Yes, the politics and ethics are capable of coexisting; the reason of this statement is that United States has been justified in its actions. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left United States is the world's only superpower which often seems as though many people have forgotten about nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, which lasted nearly 50 years, the U.S. and the Soviet Union each built up substantial stockpiles of nuclear arms.
The nuclear abolitionists argue that nuclear weapons pose an immense danger to the citizens of the United States and to mankind at large. They see a stark choice between a future in which all nations possess nuclear arms and one in which no nations possess them. Moreover, supporters of a test ban treaty assert that such an agreement is critical to ensuring global security. A moratorium on testing would likely prevent countries from developing and experimenting with nuclear weapons, because they would face damaging economic sanctions and international isolation if they violated the treaty's terms, backers contend (Huntley, 2005). This form of coercion could in turn reduce the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide, while bolstering the status of international law.
The elected leader of United States pursues a course that would slash nuclear arsenals and eventually phase out nuclear arms. Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally indefensible. Under this principle to save the world, politics and ethics are capable of coexisting in the same structure.
What are the ethical dilemmas involved in the case?
The ethical dilemmas of the case includes that the members of the peace movement have long opposed nuclear weapons on the moral grounds that they have the potential to destroy mankind. However, General James Scott action to initiate a coup against the United States president is an unethical approach that raises multiple legal issues associated with the ...