The most dangerous threat to the whole world and outcrop of terror: current issues

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The most dangerous threat to the whole world and outcrop of terror: current issues

Sarteep Mawlood,

post-graduate student «KROK» University

Kyiv, Ukraine

Сартіп Мавлуд. Тероризм і найнебезпечніша загроза всьому світу: актуальні проблеми.

Нажаль, сьогодні широка громадськість і світ загалом переживають високий рівень ризику та небезпеки через жахливу загрозу ядерної зброї, а також зброї масового знищення. Справа в тому, що удавані ядерні війни не обмежують лише дві сторони чи держави, а заходять так далеко, можуть торкнутися кожної окремої країни, а це може призвести до третьої світової війни, існування людства знаходиться під загрозою знищення. У минулі десятиліття суспільство загалом вважало, що тероризмом займаються лише терористи, окрім деяких країн, які підтримують радикальні групи та використовують їх таємно, але тепер ситуація змінилася, визнані держави та країни відверто заявляють про застосування ядерної зброї чи зброї масового знищення. Однак ці їх вислови стають назвою заголовків новин, що насправді є небезпечним прецедентом. Нинішня ситуація викликає найвищу тривогу, і наймеший спалах іскри конфлікту або загострення серед неконфліктних сторін на підконтрольних територіях змушують страждати весь світ. Світова спільнота вже пережила гіркоту і масові знищення від використання ядерної зброї, але, на жаль, це свідчить про те, що ще не всі держави усвідомили серйозність гуманітарної катастрофи після застосування ядерної зброї. Це означає, що будь-яке використання зброї масового знищення майже призведе до кінця життя на землі, оскільки експерти уявляють і аналізують, як справа йде все гірше і гірше день за днем. Погіршуються навіть міжнародні відносини в усіх аспектах дипломатики, економіки, торгівлі та інших полях погіршилися, а не як раніше через бажання деяких держав окупувати та заволодіти іншими територіями чи вільними державами під іншими назвами та з нелогічних причин, тому майже всі держави намагаються відновити свою армію та витрачати все більше грошей на свою військо та зброю. Ця загроза схожа на чуму, тому, якщо у нас немає ліків і рішення, вона знищує все населення без будь-яких винятків серед країн, незалежно від того, чи є ця країна наддержавою чи не наддержавою, включаючи постійних членів Ради Безпеки Організації Об'єднаних Націй. Таким чином, стаття базується на зазначених заявах високопосадовців та інших досліджених фактах.

Ключові слова: третя світова війна, ядерна зброя, нестабільність, масове знищення, тероризм, гуманітарна катастрофа, поширення страху серед суспільств, ненависть, загроза природному життю та навколишньому середовищу.

Sarteep Mawlood. Terrorism and the most dangerous threat to the whole world: current issues.

Unfortunately, nowadays the general public and the world at large are going through high level of risk and dangerous due to a terrible threat of nuclear weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction. Here, the point is the pretending nuclear wars do not limit between only two parties or states, but goes far, might go to every single country which leads to the third world war, existence of humanity is under annihilation. In past decades societies in general thought only terrorists do terrorism, besides some countries which support radical groups and use them in secret, but now the situation is changed, the recognized states and countries announce frankly to use nuclear or mass destruction weapons, not just that but, becomes a title of their bulletin news which is in fact a dangerous precedent on the ground. The current situation is in the highest alarm and only a simple start with a spark by a conflict or non-conflict parties on the ground which goes under control and the whole world suffers from it. The world community has already had the bitterness and mass destroying of using nuclear weapon, but unfortunately it shows that not all states took the seriousness of humanitarian catastrophe after using nuclear weapon yet. It means any using of the mass destruction weapons will almost the end of living on the earth as the experts imagine and analyze how the case goes worse and worse day after day, even the international relationship in all aspects of diplomatic, economic, trade and other fields are deteriorated and not as before because of having desire by some states to occupy and takeover of other territories or free states under different names and non-logic reasons and that's why almost all states try to rebuild its army and expense more and more money on its army and weapons. This threat is like a plague thus, if we do not have a medicine and solution it wipes out an entire population without any exception among countries whether the country is superpower or non-superpower including the permanent members of Security Council of United Notion. Hence, the article is based on said statements issued by high rank officials and other facts research.

Key words: third world war, Nuclear weapons, instability, mass destruction, terrorism, humanitarian disaster, spreading fear among societies, hatred, jeopardizing natural life and environment.

Formulation of the problem

terror war tactical nuclear weapons

The circumstances in which the world is going through have changed which are almost totally different before several decades, situations go from bad to worse year after year, threat of using mass destruction and nuclear weapons replaced negotiation, understanding and solving distinctions among each other. There is competition among states in arming and militarizing, the current war between Russia and Ukraine intimidates societies that it goes out of control and afraid of starting the third world war.

Study of the problem: While there is a direct war between Russia and Ukraine and an indirect war between Russia and west countries, how a man can imagine the situation in case of using mass and nuclear weapons, the case is more complicated that one can think about, it is about the life and death for whole humanity. Whereas Russia want to have its targets through its invasion to Ukraine, but western countries wish Russia to be defeated in this war, yet Ukraine wants restoration occupied territories and win the war as well. This war terrifies the whole societies as has left bad influence on whole humanity on the earth. Due to the importance of the case, catastrophes and outcomes of using nuclear weapons in the Second World War, several actual cases have been studied during the research. According to masters J, in "Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia, which is published in 2022" Many observers see little prospect for a diplomatic resolution in the months ahead and instead acknowledge the potential for a dangerous escalation, which could include Russia's use of a nuclear weapon, besides Geoff Brumfiel added in his publication "Russia's nuclear arsenal is huge, but will Putin use it? 2022" With neither side showing signs of backing down, the possibility of a nuclear strike appears more real than it has in decades. but did not mention any solution for the case., but they did not mention any solution for the case. While both Liviu Horovitz. Lydia Wachs in their publication "Russia's Nuclear Threats in the War against Ukraine,2022" think is important that NATO states communicate their actions and intentions clearly and in close consultation - both to Moscow and to their own publics. Political decision-makers as well as experts should try to shed more light on this complex and disturbing topic. In another hand, "William Alberque in: Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine,2022" thinks using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would increase resistance to Putin within Russia and galvanize global forces to punish him and his regime. If Putin is intent upon personal or national suicide, there are easier ways to do it than by using nuclear weapons given that there is little if anything to be gained by doing so. "Manpreet Sethi, in his writing, Nuclear Overtones in the Russia-Ukraine War, 2022" mentioned: There also will be long-lasting implications for states, whether possessing nuclear weapons or not, as to how these capabilities are perceived in the future. This experience has created profound nuclear challenges, but also offers some opportunities for reducing nuclear risks. In addition the announcement and threats of states of using the mass destruction and nuclear weapons is a big challenge nowadays which neither UN nor Security Council handle the case properly. There is no a strict rule or restriction which prevent a state to use a nuclear weapons and then the world faces the dilemma of genocide and end the earth due to the threatening of nuclear weapons.

Aims:Disarmament of nuclear and mass

destruction weapons is the best way to save humanity from any disasters, its time and not too late to stop using or even threatening Nuclear and mass destruction weapons. Through this the United Nations and in particular The Security Council needs to issue a resolution to ban using Nuclear Weapon and terrify the humanity at all otherwise even small radical groups obtain it and terror spreads in all around the world. Whereas there are 30 countries are member in NATO organization, so the most wanted aim nowadays is to have likewise organization compromises the maximum countries to face the challenge of using nuclear weapons and confront the terror. According to this, the author makes theoretical analysis of possibilities of using nuclear weapon by some radical groups or military authorities (on Ukraine/Russian war example) and suggests a ways of preventing these actions.

Results

Throughout year of 2021, Russia amassed tens of thousands of troops along the border with Ukraine and later into allied Belarus under the auspices of military exercises. In February 2022, Putin ordered a full-scale invasion, crossing a force of some two hundred thousand troops into Ukrainian territory from the south (Crimea), east (Russia), and north (Belarus), in an attempt to seize major cities, including the capital Kyiv, and depose the government. Putin said the broad goals were to "de-Nazify" and "de-militarize" Ukraine. (1) For decades, the threat of nuclear Armageddon has kept Russia and the West out of a direct confrontation. The prospect of global nuclear war has been a line that neither side is willing to cross. As Russia's conventional war in Ukraine falters, thanks in large part to Western weapons and training, some see an effort to bend nuclear deterrence to fit the current conflict. Others say that long-standing policies in Russia might encourage nuclear use to prevent it from losing the war. During a speech in late September, as he annexed Ukrainian land, Putin said more directly that he might be willing to consider a nuclear strike in the current conflict. "In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us," he said. "This is not a bluff." (2) Senator Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican member of the Senate foreign relations committee, told CNN that Putin was down to two choices: established defensive lines or withdraw and lose territory. Rubio said he believed it "quite possible" that Putin could strike distribution points where US and allied supplies are entering Ukraine, including inside Poland. The senator acknowledged the nuclear threat, but he said most worries about "a Russian attack inside NATO territory, for example, aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point". "NATO will have to respond to it," he said. (3) In the current war, intentional or unintentional nuclear escalation has once again moved into the realm of possibility, as warned by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on March 14, 2022. The more one doubts Putin's rationality, the greater these risks appear. The extreme destructive power of nuclear weapons is not suitable to achieve these ends. Even in the event of a Russian defeat in Ukraine, nuclear threats would not be credible and nuclear demonstration strikes would most likely be ineffective. Moscow would have to convincingly signal that it was prepared to either launch multiple nuclear strikes on the Ukrainian military or to destroy cities with nuclear weapons. Russia would thus need to convey its willingness to accept further disproportionate costs in its efforts to defeat Ukraine. The result would be a nuclear escalation that would be difficult to control. Other nuclear powers would need to respond to such a brazen violation of the international security order, and Russia's international isolation would reach new heights. (4) Putin's high-alert order had been intended to sow fear in the West, encouraging analysts and decision-makers to focus on the rising nuclear threat rather than on assisting Ukraine.

Military Parade of Russian Army shows nuclear weapons warhead, (5)

This method of shaping adversary thinking is known as 'reflexive control,' and is well known in Russian strategic circles. But the force of Putin's order was undercut by the fact that Russia did not change its nuclear posture in response, thus making clear the performative nature of the event. In fact, the 'special alert' was nothing more than a systems check that any nuclear-weapons state would make if it were to initiate a major war against a neighbor (and that any state would perform prior to initiating a large-scale conflict involving dual-capable forces). The fear that Russia might use 'tactical' nuclear weapons in Ukraine reflects a fundamental, but completely understandable, misinterpretation of what Putin has said (attempting to deter direct Western intervention) and how Russia thinks about nuclear weapons in war. While it is tempting to believe that Russia's latest nuclear threats are directed against Ukraine, it is worth noting that, on the one hand, Russia has annexed territory it does not currently hold, and on the other, Putin has refrained from issuing a direct nuclear threat to Ukraine if it did not take up his offer for talks. (5) There is a military doctrine, which is encompassing everything from land forces to maritime forces to what have you. Then there's a couple of paragraphs on nuclear. Those have been the main texts from which we get information about Russian nuclear doctrine. Those are not updated really often. The last time Russia issued a nuclear doctrine was in 2014, so almost a decade ago. Before that, it was 2010. Before that, it was 2000. (6) Nuclear weapons today occupy center stage in an unexpected theater in Europe. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has drawn attention to these weapons of mass destruction and the alarming possibility of their use in a manner that had mostly been forgotten. When the Cold War ended more than three decades ago, it was not anticipated that the threat of nuclear weapons use would make such a comeback. The nature of the armament as a weapon of mass destruction and the attendant risk of retaliation after first use make it a blunt instrument, at least from the point of view of warfighting. Therefore, in all crises between nuclear-armed states, nuclear weapons have not shown themselves to be useful for achieving any worthwhile political or military objectives through premeditated first use. This is particularly the case when both sides have assured second-strike capabilities, thereby raising the risk of an exchange that would cause unacceptable damage to both sides. (7) US President Joe Biden warned on Thursday (October 6, 2022) that the world currently faces its biggest risk of an "Armageddon" in the last 60 years, in his most outspoken remarks about nuclear weapons in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Biden, during a Democratic Party fundraiser, said that Putin's indirect threat of using tactical nuclear weapons marked the first prospect of a nuclear Armageddon since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the US almost engaged in nuclear warfare. (8) At the same time, Russian aggression shows how difficult it is for nonnuclear states to deter their nuclear adversaries. According to this line of argument, if only Ukraine had its own nuclear arsenal, Russia wouldn't have dared attack it--just like the United States probably wouldn't have attacked a nuclear-armed Iraq under former President Saddam Hussein or a nucleararmed Libya under former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. Most famously, then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy warned in 1963 that he foresaw the possibility of as many as 25 nuclear-armed states by 1980 unless the international community got a handle on the problem. These predictions were never borne out: The number of states with nuclear weapons has grown rather slowly, especially since the 1970s. Between 1945 and 1970, six states acquired the bomb (about one every four years). Since then, only four countries have additionally done so (about one every 13 years). (9) The Kremlin must persuade U.S. President Joe Biden's administration of the threat of a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States that will affect the continental United States, and not just Europe or Ukraine. The Kremlin hopes that the nuclear threat will compel Washington to step in and "freeze" the conflict with Russia's current territorial gains, though there does not appear to be unanimity among the Russian leadership on whether the conflict should be frozen temporarily, until Russia can regain its strength, or forever. Moscow has also changed its rhetoric on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. This is now being referred to as "direct participation in hostilities," and the Kremlin is warning that it could lead to an inevitable military conflict between the United States and Russia--though all the actions of the Biden administration have been aimed at avoiding such a conflict, and supplying weapons and intelligence was common practice even during the Cold War. The Kremlin is also sending Washington other signals that it is serious. (10) The war in Ukraine has already led to mass human displacement, with over 7 million Ukrainians now living outside

Ukraine, along with major disruption to energy and food supplies and other potentially dangerous "ripple effects." The humanitarian, ecological, and economic consequences of nuclear weapons use would be orders of magnitude greater and could cross borders to also affect Belarus and parts of Europe. The impacts of nuclear use would depend on a variety of factors, including the size of the nuclear weapon used and the location where it was used. Any nuclear use, no matter how small, would break a 77-year taboo and could leave Russia an international pariah, abandoned by partners such as China and India. (11) Richter, who is now a senior research associate for international security with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), said Russia's own doctrine envisaged only two cases for the use of nuclear weapons.

"First, if Russia itself is attacked by nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction," he said. "And, second, when the existence and survival of the Russian state is at stake."

Picture shows the stockpiles of nuclear warheads worldwide. (12)

There is no basis in international law for claiming defense should nuclear weapons be deployed to defend Russian-occupied territories within Ukraine, Richter said, even those that the Kremlin may claim to have annexed. (12) Can a nuclear power be defeated in a war by a non-nuclear power? At first glance, the answer seems quite obviously, yes. The United States military was defeated in Vietnam. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union retreated ignominiously from Afghanistan. But these were lopsided counterinsurgencies - "small wars in faraway places," to use one historian's phrase, in which the more powerful nation eventually lost the political will, rather than the military capability, to continue fighting. The war in Ukraine is something different and without precedent: a conflict in which a nuclear power is in a full-fledged conventional war with a non-nuclear power. And Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government have often framed the conflict as a life-or-death struggle against Western military, economic and cultural encroachment. The threat of nuclear weapons use has hung over this war since it began in February, but for all the saber-rattling and dire warnings, there have been no indications that Russia is actually preparing to cross the nuclear Rubicon. The lesson is that you should never underestimate an opponent who has no choice but to fight back. (13)

Discussion

The war is mutual loss and damages of human being, environment, public and private properties for all participated parties whether winners or losers, but even the divine and positive laws give the right of self-defense. Here, the problem is not with defending or fighting each other with using conventional weapons, but with the mass destruction weapons including nuclear to fight or defend state's territories under the name de-Nazify or de-militarize, despite Russia is violated and occupied state. The regime and the president of Ukraine was elected by the people itself, in another hand Ukraine handed over nuclear weapons to Russia willingly, means it did not have nuclear weapons. The world passes through in a hard and abnormal situation which the threat of using nuclear weapons increases day by day which the spark of using nuclear weapons is becoming fact on the ground, especially by Russia nowadays under pretending defense of its territories in fight with Ukraine or by North Korean from time to time which leads to the third world war. The military official ranks and experts repeatedly mentioned the escalation of using nuclear weapons does not go without response by NATO and its alliance states, so the situation had taken to a high level consideration and almost they are ready to broaden the war, so the war is not just between Ukraine and Russia, but is between Russia and NATO which includes thirty countries. According to the analysts the using of nuclear weapons from Russia faces existential costs for itself first because, Russia is not the only state own arsenal nuclear which pushes other nuclear states to respond the attack depending the mutual assured destruction, in another way one state against collective states. There will be intervene from other states when Russia uses even limited nuclear weapons such as tactical nuclear weapon. Putin's high-alert order is to frighten west countries and do not focus its war with Ukraine, but to be far from assisting Ukraine of any kind of weapons, rockets, tanks, anti-aircraft systems and other logistic equipment, encouraging analysts and decision-makers to focus on the rising nuclear threat rather than other side issues.

Conclusions

1. Using of Nuclear Weapons nowadays becomes a daily news bulletin and it terrifies the whole communities with no exception, there is no excuse to use nuclear weapons under any name and circumstances and it has to be stopped. Ukraine or any other free states have free will or decisions which kind of organizations participate in whether military or non-military organizations, for instance Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO or European Continent, every country has a free will, why it is right to a country to have nuclear weapons but the neighbor does not have right to be a member of military organization? It is not than an excuse to make Free states its subservience to power states and then occupy sovereign state. Now is realized that terrorism is not just used by terrorists, radical groups, but also by recognized states and countries.

2. The whole world faces dilemma and unprecedented phenomenon, if United Nations do not take a step to stop the war and not just watch the war otherwise it goes farther from bad to worse, because when the war is on Ukraine today the day after will be on other states.

3. There will be the end of life, environment, creatures, trees, humanity and almost everything in case of using Nuclear weapons as it will not be used just from Russia, but will be reaction from other arsenal nuclear powers. The situation is needed to stop using nuclear weapons or stop the life of humanity, because there is no other options, so the societies and nations should unify as one hand not to let it happen.

4. General assembly should be more active and should take a concrete and hard resolution against violated countries so as not to terrify societies, human beings are human beings wherever they are whether in Ukraine, Africa or other states.

5. An Independence country is violated in the daylight and terrifies the whole community, but the Security Council has no control on the situation especially when the violated state is the permanent member of Security Council.

6. The League of Nations was not able to confront the aggressors and trespassers states before the

Second World War happened, if United Nations cannot face the challenge today then the history repeats again, the terror covers the whole world.

7. Accusing an elected system of a country as Nazism or dictator and threatening to use a nuclear weapons against the system is somehow a terrifying ways to spread fear and terror inside a country especially when the election is supervised by UN and other international organizations.

8. This war reminds us a thing when the previous president of United States' statement "Either you are with us or against us", before invasion Iraq under the name of having mass destruction weapons from Iraq as thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians died and terrified because of the war, so it is almost the same to Ukraine By Russia as well, Pretending having nuclear weapons is just an excuse to occupy sovereign and independence countries, it should be stopped, the case needs tangible proof based on several evidences, in addition only United Nations as committee or group has right to decide regarding the issue.

References

1. Masters J, (2022), Ukraine: Conflict at theCrossroads of Europe and Russia, retrieved from:https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and- russia.

2. Brumfiel G, (2022), Russia's nuclear arsenal is huge, but will Putin use it? Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129443703/russias-nucle- ar-arsenal-is-huge-but-will-putin-use-it.

3. Helmore E, (2022), Petraeus: US would destroy Russia's troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, retrieved from: https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/ us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus.

4. Horovitz L, Wachs L, (2022), Russia's Nuclear Threats in the War against Ukraine, retrieved from:https://www.swp-berlin.

org/10.18449/2022C29/.

5. Alberque W, (2022), Russia is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, retrieved from: https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analy-sis/2022/10/russia-is-unlikely-to-use-nucle- ar-weapons-in-ukraine.

6. Kirby J, (2022), what Putin's latest threats mean for the risk of nuclear war, retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/22/23366499/putin-russia- ukraine-war-nuclear-threat-expert.

7. Sethi M, (2022), Nuclear Overtones in the Russia-Ukraine War, retrieved from: https:// www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-06/features/ nuclear-overtones-russia-ukraine-war.

8. Malhotra R, (2022), Russia-Ukraine war: Why Biden has warned of a threat of nuclear 'Armageddon' Retrieved from: https://indianex- press.com/article/explained/explained-glob- al/joe-biden-threat-of-nuclear-armageddon- russia-ukraine-war-putin-8197973/.

9. Miller N, (2022), why the War in Ukraine Won't Spark a Nuclear Proliferation Cascade, retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy. com/2022/10/17/ukraine-war-russia-nucle- ar-proliferation-iran-south-korea/.

10. Frolov V, (2022), Strategic Procrastination: What's Russia's Game with Nuclear Signaling? Retrieved from: https://carnegieendow- ment.org/politika/88130.

11. Williams H, (2022), Deterring Nuclear Weapons Use in Ukraine, retrieved from: https:// www.csis.org/analysis/deterring-nucle- ar-weapons-use-ukraine.

12. Noll A, Witting V, (2022), In Ukraine, Russia revives the nuclear threat, retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/en/the-return-of-the- nuclear-threat/a-61121925.

13. Keating J, (2022), Would Vladimir Putin let Russia lose in Ukraine before using his nuclear weapons? Retrieved from: https://www. grid.news/story/global/2022/09/21/would- vladimir-putin-let-russia-lose-in-ukraine-be- fore-using-his-nuclear-weapons/.

Размещено на Allbest.ru