored or gave limited measures to their allies who violate the terms of arms control. Overtime, it has become evident that enforcement of agreements and treaties aimed at limiting production, spread and use of weapons of mass destruction are extremely difficult. Most parties who initially consented to the treaties and agreements often negate their ideas and decisions once they leave the negotiation table. This is because some countries may lose the desire to agree with terms and look for ways to maneuver the treaties and agreements. Other countries such as Japan abandon the treaties. Washington and London Naval Treaties are examples of circumventions applied by the United States of America and United Kingdom. The United States of America build highly sophisticated naval ships within the weight tenets of the Washington Naval Treaty, though the move was against the general treaty of arms control. United Kingdom utilized the windows in the terms and Italians rudely negate the terms by exceeding agreed naval weights. Countries such as Italy who negated the weight terms and countries like Japan that abandoned the treaty did not suffer significant consequences for the negative actions towards the treaty. It is difficult to be assured that rival states are not pursuing military superiority. There is no trust. Therefore, no single state wishes to surrender the military superiority to others. There is evidence of increases in military spending programs in some countries and others may respond causing arm race. This may increase political tension and raise the probability and severity of crisis that may cause war. China is happy with widely supported reduced roles of nuclear weapons, renewed declaration that prohibits nations from responding to non-nuclear nations with nuclear weapons and reduced United States nuclear structure forces. In addition, China is no longer designated target of nuclear attacks. United States of America is not fully implementing the arms control agreement. They are blamed for continued development nuclear weapons against NPR terms. Though United States agreed to reduce roles of nuclear weapons, it still retains highest capabilities of conventional weapons and has the biggest nuclear arsenal. If countries that fail to comply with NPT are not dealt with stiffer penalties and bans, it will not be possible to achieve nuclear weapons free world. To sum it all, there is progress towards reduction of arms of mass destruction. Recommendation for the Arms Control policy on nuclear strategy and weapons employment The United States government should lead by reducing the production of nuclear weapons. United States must abandon the application of anti-ballistic missiles to prove to the world that they are serious with the move to reduce and stop the application weapons of mass destruction. Stringent measures and verifications must be implemented exhaustively without favor or fear. This is to prevent non-compliance with the agreements and treaties. The results of the verifications must be relayed to the other consenting partners to the treaties and agreements in a completely transparent manner. United States of America should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This is to create mutual relationships with those that have already consented. Countries that have consented to the arms control treaties and agreements must respect their decisions. They must stop counter productive arm races that endanger their national security and peace in the future. United States of America should increase its transparency and encourage other nations to open up their military bases for mutual inspections. References Amartya Sen, (2000). A Decade of Human Development, Journal of Human Development, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 17-20 Boese, W. (2009). Test Hit, Diplomatic Flop for U.S. Missile Defense. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_01-02/missiledefense EOP (April 2005). Science and Technology: A Foundation for Homeland Security: Washington, D.C. Ingham, K. G. (2008) Capitalism. London: Polity. Kenny, C. (2005). Why are we worried about income? Nearly everything that matters is converging. London: Elsevier. Larsen, A. J. (ED) (2002). Arms Control: Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment. USA. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from https://www.rienner.com/uploads/47d6f750a53eb.pdf Martinussen. (1997). State, Society and Market. London: Zed Books Mendelsohn, J. (n.d.). The Muddle of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Strategy. Arms Control Association. Retrieved September 23, 2010, from http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1896 Payne, A. & Phillips, N. (2010). Development. Cambridge: Polity Press. Peet, R., Hartwick,E. & Hartwick, R. E. (2009). Theories of development: contentions, arguments, alternatives. New York: Guilford Press Roberts and Hite, (2006) The Globalization and Development reader. London: Wiley-Blackwell Schoenbauer, M., Hong, L., Guoliang, G., Yumin, H., Jishe, F., Sumpter, M., Haenle,P. & Saalman, L. (2010) Arms Control Spring in Beijing. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=3008 Woolf, F. A. (2010). Nuclear Weapons in U. S. National Security Policy: Past, Present, and Prospects. New York: DIANE Publishing. Read More