Essay on Navigating Peace: The 2002 US-Russia Nuclear Disarmament Treaty and its Global Implications

Introduction

Different events happen yearly and impact universally on plants, animals, humanity, and the environment. Globally, one of the most challenging tasks, even in the present day, is the control of arms. Arms are a security source if used for their intended purpose; however, if their possession shifts into adversaries' hands, the worst is yet to happen like a time bomb. Compounded with the current soaring rate of terrorism, controlling arms possession becomes an essential activity for the nation and the whole world (Schelling 219). This paper seeks to discuss one of the main geopolitical actions in 2002 when the US and Russia signed a nuclear disarmament treaty and what impacts the treaty had on peace among the states and the world in general. When I was born in the year 2002, several memorable events took place; and many documented (Bleek 25). However, one of the most notable was the signing of a treaty between the US and Russia to reduce nuclear weapons' pilling up. This event is quite essential, considering the times we live in where weapons of mass destruction have been safeguarded by different countries awaiting where they can be used (Bleek 27).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The issues of nuclear weaponry are not a novelty to many. Growing up in the earlier millennium made me well conversant to what extent nuclear weapons can destroy man and the environment. On the same note, it is essential to note that 2002 presented one of the heightened political supremacy between world powers and the active rise in terrorism (Bleek 28). My choosing of the US, Russia nuclear disarmament treaty is informed by the security breach that engulfed the whole world as the two giant superpower countries war on words. This became a point of concern to almost the entire globe. Understandably, when a country begins to create armaments, especially the most sophisticated ones as nuclear, people start to think to analyze the action's motive (Bleek 30). It leaves people with good gauze that the world is headed towards outdoing one another and, as a result, mass destruction and loss of life. So, the topic best suits the then-event discussion because would it occur that none was interested in signing the treaty? Who knows? Perhaps it would have been the onset of the Third World War.

The treaty

Nuclear armory has been the subject of controversy even in the current world politics. Different countries undertake this assignment for reasons of securing their sovereignty and peace. However, it is not known whether a nuclear armory confers a country the much-needed peace. There are currently several federal states and countries with nuclear buildup worth a lot of taxpayer money, but there is still no concrete peace in them (Bleek 32). South Korea is an example of a country that has built a massive nuclear until it went into a treaty agreement to stop nuclear by the US. The subject is so grave that coercing or using the law to prevent a country from making nuclear weapons culminates in signing treaties.

In May 2002, history was made between the US and Russia at a summit in Moscow, Russia. On May 24th, US President George Bush and his counterpart Russian Vladimir Putin agreed and signed a treaty (Fink 37). The two countries agreed to cut their deployed strategies in nuclear forces. The reduction in manufacturing was pegged at 1700-2200 warheads for each country (Fink 39). This was a substantial reduction that denoted two-thirds of the then-current levels.

According to the arms control board, the agreement was named "the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty," which was the first in the two countries' history in a decade. The treaty outlined the need to reduce nuclear armory and deployment of forces down below the START I agreement levels (Fink 42). Again the agreement was in force by effectively superseding the START II accord that did not enter into force. Immediately after the signing of the treaty, still in the conference, President Bush quashed the exciting Cold War legacy and the nuclear hostility among the countries for a considerable time (Fink 44). What makes this event more interesting is the expressions made by Putin. In his submission, Putin was more reserved in his assessment and terming the accord an act of "seriousness to move ahead" while at the same time noting that the two countries were working to resolve the remaining differences (Schelling 222).

The importance of the event

The signing of the treaty opened a new chapter for both the countries and the world at large. It suffices the animosity between the countries, calming the tension that was likely to scale up. The two countries have a long history of mistrust among other hoards of issues to resolve. Historically, the countries share many differences (Fink 48). At the time of the Second World War, the two countries were at different opposing camps, and coming to sign such a treaty was a world achievement of peace. Evident of the said "animosity" during the summit, Moscow insisted on it. In February 2003, the state secretary Colin Powell announced that the US had agreed to its reduction as per the pact (Pershing 42).

Undoubtedly, this was an unprecedented step in peace fostering, according to the United Nations (Pershing 44). Even though the operation of the treaty became subjective, a reason why it interested many and the world at large, the Russian foreign minister rejected much of what was entailed in the treaty and termed it as the only operation deployed to warheads and that the treaty could only be tackled in a bilateral implementation of the commission (Jervis 239). In its later stages of implementation, Russia called for the destruction of the warheads and delivery vehicles removed from the service. On the other hand, the US wanted to retain the latter option of restoring the warheads that were removed from deployment.

The impact of signing the treaty

The signing of the treaty was a sigh of relief to humankind and a milestone for our environment from destruction. From the experience of what nuclear mass destruction poses to humanity, it was an action whose time had reached to save the world from a massive test of the weapon in the water mass and probably its use of destruction of humanity and property (Jervis 240). As shown above, our environment suffers in a larger magnitude from nuclear testing, and when there was a treaty signed, there was a sigh of relief since no testing would be conducted. As such, the environment became the first direct beneficiary of the treaty with a ceasefire in myriads of testing that would have followed.

On the other hand, nuclear armory on humans has lasting dire consequences that are far detrimental. The signing of the treaty calmed the world tension when the leaders ceded the ground and elevated consensus to scale down the buildup (Jervis 242). Consequently, many world countries witnessed a period of peace with good relations. Another benefactor of nuclear reduction is the individual country. Manufacturing of nuclear armory, in essence, involves the use of large sums of money. Many third-world countries are unable to undertake the initiative because of a lack of resources. Principally, the country's inquisition has to use a lot of funds for the purpose at the expense of committing to the citizens (Jervis 246).

Furthermore, manufacturing nuclear weapons makes many other countries suspicious of the motive behind all things. Anytime nuclear weaponry is mentioned, humanity is quick to think about mass destruction. Indeed it is right to think so because those who make them have the interest to guard. When the treaty was penned, the political tension that was long synonymous with the world rested (Jervis 248). Globally, the treaty was treated as an international accord. Its impacts were felt as far as international trade, relations, and cooperation are concerned. One of the primary benefactors of the treaty signed was the US and Russia. The long warring interest about which country is supper power was curtailed at the moment.

The impacts of the disarming country of nuclear

According to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the prohibition of nuclear underscores the transferring of the said weapons to or, in any case assisting any nation in developing nuclear. The main goal of disarming a nation of its nuclear warheads is to globally up-step peaceful cooperation, with no organization threatening world peace (Jervis 250). As a result, all countries are bound by international laws that require them to cease building and assembling any nuclear weaponry.

One of the lasting impacts created by signing the treaty is peaceful coexistence between the US and Russia. Although there have been ripples with a lot of concern about the cooperation between the countries, the treaty, according to (Jervis 256) returned peace instead of 2001 and beyond.

When the US became a "security threat" to Russia, the latter started to build nuclear weapons as a deterrence consideration and self-protection. This treaty was considered a pivotal point; there used to be heightened long-lasting issues related to diplomacy between Russia and the US. Today, the two countries can be seen cooperating with the previous election, alleged that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a hand in it and influenced the election in favor of the outgoing president Donald Tramp.

In addition to the creation of cooperation, the treaty has significantly benefited Russia. According to MccGwire (211), the global is shifting away from the unipolarity that has seen Russia as reasserting itself on the world stage. In the meantime, the violation of the signed pact has seen Russia emerging as a selective defender of sovereignty within the Middle East. Its willingness to disagree with others has ensured that it enjoys good relations with its neighboring countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (Schulte 196).

Even though the treaty seemed to have ceased, its impacts had far-reaching consequences. The warring countries ceasefire, and once again, cooperation, peace, and economic stabilization occurred for a period (MccGwire 215). The use of nuclear weapons further has adverse long-term effects on humans. Its uses expose humanity against radiating rays that are damaged and produce a wide range of problems. Some of the problems that come with nuclear weapon manufacture and use include blood disorders, malignant tumors, and problems such as cataracts, among others.

The relevance of the treaty

The effects of a nuclear bomb are a hundredfold. Experts argue that only one percent of the weapon is among to disrupt the global climate. This will translate to about 2 million people starving as a result of nuclear famine. Thus, the thousands of nuclear weapons that the US has could destroy all the essential ecosystems from which all life depends (MccGwire 217). The event, as indicated earlier, is relevant. Currently, weaponry armament is one plan that the world's government is looking at keenly (Schulte 198). If any country can manufacture a nuclear bomb and release it against other nations, there will be total death and mass destruction of property and life (Pifer 53). Of course, this is why the event remains a point of concern even today; such cooperation is encouraged to ensure peace is fostered across different borders.

Finally, Apart from human destruction and property, nuclear has health effects, especially if it primarily blasts. According to research findings, several Japanese who survived the attack through the atomic bomb are experiencing health issues to date. Therefore, weaponry offers such a broad platform, which makes the event of the signing of the treaty essential to be studied. This event has to go down in books and soft copies so that it becomes a remembrance point.