The document discusses nuclear proliferation and whether the US should try to slow hostile nations' acquisition of nuclear weapons. It notes the risks of proliferation but also the risks of non-proliferation efforts. Experts cite treaties like the NPT to promote non-proliferation but also acknowledge some countries remain outside these agreements. Original survey research in the document found most respondents saw the risks of proliferation as outweighing the benefits and thought hostile nations could become angry over non-proliferation efforts, yet some still felt the US should try to slow nuclear programs in these nations.

1. Nuclear Proliferation in the World
Should America try to slow the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons in Hostile
Nations?
Nic Newmark
8th Grade Project (B-Odd)
The Walker School
Mr.Surkan
December 14, 2010
Word Count: 1,059

2. Newmark 2
Introduction on Nuclear Proliferation
Many countries around the world are starting to gather nuclear material, including North
Korea who has just found a major uranium deposit, should we be worried? Nuclear Non-
Proliferation, the reduction of acquiring nuclear weapons, may seem harmless, but the risks of it
may surprise some people. The main reason for Nuclear Proliferation is to stop the spread of
Nuclear Weapons to Hostile Nations. While Nuclear Non-Proliferation does stop the spread of
nuclear materials to potentially hostile nations, it does have its risks.
What the Experts Say about Nuclear
Proliferation
The NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) is the most widely excepted weapons
agreement in the world. Only three countries, Israel, India, and Pakistan, have not signed the
treaty. “As of June 2003, all members of the United Nations except Israel, India, and Pakistan
had signed the NPT. However, one signatory, North Korea, had recently threatened to withdraw
from the Treaty.”(Njolstad, Olav). This shows that even though the NPT exceeding accepted,
there are still threats of having some countries disagree with the terms and conditions of the
treaty. “The very first major nuclear arms control agreement was the Limited Test-Ban Treaty of
1963. The LTBT (Limited Test-Ban Treaty) prohibited nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in
outer space, and under water. This treaty was motivated first of all by a desire to reduce and
contain the health hazards caused by radioactive fall-out from nuclear explosions in the
atmosphere. Due to the fact that many of the radioactive isotopes that were spread around the
globe in the wake of such explosions have a lifetime of many tens or hundreds or even thousands
of years, the continuation of atmospheric testing was likely to cause additional cancer deaths and
8gpzo_reserachpaper_Newmark_v06 5/23/2011

3. Newmark 3
other serious health problems on a large scale for many generations to come.” (Njolstad, Olav)
the reason why this treaty was created was to insure the welfare of people who would be affected
by radiological fallout from Nuclear Weapons testing. This treaty worked because it helped keep
the power of nuclear weapons away from those who did not need to have anything to do with
them.
“Ever since the Agency was founded in 1957, its safeguards system has provided an
indispensable Instrument for nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful nuclear co-operation. In
Recognition of this, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) makes it
mandatory for all non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) parties to conclude comprehensively.
“Safeguards agreements with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and thus
put all of their nuclear material under Safeguards. Article III of the NPT provides that all NNWS
must “accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the
IAEA, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed
under [the NPT]…” Such negotiations are to be initiated no later than on the day that the State
deposits its instrument of ratification to the NPT, and concluded within 18 months.” (Wagramer,
Strasse)
Nuclear Proliferation is a very controversial topic. One reasons for this is that there are so
bad and good outcomes. One good outcome of Nuclear Non-Proliferation (taking away Nuclear
Weapons) is that terrorist groups like, al-Qa’ida, would not have the nuclear resources that they
would need to start a nuclear war. A bad outcome of Nuclear Non-Proliferation is that the people
we do take the Nuclear Weapons away from, could become even more angry and hostile.
8gpzo_reserachpaper_Newmark_v06 5/23/2011

4. Newmark 4
Original Research: Nuclear Proliferation
A survey on Nuclear Proliferation was conducted by Nic Newmark at The Walker
Middle School, in Marietta GA, on November 2nd and 3rd. In this survey, there were 38
respondents, 19 of them were female, and 19 of them were male.
Of the 38 respondents, seven of them were the age of 11-12; twenty-one of them were
12-13; five of them were 13-14, and four of them were 14+.
In the question asking if Nuclear Non-Proliferation’s Risks outweigh its benefits, or visa-
versa, 10 out of the 36 respondents said that the benefits out way the risks. 23 said that the risks
out way the benefits. But 3 were neutral on the matter.
In another question, respondents were asked if they thought that, if American were to try
to slow the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons by hostile nations that those nations would become
infuriated. 26 of the 34 people who answered this question said yes. 7 said no, and 2 thought it
could be both.
The final question in the survey was, do you think that Nuclear Proliferation is too risky?
21 out of the 35 people who answered this question said yes. 5 said no, and 9 had no opinion on
this question.
In an analysis of this survey, it turned out that, in question one, 50% of the respondent
were male and the other 50% was female. In question two, 10% were 11-12, 55% were 12-13,
13% were 13-14, and 10% were 14 or older.
In question three 27.7% said the benefits of Nuclear Proliferation outweigh the risks,
63.8% said the risks outweigh the benefits, and 8.3% said they were neutral.
In question four 76.4% said answered yes to the question that hostile nations would
become infuriated if America were to try to take their nuclear weapons. 20.5% said no, and 5.8%
8gpzo_reserachpaper_Newmark_v06 5/23/2011

5. Newmark 5
said it could be both. In the final question of the survey 60% said yes to nuclear proliferation
being to risky, 14.2% said no, and 25.7% had no opinion. (Newmark Survey)
While we should be worried about other nations and their Nuclear Programs, America
should not lets those fears stop the slowing of Nuclear Programs in Hostile Nations. Even though
Nuclear Non-Proliferation does stop the spread of Nuclear Weapons to Hostile Nation, it can be
risky at times,
8gpzo_reserachpaper_Newmark_v06 5/23/2011

6. Newmark 6
Works Cited
Barack Obama’s Plan for Nuclear Disarment. AskObamaNow. Youtube. Jan. 05 2008. Online
Video
Cozic, Charles P. Nuclear Proliferation: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press. Print.
ElBaradei, Dr. Mohamed. “Nuclear Proliferation and the Potential Threat of Nuclear Terrorism.”
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 8 November 2004. Web. 28 September 28 2010.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/terrorism/director-
general-threat-of-nuclear-terrorism.html.
Goodenough, Patrick. “Pakistan, A Nuclear Proliferator, Will Chair U.N. Nuclear Watchdog
Agency.”. CNN News, 28 Sept. 2010. Web. 9/28/10. http://
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/755880
Newmark, Nic. “Nuclear Proliferation Survey.” Survey. 3 Nov. 2010.
Njolstad, Olav. “The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Proliferation.” Nobleprize.org,
19 June 2003.Web.
http://nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html
Wagramer, Strasse. “IAEA Safeguards Overview:
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols.”
<http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html.> IAEA, No
Date. Web.
8gpzo_reserachpaper_Newmark_v06 5/23/2011