Two-Person Game Theory:
The U.S. Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy in Action
When the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the nuclear weapons era began. Since that moment, other nations around the world have envied the power that is associated with atomic weapons. But, until the last few decades few nations had the technology and the money to develop their own nuclear weapons program. Nuclear proliferation and its consequences has been a question that nations and scholars have been vigorously debating in recent years, with two major beliefs, proliferation or non-proliferation. The United States has taken a stance of non-proliferation in the hopes of deterring developing nations from developing a nuclear arsenal. But, if a nation does express intent to develop a nuclear arsenal, how should the United States react? The question of safety is the biggest concern, both to the United States and to newly-nuclear states.
After September 11, the U.S. has been living in a state of heightened awareness and our elected leaders as well as the American public fear that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands and be used against us.
For the countries that wish to proliferate, their concern if for their own safety and security. The presence of nuclear weapons provides this safety by reducing the threat of outside attacks. For the United States, there are a variety of different options and scenarios that they may be faced with when dealing with different countries that wish to proliferate. A military strike is always an option for the United States. We are the most powerful country in the world, and who would challenge us if we decided to take out a countries nuclear capabilities before they become operation? But, peace is always more plausible than war, and a peaceful solution may...