Police Functions Essay

Over the years, police have been portrayed in the media, television shows, and the local newspaper as crime fighting heroes. This portrayal would make one think a police officer is always out doing a dangerous job, which may require shooting, beating up, or arrested the bad guy. The truth is, most officers will not make a felony arrest in a given year, and there are also many officers who have never fired their weapon. There are various perspectives of the policing functions. I will examine these perspectives from the local, state, and federal organizational levels. I will identify and address possible future changes in laws and the overall impact these changes will have on the field of policing. Local Police Police, usually called law enforcement officers, apprehend criminals and investigate crimes. There are several other functions that the police perform. Local police have three main functions: maintaining order, controlling crime, and providing basic social services. Local police maintain order in different activities, such as traffic control in power outages, crowd control outside of a local football game, resolving domestic disputes, and removing drunken patrons from the streets. Police officers serve and protect. The main focus of maintaining order is keeping the peace rather than enforcing the law, so to speak. In different situations, officers may have to make an arrest to ensure the peace, but the appropriate order-maintenance solution often consists of less formal actions, like clearing crowds after a big game. Controlling crime is basically patrol and criminal investigation. Basic social service is calling police in an emergency situation. The majority of phone calls to the police are in need of social service as opposed to those relating to crimes. There are several factors that shape what police do. Police officers are available 24 hours a day seven days a week. People call on the police when they find themselves in an emergency situation and there is not another agency available. Because of this availability, it sometimes gives officers a heavy workload. Police work is different and unique from other jobs because these men and women are permitted to use force. Force in this case is deadly or physical force as well as arresting someone. Police officers have to be ready to shoot in a split second, if need be. Discretion is used in all areas of policing. Officers rely on their training as well as experiences to decide what to do when dealing with citizens. A wonderful example of discretion is an officer giving you a warning for speeding as oppose to upholding the law and issuing you a citation. State Police State police are a part of The Department of Public Safety. Every state with the exception of Hawaii has its own police force possessing statewide jurisdiction. The nation’s largest state police force is California Highway Patrol. The directors of highway patrols or state police are appointed by the Governors. Tasks done by state police agencies include assisting the local police departments in criminal investigations, patrolling the state’s highways, training municipal and country police, maintaining centralized crime records for the state, and operate a crime lab. Federal Police Within the executive branch of the national government lies the federal law enforcement. The FBI, or Federal Bureau of Investigation, is a part of this federal organization. The FBI investigates several categories of federal crimes. Their focus is on protecting the nation from threats, such as terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, white collar crimes, and violent crimes, such as kidnappings and bank robberies as well as civil-rights crimes. The FBI is equipped with crime labs, fingerprint files, crime statistics, and a training academy, which enables them to assist state, local, and other federal agencies. Due to the increases in organized crimes, the FBI also has wiretapping authority. Federal officers have jurisdiction nationwide. The Department of Homeland Security is another branch containing federal law enforcement agencies. Some of DHS agencies are: United States Secret Service- which is responsible for apprehending anyone caught counterfeiting U. S. money. They are also responsible for the protection of other officials of the federal government and for protecting the president. Immigration and Customs Enforcement- enforces the flow of immigrants into the United States. INS agents deport aliens who break the United States naturalization laws. They are also responsible for the patrol of the United States border to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. In the 1990s, INS agents focused on the Mexican-U. S. border, where large numbers of illegal immigrants and huge amounts of illicit drugs entered the United States. INS agents arrest hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, but the number making it safely into the United States still exceeded the number arrested. † (The Nature of Police Work) Customs and Border Protection and Transportation Security Administration also fall under this agency. Conclusion Patrol and criminal investigation used to dominate policing. Uniformed officers would roam the streets interrupting crime and trying to prevent them from happening. There are different strategies to policing. These strategies include patrol, special operations, and investigations. There are changes that can be made in laws to impact the field of policing. Local police departments can reduce corruption by keeping a closer eye on the department and listening to the community. Bad seeds would have to be removed from all areas of policing. These departments can also form a positive relationship with the public by showing they are doing more than making arrests. Federal agencies are sometimes limited in the information they can share with other departments, but if there is something useful, they can pass the information along to help all agencies out. There are many functions to policing. While police are heroes to a lot of people, they are not just out fighting crime and locking up the bad guys. They are there for us when we need them, regardless if our cat is stuck in a tree or we have a runaway teenager. Different agencies perform at different levels each having different duties. Once we understand what different agencies are able to do, we understand policing better.

Antidiuretic Hormone

Antidiuretic Hormone is a nanopeptide, meaning it has nine amino acids (Allain). The hormone is made in the hypothalamus and is transported by axons to be stored in the posterior lobe of the pituitary gland. From there, it is released into the blood circulation when necessary (Bowen). ADH regulates plasma osmolarity, or the concentration of solutes in the blood. Osmoreceptors are neurons that sense the osmolarity and send information to the hypothalamus. When plasma osmolarity is below a certain threshold, the osmoreceptors are not activated and the secretion of ADH is suppressed.When osmolarity increases above the threshold, the osmoreceptors stimulate the neurons that secrete ADH (Bowen). ADH is released from the hypothalamus when osmoreceptor cells in the hypothalamus detect a rise in blood osmolarity, which is normally caused by an excessive loss of water. It reaches the kidneys by blood vessels. Once at the kidneys, the hormone makes distal convoluted ducts more permeable to wat er so that more is reabsorbed and water is conserved in the blood. The juxtaglomerular apparatus, or JGA, helps the kidney when one has low blood pressure or low blood volume.When blood pressure drops or there is a lack of sodium in the blood, the JGA releases the enzyme renin into the bloodstream. Renin acts on the plasma protein angiotensin, and turns it into its active form, angiotensin II. Angiotensin II then constricts the arterioles, which raises blood pressure. Raising blood pressure in the arterioles increases filtration (â€Å"Hormones of Kidney Regulation†). Antidiuretic hormone has many disorders related to it. The most common disease of man and animals related to ADH is diabetes insipidus.Diabetes insipidus is a disorder characterized by intense thirst, despite the drinking of fluids, and the excretion of large amounts of urine. There are four main types of diabetes insipidus: hypothalamis diabetes insipidus, nephrogenis diabetes insipidus, gestational diabetes in sipidus, and primary polydipsia (â€Å"Diabetes insipidus†). Hypothalamic diabetes insipidus is a deficiency in the secretion of ADH from the posterior pituitary. Causes of the disease include head trauma, and infections or tumors involving the hypothalamus (Bowen).It is treated with the synthetic hormone, desmopressin. Desmopressin eliminates the increase in urination (â€Å"Diabetes insipidus†). Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus is when the kidney is unable to respond to ADH (Bowen). This is caused by renal disease, a genetic disorder, or a chronic kidney disorder. It is treated by a low salt diet, drinking more water, or the drug called hydrochlorothiazide, which reduces urine output. Gestational diabetes insipidus occurs only during pregnancy when an enzyme made by the placenta destroys ADH in the mother.This is also treated with desmopressin. Primary polydipsia is the excretion of large volumes of dilute urine. It is caused by an intake of excessive fluids or a menta l illness. There is no specific treatment other than decreasing the amount of fluid intake, but if the condition is caused by mental illness, treating the mental illness may relieve the symptoms (â€Å"Diabetes insipidus†). Another ADH disorder is the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone, or SIADH. SIADH occurs when excessive levels of ADH are produced.It occurs mostly with people with heart failure, people with a diseased hypothalamus, or a certain type of cancer. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, seizures, coma, and personality changes. It is diagnosed by blood tests, which measure sodium, potassium chloride levels, and osmolality. SIADH is treated by a fluid restriction of between 30 to 75 percent of normal fluid intake or certain medications that inhibit the action of ADH (â€Å"Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion (SIADH)†). Antidiuretic hormone is vital for survival.The human body would not be able to live without ADH. The small pep tide molecule helps control the levels of water and solutions in the body. Without this, when one loses or gains solutes, the body would not know how to react. Works Cited â€Å"ADH. † Lab Tests Online. American Association for Clinical Chemistry, 20 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . Allain, Pierre. â€Å"Antidiuretic Hormone, ADH or Vasopressin. † Pharmacorama. Pharmacorama, 20 Sept. 2006. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . Bowen, R. â€Å"Antidiuretic Hormone (Vasopressin). Pathophysiology of the Endocrine System. N. p. , 9 Dec. 2006. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . â€Å"Diabetes Insipidus. † Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . â€Å"Hormones of Kidney Regulation. † Kidney and Nephron. Tripod, n. d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . Mullally, Aaron. â€Å"Antidiuretic Hormone (ADH {Vasopressin}). † Sophia. Sophia Learning, n. d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. . â€Å"Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion (SIADH). † The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, n. d. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. .

Environmental Problems in El Salvador

With a total land mass of just 8,124 square miles, El Salvador is the smallest country in Central America. Like many of its’ neighboring countries, it possesses very few natural resources. Since the nation’s economy is based predominantly on agriculture, it’s no surprise that its’ citizens often experience â€Å"resource roller coasters†. In addition, its’ long history of inappropriate land tenure and ownership practices date all the way back to colonialism. Even more strikingly, â€Å"sixty percent of El Salvador’s population is expected to live in the capital by 2010. As a result, El Salvador has to deal with continuing environmental problems. The fact that the nation lies along the Pacific Ring of fire doesn’t help either, which subjects the country to frequent earthquakes and volcanic activity. The environmental problems that El Salvador continually struggles with are deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, contaminat ion and lack of bio-diversity. El Salvador is the second most deforested country in Latin American after Haiti. In fact, nearly eighty five percent of its forest has disappeared since the 1960's.Today, less than 6,000 hectares are now considered to be primary forest. Deforestation in El Salvador occurs as a result of timber exploitation for fuel. The nation’s high population relies heavily on the collection of fuel wood and subsistence hunting and agriculture. Since the end of the 1990's, the country’s deforestation rate has increased by eighteen percent. The environmental, social and economic effects of deforestation have been nothing short of devastating. To date, more than fifty percent of El Salvador isn’t even suitable for food cultivation.In addition, much of the country suffers from severe soil erosion. The massive deforestation that the nation has experienced has dislodged the top soil and has even changed the climate according to environmental experts. What used to be a heavily wooded region is now more like a desert. Deforestation is so severe in El Salvador that it has forced people into the capital city of San Salvador, where overcrowding has caused problems such as smog. â€Å"At least 11,000 Salvadoran children die every year because of respiratory ailments believed related to air pollution, according to one study. Although the El Salvadoran government has attempted to respond to the problem of deforestation, they have not been particularly successful. They have created deforestation laws, but due to lack of funds and management, the laws often go unenforced. In addition, soil erosion and infertility are quite prevalent in El Salvador. These problems stem mostly from poor agricultural practices. Farmers typically use a â€Å"slash and burn† farming method, which consists of cutting and burning down forests in order to use the areas for agriculture. This method destroys all vegetation and leaves the surrounding soil vu lnerable to extreme erosion.Unfortunately, since it is becoming more and more difficult to find land that is suitable for cultivation, farmers have no choice but to do this. Farming is their livelihood and quite frankly they will do anything to survive. What’s even more disheartening is the fact that the land that is suitable for cultivation has already been bought to use for construction of maquilas. In some cases, soil erosion has even buried communities in landslides and floods have submerged large areas of flat land. The soil is also unable to retain humidity causing drought conditions in the dry season.Most agricultural soil has even been acidified due to the irrational use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and other forms of pollution. Luckily, the government has responded to this problem and is encouraging farmers to take advantage of improved agricultural technologies. These technologies include planting deep rooted grasses and trees on hillsides to control soil e rosion. However, farmers should not expect much financial assistance to take advantage of these new technologies because the El Salvadoran government simply does not have much to give.Thirdly, water pollution is another environmental problem that plague El Salvador. Despite receiving six feet of rainfall each year, most of the nation’s water is highly contaminated. In fact, thousands are killed each year due to water contamination, many of whom are children. At the same time, most of the citizens of the nation cannot afford bottled water. After the twelve year civil war destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure, poor areas became even poorer. Homes and water sources had been destroyed by militia during the war. After returning home, some citizens chose to hand dig wells in order to obtain drinking water.However, many others went to their nearest stream, river or pond to collect water. These unsafe and contaminated water sources caused many people to become ill wit h intestinal diseases. According to Ricardo Navarro, El Salvador’s government has failed to protect its’ most precious resource: â€Å"Farmers have cut down forests that used to store rain water. Ranchers have allowed their livestock to pollute rivers. Communities have put latrines too close to shallow wells. † Others, such as Marisol Prima Ponza, who runs a government dispensary that tracks the health of 375 children in several communities, believe that things are improving. There have been fewer cases of diarrhea,† she says. â€Å"For example, from January to August of this year I have only recorded 17 cases. † Ponza also added that these improvements are due to several projects that have been implemented to improve water conditions. El Salvador’s government can not claim that they have played a large role in any improvements though. In fact, sixty three percent of water improvement programs were financed through international loans and gra nts, twenty one percent through self-financing by ANDA and only sixteen percent with actual government resources.Many citizens and international groups alike have been putting pressure on the government to improve water conditions as well. In fact, March 22 is declared as World Water Day when thousands of people protest in the streets of San Salvador. They typically protest the four main components of the country’s water crisis: high cost of water, unjust distribution of water, contaminated water and environmental destruction. Despite some improvements, poor water sanitation continues to remain one of the main environmental problems of El Salvador. Another environmental problem that El Salvador must deal with on a daily basis is contamination.The nation’s soil is constantly being contaminated from the disposal of toxic wastes. Each day, El Salvador produces over two thousand metric tons of garbage. Over half of the garbage that is produced is disposed of illegally in o pen air dumps. In actuality, only two legal garbage dumps exist for the entire country to share. The whole country, especially the Greater San Salvador area contaminates a great deal of its garbage by â€Å"mixing organic with inorganic garbage, biodegradable or reusable materials with non-biodegradable or toxic waste. By doing this, many recycling opportunities are completely lost and the cost of recovering the recyclable materials would simply not be worth it. Unfortunately, the nation’s restrictions on any kind of waste disposal are quite lax and they do not provide people with the resources for proper disposal anyway. In addition, nearly half of the nation’s garbage is toxic waste which is harmful to human and environmental health. Factories and hospitals alike simply dump their garbage into nearby rivers and lakes which contaminates the water.Unfortunately, the response from the municipal government in San Salvador barely makes a dent in the problem. Nonetheless, if its model extended throughout the nation and made its way into the platforms of public officials as well as environmental organizations, then positive change would probably occur. For a country whose environment is badly deteriorating, this is a life or death situation and must be properly addressed. Garbage collectors themselves can be seen handling garbage with their bare hands on any given day, which subjects them to many types of infections.According to the garbage collectors themselves, there isn’t a very good communication flow between them and the environmental sanitation office. Many of the people that work at the mayor’s office are not even aware of a pilot project to separate garbage. In addition, the equipment that would be needed for the project would not even be affordable due to San Salvador’s poor economic conditions. Unfortunately, the mayor’s good intentions are simply not helpful without the proper funding and effort. Lastly, another environmental issue that affects El Salvador is the loss of bio-diversity.It’s not that the nation naturally lacks bio-diversity, but rather the result of many years of environmental abuse. In particular, the nation’s wildlife and native plant life are suffering due to soil degradation, poor water quality and subsistence hunting. Despite these problems, more than 508 species of birds, 121 mammals, 130 reptiles and amphibians, and over 2000 plant species were recorded in the nation in 1998. Even though these numbers have probably decreased since then due to the government’s lack of emphasis on natural resources training, they are still not devastating by any means.In fact, El Salvador encompasses over seven percent over the world’s total biodiversity. However, these plants and animal species are not going to save themselves. If the nation’s other environmental issues are not addressed then the distinction of some of these plants and animals is inev itable. The environmental problems in El Salvador are an important issue to the state because they all lead to others problems.For example, contamination has led to water pollution which has led to illness and people’s livelihoods depend on whether they are healthy enough to work. As mentioned several of times, the state has definitely not done enough to ddress the environmental problems in which they are suffering from. Even when they do address the problems and create plans to fix them, they usually lack the money to carry the plans through. Any money that they do have to fix the problem is typically obtained through international grant and loan programs, like the United Nations. Some improvements have been made in El Salvador, such as the integration of legal garbage dumps, but since only two exist, the improvements have not been immense. The environmental problems have weakened the economy and in turn, the weakened economy is what is preventing the problems from being fix ed.It’s not that the elected officials of El Salvador do not have goals and visions for their state, but it’s that they can’t carry them through economically. Perhaps educating the citizens of El Salvador about how to care for the environment and farm correctly is one of the first steps. International groups also need to continue to put pressure on the state through protests, such as they did on World Water Day and their funding needs to continue. By improving their environmental problems, El Salvador has the ability to prosper more than anyone has ever even imagined.

Urban Housing Reforms and Urban Blight Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Urban Housing Reforms and Urban Blight - Essay Example Cultural groups overran areas that were under urban development reforms in an effort to enjoy imminent benefits like reasonably priced houses (Aoki, 1992). For example, the aftermath of the First World War saw a profound inflow of African Americans from the south. This influx led to troubles of the â€Å"metabolism† of urban housing reform and population distribution (Pritchett, 2003). The dumbbell tenement is another example of urban blight in the form of a product of urban design reform. The vast arrival of communities resulted in the acceleration of the â€Å"junking† procedure in the field of deterioration. Reform supporters never built a systematic procedure by which to ascertain the positive impacts of the reforms. One example is the presented of outmoded contracts in many urban development councils. Similar to the private sector, urban design reform integrated control and imposed order on surrounding environs. Another example is the burdensome structure of checks and balances that reform supporters did not abandon. This system of transacting fostered fraudulence, corruption, overstated taxes, and election rigging. From this point of new, an urban blight in late nineteenth century America was not just a naturally happening procedure. Urban housing reforms of the late 1800s in the end contributed to urban blight. The loss of interest in the greater good by landowners, migration influxes, the invasion of urban areas by ethnic groups, and the lack of a systematic process contributed to urban blight.

Moral Obligation and Legal Duty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Moral Obligation and Legal Duty - Essay Example â€Å"A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error†2. Laws are primarily meant to safeguard the moral values of the nation, but this itself raises a number of challenges for the law-making agencies given the morals of a society alter with time depending upon the demands of the time. Coleridge said, â€Å"It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation. A legal common law duty is nothing else than the enforcing by law of that which is a moral obligation without legal enforcement†3. This paper reviews the English medical laws other than the law of clinical negligence with an intent to evaluate whether the extent to which the enforcers of these laws see a moral obligation to their duties. For this, the issues discussed include abortion and euthanasia. If they do so, that would mean that their legal duties are founded on moral obligations. In the last, the recent development of the law of human rights is commented upon from the standpoint of the very issue. Different theories of abortion have emerged over the years. Many people claim that abortion is morally justified since it is a legal procedure. â€Å"There is a subtle type of argumentation here that basically is saying that if it is legal, it is moral; and if it is legal and moral, then it is immoral to oppose it†4. A woman who involves herself in sex voluntarily and without the use of contraceptives, she in a way signs a bond with the fetus. â€Å"A contract entails the demonstrated existence of a reasonably (and reasonable) free will. If the fulfillment of the obligations in a contract between individuals could be life-threatening – it is fair an d safe to assume that no rational free will was involved†5. But a pregnancy happens as a result of rape or forced sex, it is morally feasible to terminate it since the mother never entered the contract willingly, thus rendering it invalid. This in turn justifies all measures taken to terminate the pregnancy before it reaches the stage when doing so would threaten the life of the mother. Judith Jarvis Thomson considers abortion impermissible but not on the grounds that most anti-abortionists base their claims on6 Abortion is not wrong because fetus is a human being and has a right to live, but it is impermissible because a woman carrying her pregnancy to term displays good samaritanism. From a moral standpoint, a woman that carries pregnancy to term generously takes care of the fetus by undergoing pain and labor while the fetus has the needs but not the rights but a woman, who terminates the pregnancy does not show this generosity and accordingly, does not take care of the need s of the fetus. â€Å"It is not the case that abortion violates the requirements of morality, therefore, but rather that continuing to incur the burdens involved in pregnancy goes beyond them†7. A woman’s ethical obligation to the fetus is inevitable irrespective of whether the abortion is legalized or not in a certain country8. One woman’s decision to terminate the pregnancy has a number of social implications, which challenges the perception that it is only

Martial Arts In Renaissance Europe Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Martial Arts In Renaissance Europe - Essay Example The gathered evidences are either in the form of scriptures of paintings. It is important to mention the event of Gladiator, this event occurred in 260 BC in Rome. The gathered evidences depict the wrestling techniques which were practiced during old ages, and with specific tools for self-defence and offend were designed and used. As per historic record, the groups practiced special martial arts during crucial combats. The pictorial display of historic combats have indicated the compilation of drafts i.e. Bayeux Tapestry and Morgan Bible, which has exclusively listed the details of technique necessary for combat alongside the design of the tools. As per European history, a specific manual has been discovered which depicts the learning of martial arts, "extant dedicated martial arts manual is the MS I.33 (ca. 1300), detailing sword and buckler combat". The book has mentioned that during high and late middle ages, common martial arts included jousting, fencing system. It was unfolded t hat during the period of late Middle Ages, different books on martial arts and fighting i.e. Fechubucher were compiled, regarded as "instructional treatises" (Mangan, 2001). The history of affiliation between the Europe and martial arts is significant and bonded. The literal meaning of Martial means the arts of Mars, which Mars is the reference to the Roman god of battle. It is therefore justifiable to link the history of martial arts with Ancient Greece. The literature of martial arts has been gathered and compiled by the European historians, have originated from the tradition of Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe, the compilation is in the form of treatise which included details of the combat techniques. The Europe has history of political and local struggle against injustice and mutiny, therefore on several accounts the mention of martial arts have been observed, which in actual was intended to communicate the fundamentals of defence to the forces and public (Jane, 1995). The conte mporary martial arts have its origination from the tradition of Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe. Several schools have been identified which have identified specified nature of practices relevant to martial arts, out of these some schools have been categorised as Italian, Spanish, German and English style; however some schools have focused upon weapons combat, mainly related to sword. The important institute linked to the promulgation and promotion of martial arts inside Europe includes the Academy of European Swordsmanship, this school has researched upon traditional swordsmanship. The book has given the details of the classified information relevant to this specific practice of martial arts includes strikes, locks and breaks, throws, wrestling, and disarms. The nature of these martial arts is limited to weapon and self combat, however the nature of martial arts practiced during Renaissance focused much upon hand-to-hand combat. The martial arts practices which originated during pe riod of Renaissance have transformed into boxing and fencing. The core values of the martial arts related to the European period of Renaissance focused primarily upon defensive and combat techniques, specially "learning to defend against knives, empty hand, ground fighting, pole weapons and swords" (Mangan, 2001). Discussion There growing misconception among the public is regarded the origination of martial art

Preeclampsia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Preeclampsia - Essay Example Other risk factors include promigravida, hydatidiform mole, multiple pregnancy, urinary tract infection, black race, nulliparity, presence of chronic diseases like diabetes, obesity, chronic hypertension and renal disease, and positive family history of preeclampsia (Erogul, Emedicine). Hypertension means a systolic blood pressure (BP) greater than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP greater than 90 mm Hg on 2 successive measurements 4-6 hours apart. Proteinuria means 300 mg or more of protein in a 24-hour urine sample or a urine protein-to-creatinine ratio of 0.19 or greater (Erogul, Emedicine). The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not well established. However, most researchers believe that placental hypoperfusion is the inciting event resulting in abnormal formation of uteroplacental spiral arterioles. These arterioles are highly sensitive to vasoconstriction. Placental hypoperfusion causes release of systemic vasoactive compounds which cause exaggerated inflammatory response, vasoconstriction, endothelial damage, capillary leak, hypercoagulability, and platelet dysfunction (Erogul, Emedicine). Mild-to-moderate preeclampsia may be asymptomatic. Most of the cases are detected through routine prenatal testing. Infact symptoms are mostly seen when end-organs are affected. Some of the symptoms which can be attributed to preeclampsia are headache, visual disturbances, dysnea, malaise and edema. Along with increased blood pressure, physical examination may reveal altered mental status, decreased vision, papilledema, hyperreflexia, seizures and focal neurodeficit (Erogul, Emedicine). Preclampsia should be managed by controlling blood pressure with antihypertensive agents. The goal should be to maintain diastolic blood pressure between 90 and 100 mm Hg and systolic pressure between 140 and 155 mm Hg. In case the patient develops seizures, the patient should be admitted to emergency

How would you describe human personality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

How would you describe human personality - Essay Example ts, his own growth and development patterns, reactions and moods, his social encounters with the people around him– all these come together to help form his personality. This is how the book of Duane and Sydney Schultz (2005) view personality. The formation of one’s personality is dependent on many factors that may inter-relate or overlap. Personality traits are believed to be inherited. They may also be influenced by one’s environment. Personality traits may also be learned from experience or may be strongly molded by the parenting style one has been exposed to. Personality may also be affected by the changes we encounter in life. It is also controlled by conscious and unconscious processes. A person’s experiences leave imprints on his personality. For instance, well-adjusted, well-rounded and successful individuals often share a childhood marked by happy memories and nurturing relationships with family and friends. Bitter, angry and cold people are most likely victims of a bleak childhood filled with disappointments and hurtful relationships. These personal views on personality were influenced by my exposure to the Psychoanalytical theories of Freud, Jung and Erikson. I found it fascinating, albeit complicated. Some of the theories were shocking and mind-boggling, but upon further study and analysis, I realize that it made a lot of sense, especially in explaining how a person comes to be. The Psychoanalytic theory is premised on the belief that human nature is greatly affected by a person’s early childhood experiences and conflicts between impulses and prohibitions. Sigmund Freud’s views human behavior as determined by irrational forces, unconscious motivations and biological and instinctual drives evolving in the first six years of life. According to Freud, there are two levels of personality: the conscious corresponds to its ordinary everyday meaning; the unconscious is the invisible portion of personality below the surface. (Schultz

A research topic related to religion and the environment Paper

A topic related to religion and the environment - Research Paper Example Indeed the Bible does not directly tell anything about how man should interact with the environment; but concept of ‘nature’ occupies an important part of Christian faith. A devout Christian necessarily believes that the ‘nature’ or in a broader term, the ‘universe’ is the creation of God and man is merely God’s tenant in it. Depending on this doctrinal premise, scholars further build up the Christian environmentalism. Man as the tenant of God on earth should not perturb God’s house. Thus Christianity advocates for an intimate, harmonious and friendly relationship with nature. But the debates on Christianity-and-Environment relationship evolve from the claim that man has been created in the ‘image of God’ which necessarily entails that man is entitled with the ownership of this world. The Christian belief about the ‘ownership status’ of man is supported by the Bible as following: â€Å"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground† (Genesis 1:26 and 28). During the industrial era, the Christian belief persists that since the world is God’s and man is His true representative on earth, the world belongs to man. Such doctrinal reasoning inspired the industrial society to use the environmental resources ruthlessly and recklessly, as Hansberry notes in this regard: â€Å"Some Christians have interpreted this story as giving people the right to exploit the environment.† (1) Behind this ruthless use of earthly resources there is another belief that God is generous and that He has created everything for man’s consumption. But as the concern about man’s harmful impact over nature began to grow, a group of scholars began to emerge under the banner of ‘green Christian environmentalist’ with a view to purporting the harmonious

History and the United States Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

History and the United States - Essay Example American took most of the Spanish colonies including Cuba with the aim of establishing a favorable place to invest the capital. United States succeeded for the first time in Manila, Philippines and not in Cuba. U.S. used this as a claim that they were assisting Cuba gain its independence, as well as, acquire territory from Spain. The battle lasted a few months where Spain gave in to the conditions that were set by the United States of America. Filipinos were in dire need of independence during that period; they ended up in war with the United States that continued to the early 1900. The United States of America thought that it was their mandate to and right to rule over the people of Philippines. The reason for the notion by the United States was to pass civilization to Filipinos, but mainly for economic advancement. Their brought about a thought â€Å"white man’s burden†; it was aimed at assisting the citizens of Philippines attain the same living standards and civiliz ation, which the Americans have been benefiting from. It was a forced idea because it did not matter whether they were interested with it or not. During America’s first endeavor to acquire colonies; it lost a lot of money, wasted time and military force. However, United States was determined to maintain Philippines as its colony because during the period it reigned over it, their trade links with Europe strengthened. Moreover, United States was able to trade with Asian countries across the Pacific; it came about because they had full control over Guam and Philippines. America’s economy advanced because it traded with China whose population was greater than that of Europe and United States when combined. It was an achievement for the United States because their products and investments were accessible by larger groups of people. America’s colonies provided the opportunity for trade; United States ended up controlling the entire Asian territory. Imperialism was ex perienced during this time when the United States wanted to advance their economic power, although naturally. United States became an imperial power, which was enhanced by its economic gain, wealth and fortune. The war between America and Spain gave a favorable opportunity to the United States to take control over several lands: Carolina, Marshall and Mariania (Guam) islands and Puerto Rico. This war resulted into a stronger United States empire and the collapse of Spanish empire. America gained a political power as a result of imperialism because it was the only country with authority and power over its colonies. The military power was wasted because most of them were killed; a lot of resources were destroyed, which weakened the economic power of the state. New cultural practices were introduced to United States because while they were trading with Asians, Filipinos and the Spanish, they acquired new ways of doing things. In response to Imperialism, most of the countries they were under U.S. target entered into war because they were determined to rescue their country from colonial rule. Cuba, Spain and Asian fought with United States. World War II and Cold war World War II was experienced by many countries globally that took place between 1939 and 1945. Germany is being blamed for the establishment of the war, which resulted from its invasion into Poland. Other

Regiment Essay Example for Free

Regiment Essay The United States thought that the Japanese were spying on us and was sent from japan just to spy. Even though no spying was recorded the United States just wanted to keep cautious. The Japanese were relocated in internment camps located in the west coast. However, in nineteen forty three president Roosevelt and the war department decided to allow these Japanese Americans to volunteer in an all American-Japanese regiment to fight for their country in World War two. In May nineteen forty three approximately one thousand five hundred volunteers from the United States and three thousand from Hawaii assembled for training camp at Shelby Mississippi. One month later they arrive in Naples, Italy. The all Japanese-American regiment group joined up with the one hundred infantry Battalion. After fighting ten days in Italy the combat groups got their first rest, dry clothes, and hot food. The battle of the lost battalion took place in October of nineteen forty four. The thirty sixth division was paired with the four hundred forty second regimental combat group to fight the German army in the battle of Bruyeres. Over two hundred of the thirty six battalion group were lost in the forest and are trapped on a steep ridge in the Vosges Mountain in France the German army surrounded them on this ridge. General John E. Dahiquist soon ordered the four hundred forty second regimental combat team to rescue the thirty six division group, this was a shock to the Japanese regiment because General Dahiquist was thought of as bias to Japanese by the Japanese. During this journey to the ridge many care packages containing food and supplies were dropped by air support but the packages would get tangled in the trees or in far distances. When the group entered the forest the forest was so dark the soldiers couldn’t see the soldier in front of them. So the soldier had to hold on to the man in front of them backpack. Finally throughout the way the combat team had to fight the German soldiers and ended up defeating the Germans. Even though they won they still sort of lost because the group lost over eight hundred soldiers just to save two hundred men. So if the Japanese Americans are C-4’s the Japanese Americans would have never sacrificed their lives to save the American soldiers. The Nisei men proved their loyalty to the United States and showed bravery. However no awards were awarded. Most people suggested that this was due to prejudice in the United States. In the year two thousand President Clinton awarded 20 medal of honors to the regiment. The Japanese-Americans helped shorten the war with a victory over the Hitler and his Germans soldiers.

Understand employment responsibilities and rights in health and social care Essay Example for Free

Understand employment responsibilities and rights in health and social care Essay Unit 201 – Understand employment responsibilities and rights in health, social care or children and young people’s settings. Describe the terms and conditions of own contract of employment. Probation period: When I joined Children 4 Most I was told I was on a 6 month probation period, This means that the management are able to terminate my contract if the company is unsatisfied with my working standards. Place of Work: I was also told that I may have to work at other locations for the nursery’s needs. Pay arrangements: My pay is  £433 a month which is paid Into my bank account in or around the 23rd of each month. I am also entitled to  £150 bonus every 3 months; this is given to each staff member if they haven’t had a sick day or been late to work in the 3 month period. Contracted Hours: My hours of work are 35 hours a week, A Monday to Friday arrangement. Holidays: My holiday year runs from the 1st of April to the 31st of March. I am entitled to 28 days holidays which include the days I have to take for Bank Holidays. Holiday Pay: Holiday pay will be at the normal rate pay. Notice period: If I choose to leave within my first month of being with the company a notice period is not permitted, However If I have been working with the company longer than 1 month a 1 week period will be provided, If I will have been with the company longer than 6 month’s a 4 week notice is required. Confidentiality: Should I breach this it may result in my contract being terminated. However if a child is believe to be in need or at risk of suffering harm, Legal advice should be obtained. Describe the information which needs to be shown on your pay slip. My salary should be shown and the hours which I have worked, Also the rate of my pay for example 433.3300. Also the date of the payslip, the tax code and employee number, The net pay and also my name. Total gross pay, Gross for tax, Tax paid, Earnings for National Insurance and also My National Insurance number. Explain what could happen when not carrying out the correct requirements of your role. If I didn’t carry out the correct requirements the children may not get the correct care that should be given. The nursery may also receive a visit from OFSTED and they may close down the nursery or change the rating for example from outstanding to pass, Parents may also take their children out of the nursery which may cause the nursery to close down. Explain how your role contributes to the overall delivery of then service provided. I provide all the correct care to ensure all the children’s needs are all correctly met and that they are happy and learning to all of their abilities. I have lots of responsibilities around the nursery from maintaining care of the children to protecting them and encouraging them with their learning. I also have to monitor the children and check the register frequently and carry out head count checks every 30 minutes. I also have close bonds with the parents and when carrying out activities making sure the safety aspects are all addressed and followed. If the correct care wasn’t provided, overall care may be dropped and accidents may happen. Explain how you could influence the quality of the service provided by – following the best practice within your work role. In a great position to influence a quality of care by setting standards of care, I show respect towards the children at all I times, I allow each child to have one and one time with me and I also allow each child to talk when they would like something. I deal with private situations with great respect for a example toilet routines, I encourage each child to close the toilet door behind them and I encourage each child to wipe themselves independently and pull up their clothing before they have opened the toilet door. Identify the personal information that must be kept up to date with your employer. The information includes: * name * address * date of birth * sex * education and qualifications * work experience * National Insurance number * tax code * details of any known disability * emergency contact details Explain agreed ways of working with employer. Without a job description you wouldn’t be able to apply for the job as you wouldn’t know what roles and responsibilities the job would entitle. Your employer will also have agreed on your pay and the benefits you may or may not get within the job for example a company car, you will have agreed to this by signing a contract.

Dynamics of Nuclear Disarmament Multilateral Negotiations

Dynamics of Nuclear Disarmament Multilateral Negotiations I. Introduction In 1957, Henry Kissinger aptly wrote that ‘ever since the end of the Second World War brought us not the peace we sought so earnestly, but an uneasy armistice, we have responded by what can best be described as a flight into technology: by devising ever more fearful weapons. The more powerful the weapons, however, the greater become the reluctance to use them. [1] He referred to the nuclear weapons as a powerful device that deters superpowers from major conflicts. His vision proved to be true, albeit difficult process of negotiations on nuclear disarmament throughout the Cold War period and beyond. Henceforth, common reluctance to use these deadly arsenals does not necessarily stop powerful states from acquiring them up to a certain deterrent level. Instead, nuclear weapons are even proliferated and technically perfected, and this, in my view, is the most striking dilemma and serves as the paradox of nuclear weapons. The year 2010 will be a very critical year for multilateral negotiation and talks on nuclear arms control and nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), [2] since the future of NPT and the progress and implementation of each of its article will be assessed through its five-yearly Review mechanism.[3] In particular, what it makes more crucial and fascinating is the promise made by US President Barack Obama on potential reduction of nuclear weapons. In his policy statement delivered in Prague, April 5th, 2009, President Barack Obama has made it very clear that he envisioned ‘a world that is free from nuclear weapons.'[4] Five months later, pouring all influence, persuasion and personal charms, President Obama chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council, which unanimously supported his vision. President Obamas initiative and political will his administration is willing to invest to build a critical mass and new thrust needed to move the troubled NPT in the next Review Conference in 2010. Yet, one must be well aware that reviving the NPT requires more than just rhetoric. One of the main articles of NPT, Article VI, clearly stipulates that the nuclear weapons states parties to the Treaty are under obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear weapons disarmament treaty under strict and effective international control at the earliest possible date.[5] Unfortunately, the sole multilateral negotiating forum entrusted to negotiate nuclear disarmament treaty, the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, has failed to start the negotiations ever since it managed to conclude painstakingly the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). At this point, one important question to ask is whether or not the international community should see President Obamas recent drive to revive the negotiation of the reduction of US Russia nuclear arsenals as an integral part of this long-term vision—a world that is free of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, what strategy are now being devised to ensure the success of negotiation on both bilateral and more importantly multilateral fronts, provided that attempts to any reduction—particularly as dramatic and steep as it was contained in recent Obamas initiative—will encounter serious hurdles and challenges. It therefore surely remains to be seen whether this bilateral negotiation is driven by President Obamas long-term vision to totally get rid of these weapons of mass-destruction or by other ulterior motives. As mandated by Article VI of the NPT, negotiations on nuclear disarmament should be conducted multilaterally. Besides, if nuclear weapons were fought the whole world would suffer. It is therefore unfair to sideline the non-nuclear-weapons possessing states in the negotiation. The study therefore discusses the dynamics of nuclear disarmament proliferation treaty, by analyzing the policy of the U.S.—as one of the major nuclear weapon states (NWS)—on nuclear proliferation, and its interaction towards other nuclear states. It tries to answer one key question: ‘Why are the nuclear-weapons-possessing states, as parties to the NPT, so reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear weapons disarmament treaty under strict and effective international control? As the study carries the task to provide a clear understanding on the hesitation of nuclear weapon states in negotiating a comprehensive disarmament, it is therefore considered important for us to look at the theoretical as well as policy contexts. Hence, discussion presented in the study is threefold, namely: (1) the conceptual framework and theoretical foundations; (2) policy development surrounding nuclear disarmament; and; (3) the recent dynamics of NPT in conjunction with the attitude of the U.S. as one of the major nuclear weapons states. II. Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations: Imagining Security, Survival and National Interests This study argues that the nuclear weapons states are so reluctant to negotiate the treaty for they firmly believed that their security and indeed existence (survival) critically hinges upon these weapons of mass-destruction, retaining and perfecting them thereby are mandatory. That above argument also underpins the departing point of our journey to understand the extent to which sense of insecurity and need for survival reinforce nuclear weapons states reluctance to conduct nuclear disarmament negotiations. The concepts of security and survival are essentially parts of the national interests of any state, including the nuclear weapon states. The two key concepts along with its national interest maximization are also core concepts of realism in the study of international relations. Under the logic and circumstances of anarchy, states are assumed to always rely on its own capability for survival. It is therefore a self-help system of international relations within which states and nations are living. Furthermore, a state, especially the smaller or less-powerful one, does have limited options or strategies for its survival. In a rather simplistic illustration, states can either compete or cooperate in advancing its respective national interests. Henceforth, to the realists, state of anarchy makes it more difficult for any state to cooperate with one another. In pursuing this, states often find themselves at odd to build alliance(s) with other states, yet, without any solid assurances concerning full commitments of each member of these cooperative and/or non-cooperative situations. There are a number of theories to explain that, widely stemming from the sense of insecurity to creating absolute gains (neo-liberal tradition) to building a complex of security identity (as proposed by a more recent constructivist tradition of international relations). Robert Jervis (1978) posed a valid question of why states would cooperate, provided that anarchy and the security dilemma make cooperation seemingly impossible. In other words, presumably, there must be some mechanisms which would allow states to bind themselves (and other members of the alliance) not to defect, or a mechanism by which to detect defection at the earliest possible stage, which enable an appropriate early response.[6] In so doing, states often find themselves under a dilemma—security dilemma. Despite of the many definitions and understanding on what constitute security dilemma, the essence of the dilemma is that â€Å"security seeking states more often than not get too much and too little, by assuming military posture that resembles that of an aggressor, which in turn causes states to assume the worst, and these attempts to increase security are consequently self-defeating.†[7] The more a state increases its security, the more it is likely for other state(s) to become insecure. In order to understand the situation under which security policies and strategies are formulated and thus executed, Jervis examines the conflicting situations by providing two basic models for situations of tension and conflict, based on the intentions of the adversary: spiral and deterrence. In the spiral model, intentions of both actors are objectively benign, whereas in the deterrence model, intentions of the adversary are malign.[8] Furthermore, in his deterrence model, Jervis (1976) ‘introduces a concept of malign power-seeking adversary, whereby actors in this situation are pursuing incompatible goals thus, making the strategy of deterrence the best possible option. In contrast, in the spiral model—often referred to as the true or ‘purest security dilemma situation, both actors are security-seekers, thus their interests are compatible.'[9] Yet, as analyzed by Andrej Nosko (2005), ‘the problem remains the inability of actors to distinguish which game they are playing, and what are the intentions of their adversaries.'[10] Although, according to Jervis it may not be possible to overcome the dilemma completely, it still may be possible to ‘break out of the security dilemma.'[11] He therefore suggests two major solutions to overcome the situation: Firstly, ‘to check the cognitive processes, when the adversarys intention is being perceived, so that the adversary is understood correctly. His second suggestion is ‘to employ specific military posture consisting of procurement of weapons that are useful for deterrence without simultaneously being as effective for aggression.'[12] Those practical suggestions form a powerful tool of analysis in what is referred to as ‘offense-defense balance variables, which are significant extension to the security dilemma further expanded by Jervis (and also by Glaser and Kaufmann, among others), as shown in the matrix below.[13] Source: , Strategy, Security Dilemma, and the Offense-Defense Balance, lecture material, accessed from http://ocw.tufts.edu/data/58/726832.pdf. In regard with the logic of nuclear weapons capability, it surely remain unclear whether or not the nuclear warheads installed in various Inter-Continental or Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs/SLBMs) constitute offensive or defensive, since the defense against ICBMs is ICBMs (deterrence) and SLBMs, on the other hand, are less accurate hence defensive. Therefore, security dilemma can be removed accordingly through the significant reduction of the number of nuclear warheads. As actors are striving to attain security while they are driven to acquire more and more power in order to escape the impact of the power of others, thus the intentions and motives of the actors are important primarily for any realists. In the U.S. case, while intentions for major reduction in its nuclear capability seemed to be imminent, yet, one looming question is whether other ‘adversarial nuclear weapons states such as North Korea would immediately follow the suit to reduce or eliminate its nuclear capabilities. Critics and pessimists were quick to answer that such a possibility for others to bandwagon and support the U.S. initiatives are too far-fetched, for a number of reasons such as the national aspiration to obtain nuclear capabilities, sense of insecurity, and the need to â€Å"hedge† its national security from possible nuclear outbreak in the future as part and parcel of their national threat perception. At this point, it is important to add other major concepts in the study of security from the lenses of (neo-)realism, as presented by Waltz (in his systemic self-help and survival theories) or Buzan in his concepts of threats and vulnerability. The links of these various concepts are quite clear: within a convoluted and uncertain international environment, it is postulated that ‘the mere uncertainty of international life creates a threatening environment for a state.'[14] While threats are normally coming from outside the country, vulnerabilities are, on the other, internal in nature, which demonstrate a ‘deficiency in the capability of a state to manage its security affairs.'[15] As argued further by Buzan, vulnerability can be reduced primarily by increasing self-reliance, or by countervailing forces to deal with specific threats.[16] Hypothetically speaking, obtaining or maintaining the level of nuclear warheads to hedge its security interests vis-a-vis other states is a ‘double-edged sword that can be used to minimize both threats and reduce vulnerability at the same time. The theoretical approach of this study suggests that there is a strong interlink between domestic/national considerations (i.e. political alignments in domestic politics and other domestic factors) on what constitute national vulnerability (which may derived from different sources of insecurity, widely stemming from economic, political, as well as the level of military capability relative to others, and vice versa) and threatening international system and environment (including not only the emerging and continued threats from its adversaries, but also the uncertainty of international regimes). This, for instance, has been quite evident in the case of Post-9/11 U.S. security policy in which strong bipartisanship on the Hill on what constitute major threat to security and how it should be overcome was built. Arguably, political dynamics will always affect a decision made by the Executive, and even more so in the national security domain. And a policy maker would eventually take all the se into his or her consideration. Presumably, President Obamas decision on the steep reduction—even elimination of nuclear warheads—was the result of these various considerations e.g. shared concerns amongst the elites over the possible illegal and illicit spread of nuclear warheads. III. Relative Peace amidst Constant Threats of Nuclear Annihilation: Deterrence, Negotiations, and Idiosyncrasy Indeed, in reality, questions and discourses surrounding nuclear weapons and its delivery systems remain as elusive and fascinating as ever, both in its theoretical and practical terms. One of the difficult puzzles that the epistemic community of international relations and strategic studies has been trying to understand and explain is the fact that despite its imminent threats of destruction within the context of intense Cold War, no single nuclear weapon has been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. While this is surely a surprising, yet, welcomed situation, especially amongst non-nuclear weapons states, yet, it does not mean that the world is totally free from the fear and threats of global destruction caused by nuclear war. Arguably, this relative peaceful situation can be understood at least through three different prisms: first, the role of deterrence; second, diplomatic measures and negotiations; and, third, idiosyncrasy. Deterrence. In essence, a number of scholars and practitioners are convinced that nuclear capability has been playing an important role in deterring (external) threats.[17] Furthermore, nuclear deterrence provides strategic blanket in three specific terms: first, protection against attacks with nuclear weapons; second, protection against attacks with conventional forces; and, third, indefinable additional diplomatic clout.[18] Theoretically, some analysts of international relations and strategic studies believe that the relative peace is attainable mostly through effective deterrence, coercion, and all its derivative concepts such as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and Balance of Terror.[19] In his robust argument, Robert Jervis (1989) reiterated ‘the significance of the theory of the nuclear revolution: in a world of mutual second-strike nuclear capability (where an adversarys first strike cannot prevent a states retaliation), military victory in a total war is impossible.'[20] The handling of strategic nuclear weapons policy is also not without any idealistic consideration. In the hands of policy handlers, apart from the need to deter, another major consideration surrounding strategic nuclear policy is the moral and ethical dilemma that entail. For the US as a major nuclear weapons state, for instance, the dilemma is aptly captured by Robert E. Osgood (1988), who clearly stated the following: In the period since World War II, the United States has encountered moral and strategic issues concerning the management of force in peacetime that are unique in its historical experience and novel in the history of international politics. At the core of these issues lies a dilemma—namely, the moral (as well as ethical) and strategic predicament of being unable to pursue one course of action without incurring the disadvantage of another. It arises from the dependence of military security on nuclear weapons. This nuclear dilemma lurks in the background of every major military strategic choice and suffuses all major strategic debates. The history of US strategic thought can be largely be comprehended as the story of how Americans have tried to cope with this dilemma by rejecting, abolishing, or mitigating it.[21] Furthermore, he continued by defining precisely the dilemma the US (as arguably other nuclear weapons states) is facing in regard with its nuclear arsenal depository, as follows: The nuclear dilemma is simply an expression of the momentous fact that the security and peace of the United States and its major allies depend heavily on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, and on the fact that this deterrent, if used, would very probably lead to self-defeating destruction and, possibly, an ecological catastrophe for much of civilization.[22] In his critical analysis, Wilson (2008) however seriously questioned the role of deterrence in preventing the outbreak of nuclear war. His arguments rest on the assumption that the policy makers have so far misunderstood the true concept of deterrence. He maintained that that the logics of nuclear deterrence, as widely perceived by the policy-makers, were unwarranted simply because they either built on a fallacy of assumptions or were based on disproven facts.[23] Countering Kissingers arguments that nuclear attacks would likely to happen on major populous cities, as happened on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Wilson asserted that there has been no single solid evidence on the intention of the former USSR to attack U.S. major cities even at the height of nuclear tension during the Cold War. As he argued further, An examination of the practical record of nuclear deterrence shows doubtful successes and proven failures. If the conventional wisdom is wrong—if nuclear weapons might not deter nuclear attacks, do not deter conventional attacks, and do not reliably provide diplomatic leverage—then the case for disarmament, nonproliferation and banning nuclear weapons is immeasurably strengthened.[24] In the post 9/11 tragedy, the nature and logic of asymmetric wars has added more complexity to the already difficult policy options.[25] Fear from the possibility of illicit transfer and/or nuclear acquisitions by the so-called ‘terrorist groups, it is very clear that the US and its allies have been undertaking all possible diplomatic initiatives and even military actions to deny these groups access to any nuclear materials.[26] Negotiations and Diplomatic Measure. It is also worth to mention the role of diplomacy and diplomatic efforts in ensuring countries do not resort to their nuclear arsenal to settle whatever disputes they may have with one another. In this regard, the role of negotiators in ensuring the commitments and compliance of all states—both nuclear and non-nuclear ones—to international code of conducts and norms of non-proliferation is also significant. To date, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remains at the very helm of global endeavor to keep the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and at the same time, restraining states from diverting its peaceful nuclear program towards provocative and militaristic uses. Corollary to this is the most authoritative nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime—the NPT- which was concluded in 1968 and has entered into force since 5 March 1974. Consisting of a Preamble and 11 articles,[27] more often than not that the treaty is widely interpreted as â€Å"a three pillar system†, namely: non-proliferation; disarmament ; and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. [28] In operation, a safeguards system to verify compliance with the NPT is established under the auspices of the IAEA one of which is conducted through site inspections. As outlined in the Treaty, NPT seeks to promote cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology, including the use of nuclear energy and equal access to this technology for all States parties, and provide safeguards that prevent the diversion of fissile material for the development of nuclear weapons.[29] Idiosyncrasy. In contrast with the above analysis on the role of deterrence and diplomatic measures, a more recent study by Nina Tannenwald (2007) revealed a striking fact concerning the idiosyncratic factor of U.S. leaders regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Drawing on newly released archival sources, Tannenwald was able to dispute the widely accepted theory of deterrence as primary inhibitor to an open and global-scale nuclear war. Instead, she was in favor of what she calls a nuclear taboo, a widespread inhibition on using nuclear arsenals—which has arguably arisen in global politics. By analyzing four critical instances of wars where U.S. leaders considered using nuclear weapons (namely Japan 1945, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War 1991), Tannenwald produced a rich and convincing explanation on how the nuclear taboo has successfully helped prevent the U.S. and other world leaders from resorting to these ultimate weapons of mass-destruction. [30] In other words, Tannenwald believed that there has been some moral ingredient within the policy makers in regard with the use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, from the leadership perspective and beliefs, Jacques E.C. Hymans (2006) convincingly demonstrates that leaders do play significant role in achieving nuclear capabilities.[31] Based on his findings on contending interests of leaders in the attainment of nuclear capabilities, he suggests three possible responses: first, a stricter international non-proliferation regime—controlling supply-demand side; second, nuclear abolition, in which the nuclear weapons states make much ‘more serious efforts towards disarmament and ‘resist the temptation to threaten nuclear attacks against non-nuclear weapons states, as they promised to do in Article VI and again at the NPT Review Conference in 2000; and, third, preventive military action/intervention against regimes whose leaders harbor nuclear weapons ambitions.[32] Apparently, those three responses are in combination taking place in todays world politics and international security. Despite their differences in mode of operation, all three prescriptions above do tell us common assumption that: nuclear weapons are highly attractive to many states; that nuclear weapons tend to proliferate. As argued by Hymans, ‘the ultimate solution to the proliferation puzzle lies in some sort of fundamental change to the international system, be it sovereignty-crashing inspections, universal disarmament, or a wholesale revision on the laws of war.'[33]This entails the need to change the way international law operates, which so far is seen as rather ineffective to ensure compliance. As radical it may sound, yet, it is surely rather difficult to be implemented on the ground. IV. Recent Major Development: A Fresher Outlook of Multilateral Negotiation? As one of the key nuclear weapons states, The U.S. has sheer diplomatic and military clout over the future of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons at the global scale. In this regard, it is important to note that any debate concerning the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is strategically important and critical. This has been truer especially since the new Obama Administration has expressed its commitments to pursue a deep and steep cut in its nuclear force, and to launch a major review of U.S. nuclear policy, which will hopefully be submitted to the Congress in February 2010. With its 2,200 operational strategic warheads (while the overall U.S. force to date is merely a fraction of one-fourth of its size a decade ago), yet, it is more capable to destroy an adversarys nuclear weapons before they can be used. In the realm of nuclear disarmament negotiations, the weight the U.S. diplomacy can throw to the success or failure of the negotiations is also visible. This was clearly shown, for instance, in President Obamas success to round commitments from the P-5 countries during last UNSC Summit on NPT on 24 September 2009, which unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution 1887 (2009). Resolution 1887 itself spells out, inter-alia, the â€Å"calls upon States Parties to the NPT to comply fully with all their obligations and fulfil their commitments under the Treaty† as well as refrain themselves from nuclear test explosion and sign the CTBT, and also exercise stricter measures to sensitive materials†[34]—as means to avoid nuclear warheads from falling into the terrorist group. The expected band-wagonning effect of the U.S. commitments, especially on the part of non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to NPT, will be prominent, thus, making the study of the Obama Administrations nuclear policy becomes more critical in our attempts to understand the dynamics of nuclear disarmament multilateral negotiations. But, what is the real impact of President Obamas initiatives on the future nuclear disarmament multilateral negotiations? To begin with, the U.S.—like any other country, has its own strategic sense of security—and even vulnerability, as reflected in the contours of its proliferation policies of the past decade or so. Sense of Insecurity. The threat of terrorism is one that is getting more prominence since 9/11. But deep beneath its psyche, the U.S. Government(s) continue to assert the US nuclear strategy does not hinge any longer on being able to deter a single, comparably powerful, nuclear rival. It goes even further beyond that. For instance, the Bush administrations 2002 National Security Strategy embraced ‘pre-emptive attacks, against certain potential adversaries, rather than a strategy of deterrence, under the assumption that terrorist groups and even certain ‘rogue states cannot be deterred.'[35] Furthermore, the same Administration stated in its 2006 National Security Strategy that despite its recognition to address the issues of proliferation through diplomacy and in concert with its allies and partners, the ‘the place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.'[36] Departing from his predecessors position, in his illuminating speech in Prague, President Obama introduced a (new) calculus of US nuclear strategy. He outlined the intention of the U.S. to, among others, ‘aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), ‘seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons as means to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, and ‘strengthen the NPT as basis for cooperation.'[37] He further shared some initiatives for international cooperation. These include the efforts to strengthen the treaty and to need put resources and authority to strengthen international inspections, as well as the need to build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation including an international fuel bank. He also called for â€Å"real and immediate consequences† for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause—referring to the North Korea and Iran specifically.[38] President Obamas promise to fulfill his ‘world-that-is-free-from-nuclear-weapons vision indeed sparked optimism. Analyst like Tom Sauer (2009) even predicts that â€Å"the nuclear weapon states may opt sooner for nuclear elimination than generally expected, due to five factors: first, the danger of nuclear proliferation; second, the risk of nuclear terrorism; third, the nuclear taboo—as outlined earlier; fourth, the technological advancement of missile defense against nuclear arsenals, which reduced the ‘shock and awe capability of nuclear weapons; fifth, the increased importance of international laws.[39] While the optimism seems to be warranted, yet, it might be too little too soon for us to conclude that the age of nuclear proliferation is practically over. President Obamas promise will face a number of hurdles, from within and outside the U.S. Nuclear Rivalries. It will be immediately tested this year when the US and Russia resume haggling on an arms reduction pact and again meet at the crucial UN nuclear arms conference in May. Whether or not the American and Russian negotiators could agree on a successor pact to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) to cut nuclear weapons would serve as the litmus test on the feasibility of President Obamas calls. START-1 was an initiative proposed by the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1982, and completed under the administrations of U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. As stipulated by the treaty, each country could deploy no more than 6,000 nuclear warheads and 1,600 strategic delivery vehicles — the single largest bilateral reductions in history.†[40] The concerns—and indeed stakes are now getting much heightened particularly since both Washington and Moscow missed their deadline in December to agree to ‘a new arms control treaty, which would have cut the worlds two largest nuclear arsenals by up to a third, though they vowed to generally abide by the old one while continuing negotiations. The good news is that the overall outline of the new treaty is apparent. At a meeting in Moscow in July 2009, Presidents Obama and Dmitry Medvedev narrowed the range for a cap on warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from about 2,200, which each side now has. They are also expected to lower the ceiling on delivery vehicles intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and strategic bombers to below 800, from 1,600. [41] It is widely believed that ‘a successor to START-1 would help restore relations between Moscow and Washington, which recently sank to a post-Cold War low due to many political and diplomatic upheavals as shown in the rift between the two countries over problems in Chechnya, Russian attacks on Georgia in August 2008, and so forth. In that sense, the new treaty should become ‘another milestone in disarmament and non-proliferation, taking the interaction between the US and Russia to a higher level and reaffirming their common goal of promoting mutual as well as global security.'[42] While the US and Russia are now still grappling over a few key differences (e.g. verification procedures) in their respective position concerning the common policy of nuclear weapons/warheads reduction, there are no guarantees that talks would yield a provisional accord. More fundamentally, the problems between these two largest and most important nuclear weapon states are more deeply rooted. Some within the U.S. strategic elites, particularly from the â€Å"republican camp,† argued that U.S. policymakers need to critically examine Russias views on nuclear weapons and doctrine. While successive U.S. Administrations have announced that Russia is no longer the enemy, Russia still considers the United States its â€Å"principal adversary,† despite President Barack Obamas attempts to â€Å"reset† bilateral relations. U.S. national leadership and arms control negotiators need to understand Russias nuclear doctrine and negotiating style as they are, not as the U.S. wants them to be.[43] In addition, Russia is not the only nuclear rival that the U.S. is facing. In the longer term, China, as dubbed by many analysts and observers, is likely to pose serious â€Å"challenges† to the status of the U.S. as the worlds dominant hyper-power. The rise of China as prominent nuclear power would eventually Dynamics of Nuclear Disarmament Multilateral Negotiations Dynamics of Nuclear Disarmament Multilateral Negotiations I. Introduction In 1957, Henry Kissinger aptly wrote that ‘ever since the end of the Second World War brought us not the peace we sought so earnestly, but an uneasy armistice, we have responded by what can best be described as a flight into technology: by devising ever more fearful weapons. The more powerful the weapons, however, the greater become the reluctance to use them. [1] He referred to the nuclear weapons as a powerful device that deters superpowers from major conflicts. His vision proved to be true, albeit difficult process of negotiations on nuclear disarmament throughout the Cold War period and beyond. Henceforth, common reluctance to use these deadly arsenals does not necessarily stop powerful states from acquiring them up to a certain deterrent level. Instead, nuclear weapons are even proliferated and technically perfected, and this, in my view, is the most striking dilemma and serves as the paradox of nuclear weapons. The year 2010 will be a very critical year for multilateral negotiation and talks on nuclear arms control and nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), [2] since the future of NPT and the progress and implementation of each of its article will be assessed through its five-yearly Review mechanism.[3] In particular, what it makes more crucial and fascinating is the promise made by US President Barack Obama on potential reduction of nuclear weapons. In his policy statement delivered in Prague, April 5th, 2009, President Barack Obama has made it very clear that he envisioned ‘a world that is free from nuclear weapons.'[4] Five months later, pouring all influence, persuasion and personal charms, President Obama chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council, which unanimously supported his vision. President Obamas initiative and political will his administration is willing to invest to build a critical mass and new thrust needed to move the troubled NPT in the next Review Conference in 2010. Yet, one must be well aware that reviving the NPT requires more than just rhetoric. One of the main articles of NPT, Article VI, clearly stipulates that the nuclear weapons states parties to the Treaty are under obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear weapons disarmament treaty under strict and effective international control at the earliest possible date.[5] Unfortunately, the sole multilateral negotiating forum entrusted to negotiate nuclear disarmament treaty, the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, has failed to start the negotiations ever since it managed to conclude painstakingly the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). At this point, one important question to ask is whether or not the international community should see President Obamas recent drive to revive the negotiation of the reduction of US Russia nuclear arsenals as an integral part of this long-term vision—a world that is free of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, what strategy are now being devised to ensure the success of negotiation on both bilateral and more importantly multilateral fronts, provided that attempts to any reduction—particularly as dramatic and steep as it was contained in recent Obamas initiative—will encounter serious hurdles and challenges. It therefore surely remains to be seen whether this bilateral negotiation is driven by President Obamas long-term vision to totally get rid of these weapons of mass-destruction or by other ulterior motives. As mandated by Article VI of the NPT, negotiations on nuclear disarmament should be conducted multilaterally. Besides, if nuclear weapons were fought the whole world would suffer. It is therefore unfair to sideline the non-nuclear-weapons possessing states in the negotiation. The study therefore discusses the dynamics of nuclear disarmament proliferation treaty, by analyzing the policy of the U.S.—as one of the major nuclear weapon states (NWS)—on nuclear proliferation, and its interaction towards other nuclear states. It tries to answer one key question: ‘Why are the nuclear-weapons-possessing states, as parties to the NPT, so reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear weapons disarmament treaty under strict and effective international control? As the study carries the task to provide a clear understanding on the hesitation of nuclear weapon states in negotiating a comprehensive disarmament, it is therefore considered important for us to look at the theoretical as well as policy contexts. Hence, discussion presented in the study is threefold, namely: (1) the conceptual framework and theoretical foundations; (2) policy development surrounding nuclear disarmament; and; (3) the recent dynamics of NPT in conjunction with the attitude of the U.S. as one of the major nuclear weapons states. II. Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations: Imagining Security, Survival and National Interests This study argues that the nuclear weapons states are so reluctant to negotiate the treaty for they firmly believed that their security and indeed existence (survival) critically hinges upon these weapons of mass-destruction, retaining and perfecting them thereby are mandatory. That above argument also underpins the departing point of our journey to understand the extent to which sense of insecurity and need for survival reinforce nuclear weapons states reluctance to conduct nuclear disarmament negotiations. The concepts of security and survival are essentially parts of the national interests of any state, including the nuclear weapon states. The two key concepts along with its national interest maximization are also core concepts of realism in the study of international relations. Under the logic and circumstances of anarchy, states are assumed to always rely on its own capability for survival. It is therefore a self-help system of international relations within which states and nations are living. Furthermore, a state, especially the smaller or less-powerful one, does have limited options or strategies for its survival. In a rather simplistic illustration, states can either compete or cooperate in advancing its respective national interests. Henceforth, to the realists, state of anarchy makes it more difficult for any state to cooperate with one another. In pursuing this, states often find themselves at odd to build alliance(s) with other states, yet, without any solid assurances concerning full commitments of each member of these cooperative and/or non-cooperative situations. There are a number of theories to explain that, widely stemming from the sense of insecurity to creating absolute gains (neo-liberal tradition) to building a complex of security identity (as proposed by a more recent constructivist tradition of international relations). Robert Jervis (1978) posed a valid question of why states would cooperate, provided that anarchy and the security dilemma make cooperation seemingly impossible. In other words, presumably, there must be some mechanisms which would allow states to bind themselves (and other members of the alliance) not to defect, or a mechanism by which to detect defection at the earliest possible stage, which enable an appropriate early response.[6] In so doing, states often find themselves under a dilemma—security dilemma. Despite of the many definitions and understanding on what constitute security dilemma, the essence of the dilemma is that â€Å"security seeking states more often than not get too much and too little, by assuming military posture that resembles that of an aggressor, which in turn causes states to assume the worst, and these attempts to increase security are consequently self-defeating.†[7] The more a state increases its security, the more it is likely for other state(s) to become insecure. In order to understand the situation under which security policies and strategies are formulated and thus executed, Jervis examines the conflicting situations by providing two basic models for situations of tension and conflict, based on the intentions of the adversary: spiral and deterrence. In the spiral model, intentions of both actors are objectively benign, whereas in the deterrence model, intentions of the adversary are malign.[8] Furthermore, in his deterrence model, Jervis (1976) ‘introduces a concept of malign power-seeking adversary, whereby actors in this situation are pursuing incompatible goals thus, making the strategy of deterrence the best possible option. In contrast, in the spiral model—often referred to as the true or ‘purest security dilemma situation, both actors are security-seekers, thus their interests are compatible.'[9] Yet, as analyzed by Andrej Nosko (2005), ‘the problem remains the inability of actors to distinguish which game they are playing, and what are the intentions of their adversaries.'[10] Although, according to Jervis it may not be possible to overcome the dilemma completely, it still may be possible to ‘break out of the security dilemma.'[11] He therefore suggests two major solutions to overcome the situation: Firstly, ‘to check the cognitive processes, when the adversarys intention is being perceived, so that the adversary is understood correctly. His second suggestion is ‘to employ specific military posture consisting of procurement of weapons that are useful for deterrence without simultaneously being as effective for aggression.'[12] Those practical suggestions form a powerful tool of analysis in what is referred to as ‘offense-defense balance variables, which are significant extension to the security dilemma further expanded by Jervis (and also by Glaser and Kaufmann, among others), as shown in the matrix below.[13] Source: , Strategy, Security Dilemma, and the Offense-Defense Balance, lecture material, accessed from http://ocw.tufts.edu/data/58/726832.pdf. In regard with the logic of nuclear weapons capability, it surely remain unclear whether or not the nuclear warheads installed in various Inter-Continental or Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs/SLBMs) constitute offensive or defensive, since the defense against ICBMs is ICBMs (deterrence) and SLBMs, on the other hand, are less accurate hence defensive. Therefore, security dilemma can be removed accordingly through the significant reduction of the number of nuclear warheads. As actors are striving to attain security while they are driven to acquire more and more power in order to escape the impact of the power of others, thus the intentions and motives of the actors are important primarily for any realists. In the U.S. case, while intentions for major reduction in its nuclear capability seemed to be imminent, yet, one looming question is whether other ‘adversarial nuclear weapons states such as North Korea would immediately follow the suit to reduce or eliminate its nuclear capabilities. Critics and pessimists were quick to answer that such a possibility for others to bandwagon and support the U.S. initiatives are too far-fetched, for a number of reasons such as the national aspiration to obtain nuclear capabilities, sense of insecurity, and the need to â€Å"hedge† its national security from possible nuclear outbreak in the future as part and parcel of their national threat perception. At this point, it is important to add other major concepts in the study of security from the lenses of (neo-)realism, as presented by Waltz (in his systemic self-help and survival theories) or Buzan in his concepts of threats and vulnerability. The links of these various concepts are quite clear: within a convoluted and uncertain international environment, it is postulated that ‘the mere uncertainty of international life creates a threatening environment for a state.'[14] While threats are normally coming from outside the country, vulnerabilities are, on the other, internal in nature, which demonstrate a ‘deficiency in the capability of a state to manage its security affairs.'[15] As argued further by Buzan, vulnerability can be reduced primarily by increasing self-reliance, or by countervailing forces to deal with specific threats.[16] Hypothetically speaking, obtaining or maintaining the level of nuclear warheads to hedge its security interests vis-a-vis other states is a ‘double-edged sword that can be used to minimize both threats and reduce vulnerability at the same time. The theoretical approach of this study suggests that there is a strong interlink between domestic/national considerations (i.e. political alignments in domestic politics and other domestic factors) on what constitute national vulnerability (which may derived from different sources of insecurity, widely stemming from economic, political, as well as the level of military capability relative to others, and vice versa) and threatening international system and environment (including not only the emerging and continued threats from its adversaries, but also the uncertainty of international regimes). This, for instance, has been quite evident in the case of Post-9/11 U.S. security policy in which strong bipartisanship on the Hill on what constitute major threat to security and how it should be overcome was built. Arguably, political dynamics will always affect a decision made by the Executive, and even more so in the national security domain. And a policy maker would eventually take all the se into his or her consideration. Presumably, President Obamas decision on the steep reduction—even elimination of nuclear warheads—was the result of these various considerations e.g. shared concerns amongst the elites over the possible illegal and illicit spread of nuclear warheads. III. Relative Peace amidst Constant Threats of Nuclear Annihilation: Deterrence, Negotiations, and Idiosyncrasy Indeed, in reality, questions and discourses surrounding nuclear weapons and its delivery systems remain as elusive and fascinating as ever, both in its theoretical and practical terms. One of the difficult puzzles that the epistemic community of international relations and strategic studies has been trying to understand and explain is the fact that despite its imminent threats of destruction within the context of intense Cold War, no single nuclear weapon has been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. While this is surely a surprising, yet, welcomed situation, especially amongst non-nuclear weapons states, yet, it does not mean that the world is totally free from the fear and threats of global destruction caused by nuclear war. Arguably, this relative peaceful situation can be understood at least through three different prisms: first, the role of deterrence; second, diplomatic measures and negotiations; and, third, idiosyncrasy. Deterrence. In essence, a number of scholars and practitioners are convinced that nuclear capability has been playing an important role in deterring (external) threats.[17] Furthermore, nuclear deterrence provides strategic blanket in three specific terms: first, protection against attacks with nuclear weapons; second, protection against attacks with conventional forces; and, third, indefinable additional diplomatic clout.[18] Theoretically, some analysts of international relations and strategic studies believe that the relative peace is attainable mostly through effective deterrence, coercion, and all its derivative concepts such as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and Balance of Terror.[19] In his robust argument, Robert Jervis (1989) reiterated ‘the significance of the theory of the nuclear revolution: in a world of mutual second-strike nuclear capability (where an adversarys first strike cannot prevent a states retaliation), military victory in a total war is impossible.'[20] The handling of strategic nuclear weapons policy is also not without any idealistic consideration. In the hands of policy handlers, apart from the need to deter, another major consideration surrounding strategic nuclear policy is the moral and ethical dilemma that entail. For the US as a major nuclear weapons state, for instance, the dilemma is aptly captured by Robert E. Osgood (1988), who clearly stated the following: In the period since World War II, the United States has encountered moral and strategic issues concerning the management of force in peacetime that are unique in its historical experience and novel in the history of international politics. At the core of these issues lies a dilemma—namely, the moral (as well as ethical) and strategic predicament of being unable to pursue one course of action without incurring the disadvantage of another. It arises from the dependence of military security on nuclear weapons. This nuclear dilemma lurks in the background of every major military strategic choice and suffuses all major strategic debates. The history of US strategic thought can be largely be comprehended as the story of how Americans have tried to cope with this dilemma by rejecting, abolishing, or mitigating it.[21] Furthermore, he continued by defining precisely the dilemma the US (as arguably other nuclear weapons states) is facing in regard with its nuclear arsenal depository, as follows: The nuclear dilemma is simply an expression of the momentous fact that the security and peace of the United States and its major allies depend heavily on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, and on the fact that this deterrent, if used, would very probably lead to self-defeating destruction and, possibly, an ecological catastrophe for much of civilization.[22] In his critical analysis, Wilson (2008) however seriously questioned the role of deterrence in preventing the outbreak of nuclear war. His arguments rest on the assumption that the policy makers have so far misunderstood the true concept of deterrence. He maintained that that the logics of nuclear deterrence, as widely perceived by the policy-makers, were unwarranted simply because they either built on a fallacy of assumptions or were based on disproven facts.[23] Countering Kissingers arguments that nuclear attacks would likely to happen on major populous cities, as happened on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Wilson asserted that there has been no single solid evidence on the intention of the former USSR to attack U.S. major cities even at the height of nuclear tension during the Cold War. As he argued further, An examination of the practical record of nuclear deterrence shows doubtful successes and proven failures. If the conventional wisdom is wrong—if nuclear weapons might not deter nuclear attacks, do not deter conventional attacks, and do not reliably provide diplomatic leverage—then the case for disarmament, nonproliferation and banning nuclear weapons is immeasurably strengthened.[24] In the post 9/11 tragedy, the nature and logic of asymmetric wars has added more complexity to the already difficult policy options.[25] Fear from the possibility of illicit transfer and/or nuclear acquisitions by the so-called ‘terrorist groups, it is very clear that the US and its allies have been undertaking all possible diplomatic initiatives and even military actions to deny these groups access to any nuclear materials.[26] Negotiations and Diplomatic Measure. It is also worth to mention the role of diplomacy and diplomatic efforts in ensuring countries do not resort to their nuclear arsenal to settle whatever disputes they may have with one another. In this regard, the role of negotiators in ensuring the commitments and compliance of all states—both nuclear and non-nuclear ones—to international code of conducts and norms of non-proliferation is also significant. To date, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remains at the very helm of global endeavor to keep the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and at the same time, restraining states from diverting its peaceful nuclear program towards provocative and militaristic uses. Corollary to this is the most authoritative nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime—the NPT- which was concluded in 1968 and has entered into force since 5 March 1974. Consisting of a Preamble and 11 articles,[27] more often than not that the treaty is widely interpreted as â€Å"a three pillar system†, namely: non-proliferation; disarmament ; and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. [28] In operation, a safeguards system to verify compliance with the NPT is established under the auspices of the IAEA one of which is conducted through site inspections. As outlined in the Treaty, NPT seeks to promote cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology, including the use of nuclear energy and equal access to this technology for all States parties, and provide safeguards that prevent the diversion of fissile material for the development of nuclear weapons.[29] Idiosyncrasy. In contrast with the above analysis on the role of deterrence and diplomatic measures, a more recent study by Nina Tannenwald (2007) revealed a striking fact concerning the idiosyncratic factor of U.S. leaders regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Drawing on newly released archival sources, Tannenwald was able to dispute the widely accepted theory of deterrence as primary inhibitor to an open and global-scale nuclear war. Instead, she was in favor of what she calls a nuclear taboo, a widespread inhibition on using nuclear arsenals—which has arguably arisen in global politics. By analyzing four critical instances of wars where U.S. leaders considered using nuclear weapons (namely Japan 1945, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War 1991), Tannenwald produced a rich and convincing explanation on how the nuclear taboo has successfully helped prevent the U.S. and other world leaders from resorting to these ultimate weapons of mass-destruction. [30] In other words, Tannenwald believed that there has been some moral ingredient within the policy makers in regard with the use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, from the leadership perspective and beliefs, Jacques E.C. Hymans (2006) convincingly demonstrates that leaders do play significant role in achieving nuclear capabilities.[31] Based on his findings on contending interests of leaders in the attainment of nuclear capabilities, he suggests three possible responses: first, a stricter international non-proliferation regime—controlling supply-demand side; second, nuclear abolition, in which the nuclear weapons states make much ‘more serious efforts towards disarmament and ‘resist the temptation to threaten nuclear attacks against non-nuclear weapons states, as they promised to do in Article VI and again at the NPT Review Conference in 2000; and, third, preventive military action/intervention against regimes whose leaders harbor nuclear weapons ambitions.[32] Apparently, those three responses are in combination taking place in todays world politics and international security. Despite their differences in mode of operation, all three prescriptions above do tell us common assumption that: nuclear weapons are highly attractive to many states; that nuclear weapons tend to proliferate. As argued by Hymans, ‘the ultimate solution to the proliferation puzzle lies in some sort of fundamental change to the international system, be it sovereignty-crashing inspections, universal disarmament, or a wholesale revision on the laws of war.'[33]This entails the need to change the way international law operates, which so far is seen as rather ineffective to ensure compliance. As radical it may sound, yet, it is surely rather difficult to be implemented on the ground. IV. Recent Major Development: A Fresher Outlook of Multilateral Negotiation? As one of the key nuclear weapons states, The U.S. has sheer diplomatic and military clout over the future of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons at the global scale. In this regard, it is important to note that any debate concerning the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is strategically important and critical. This has been truer especially since the new Obama Administration has expressed its commitments to pursue a deep and steep cut in its nuclear force, and to launch a major review of U.S. nuclear policy, which will hopefully be submitted to the Congress in February 2010. With its 2,200 operational strategic warheads (while the overall U.S. force to date is merely a fraction of one-fourth of its size a decade ago), yet, it is more capable to destroy an adversarys nuclear weapons before they can be used. In the realm of nuclear disarmament negotiations, the weight the U.S. diplomacy can throw to the success or failure of the negotiations is also visible. This was clearly shown, for instance, in President Obamas success to round commitments from the P-5 countries during last UNSC Summit on NPT on 24 September 2009, which unanimously adopted UNSC Resolution 1887 (2009). Resolution 1887 itself spells out, inter-alia, the â€Å"calls upon States Parties to the NPT to comply fully with all their obligations and fulfil their commitments under the Treaty† as well as refrain themselves from nuclear test explosion and sign the CTBT, and also exercise stricter measures to sensitive materials†[34]—as means to avoid nuclear warheads from falling into the terrorist group. The expected band-wagonning effect of the U.S. commitments, especially on the part of non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to NPT, will be prominent, thus, making the study of the Obama Administrations nuclear policy becomes more critical in our attempts to understand the dynamics of nuclear disarmament multilateral negotiations. But, what is the real impact of President Obamas initiatives on the future nuclear disarmament multilateral negotiations? To begin with, the U.S.—like any other country, has its own strategic sense of security—and even vulnerability, as reflected in the contours of its proliferation policies of the past decade or so. Sense of Insecurity. The threat of terrorism is one that is getting more prominence since 9/11. But deep beneath its psyche, the U.S. Government(s) continue to assert the US nuclear strategy does not hinge any longer on being able to deter a single, comparably powerful, nuclear rival. It goes even further beyond that. For instance, the Bush administrations 2002 National Security Strategy embraced ‘pre-emptive attacks, against certain potential adversaries, rather than a strategy of deterrence, under the assumption that terrorist groups and even certain ‘rogue states cannot be deterred.'[35] Furthermore, the same Administration stated in its 2006 National Security Strategy that despite its recognition to address the issues of proliferation through diplomacy and in concert with its allies and partners, the ‘the place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.'[36] Departing from his predecessors position, in his illuminating speech in Prague, President Obama introduced a (new) calculus of US nuclear strategy. He outlined the intention of the U.S. to, among others, ‘aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), ‘seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons as means to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, and ‘strengthen the NPT as basis for cooperation.'[37] He further shared some initiatives for international cooperation. These include the efforts to strengthen the treaty and to need put resources and authority to strengthen international inspections, as well as the need to build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation including an international fuel bank. He also called for â€Å"real and immediate consequences† for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause—referring to the North Korea and Iran specifically.[38] President Obamas promise to fulfill his ‘world-that-is-free-from-nuclear-weapons vision indeed sparked optimism. Analyst like Tom Sauer (2009) even predicts that â€Å"the nuclear weapon states may opt sooner for nuclear elimination than generally expected, due to five factors: first, the danger of nuclear proliferation; second, the risk of nuclear terrorism; third, the nuclear taboo—as outlined earlier; fourth, the technological advancement of missile defense against nuclear arsenals, which reduced the ‘shock and awe capability of nuclear weapons; fifth, the increased importance of international laws.[39] While the optimism seems to be warranted, yet, it might be too little too soon for us to conclude that the age of nuclear proliferation is practically over. President Obamas promise will face a number of hurdles, from within and outside the U.S. Nuclear Rivalries. It will be immediately tested this year when the US and Russia resume haggling on an arms reduction pact and again meet at the crucial UN nuclear arms conference in May. Whether or not the American and Russian negotiators could agree on a successor pact to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) to cut nuclear weapons would serve as the litmus test on the feasibility of President Obamas calls. START-1 was an initiative proposed by the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1982, and completed under the administrations of U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. As stipulated by the treaty, each country could deploy no more than 6,000 nuclear warheads and 1,600 strategic delivery vehicles — the single largest bilateral reductions in history.†[40] The concerns—and indeed stakes are now getting much heightened particularly since both Washington and Moscow missed their deadline in December to agree to ‘a new arms control treaty, which would have cut the worlds two largest nuclear arsenals by up to a third, though they vowed to generally abide by the old one while continuing negotiations. The good news is that the overall outline of the new treaty is apparent. At a meeting in Moscow in July 2009, Presidents Obama and Dmitry Medvedev narrowed the range for a cap on warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675, down from about 2,200, which each side now has. They are also expected to lower the ceiling on delivery vehicles intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and strategic bombers to below 800, from 1,600. [41] It is widely believed that ‘a successor to START-1 would help restore relations between Moscow and Washington, which recently sank to a post-Cold War low due to many political and diplomatic upheavals as shown in the rift between the two countries over problems in Chechnya, Russian attacks on Georgia in August 2008, and so forth. In that sense, the new treaty should become ‘another milestone in disarmament and non-proliferation, taking the interaction between the US and Russia to a higher level and reaffirming their common goal of promoting mutual as well as global security.'[42] While the US and Russia are now still grappling over a few key differences (e.g. verification procedures) in their respective position concerning the common policy of nuclear weapons/warheads reduction, there are no guarantees that talks would yield a provisional accord. More fundamentally, the problems between these two largest and most important nuclear weapon states are more deeply rooted. Some within the U.S. strategic elites, particularly from the â€Å"republican camp,† argued that U.S. policymakers need to critically examine Russias views on nuclear weapons and doctrine. While successive U.S. Administrations have announced that Russia is no longer the enemy, Russia still considers the United States its â€Å"principal adversary,† despite President Barack Obamas attempts to â€Å"reset† bilateral relations. U.S. national leadership and arms control negotiators need to understand Russias nuclear doctrine and negotiating style as they are, not as the U.S. wants them to be.[43] In addition, Russia is not the only nuclear rival that the U.S. is facing. In the longer term, China, as dubbed by many analysts and observers, is likely to pose serious â€Å"challenges† to the status of the U.S. as the worlds dominant hyper-power. The rise of China as prominent nuclear power would eventually