Marshal White

17 October 2016
ENC2135
Research Progress Report
Section 1:
What changes should be made to the Nuclear Weapons Program of the United States
based on the humanitarian, ethical, environmental, economic, and security risks of the current
regime.
Section 2:

"Arms Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971."
Arms
Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971. N.p., n.d.

Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

The source is a website and a non-peer-reviewed source created by an association directed
for the downsizing of the nuclear weapons arsenal on a global scale. The majority of the data
and studies they reference are peer-reviewed and thus, the foundation of their argument is
credible. The websites arguments range from the political, environmental, humanitarian, and
ethical disadvantages that come with a large nuclear weapons arsenal. Because the source
encompasses such a wide range of information, it can cohesively support many of the other
sources in my own argument. Even though this source is not peer-reviewed, it is strong in
that it is made up of credible sources and covers a wide range of data.

Casey-Maslen, Stuart. "The use of Nuclear Weapons and Human Rights." International
Review of the Red Cross 97.899 (2015): 663-80. Print.

This source is a journal that is peer-reviewed published by the Cambridge University Press,
an obviously credible source. The main idea of this source is to make the connection to
Nuclear Weapons and Human Rights in a manner that demonstrates the advantages and
disadvantages of growing and maintaining a Nuclear Arsenal. Because of the connection to
Human Rights, this source will add to my argument and, in doing so, support my other
sources in creating a solid foundation for my claim. This source is strong because it is
probably my most credible source acquired thus far. Also, not many useable peer-reviewed
sources exist relating nuclear weapons to human rights making this source very valuable.

Doyle, James E. "Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?" Survival (00396338) 55.1 (2013): 734. Print.
This source is a journal and is peer-reviewed. It was published by Routledge, which is a
British multinational publication founded in 1836 and thus, a credible source. This source
contains a wide range of data that discusses the varying disadvantages of growing and
maintain a nuclear arsenal. Because of the vast amount of data and research contained in this
source, it will greatly compliment my argument in conjunction with my other sources in
supporting my claim. This source may be considered weak because it is only directed to one
side of the argument, but will still aid me in making my own claim.

Helfand, Md Ira, International Physicians For The Prevention Of Nuclear War, and
Physicians For Social Responsibility. NUCLEAR FAMINE: A BILLION PEOPLE AT
RISK (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.

This source is made up of a research paper published by the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War. This source gains its credibility because it was composed of data
and research primarily from physicians. It is technically a peer-reviewed source, but I have
not counted it as one of my required seven. The paper discusses the negatives effects that
nuclear weapons and radiation have had on health. This paper provides a vital component to
making an argument against maintaining a large nuclear arsenal and will support my claim

along with my other sources.

Johnson, Rebecca E. "Security without Nuclear Weapons: The Regional-International
Nexus." Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture 19.1/2 (2013):
178. Print.
This source is a peer-reviewed research paper within a journal documenting Israeli
economics and culture with regard to nuclear weapons. Although my argument will be
specific in focusing on The United States, it is important to analyze other parts of the world
in order to hypothesize about the effects of similar actions in our own country. As such, this
source will provide a unique perspective in comparison to my other sources and will aid in
creating a diverse foundation for my claim. However, this source has a weakness. It only
discusses the argument in relation to Israel, so I must connect the argument to The United
States in order to strengthen my own claim.

Prvlie, Remus. "Nuclear Weapons Tests and Environmental Consequences: A Global

Perspective." Ambio43.6 (2014): 729-44. Web.
This source is a peer-reviewed research paper in a journal called Ambio. This journal
chronicles data on the human environment and is considered credible. This source covers the
environmental side of the nuclear weapons debate. This will prove useful in supporting my
claim by adding more diversity of information to my argument. This source is strong because

it brings the environmental aspect of the discussion to light without destroying credibility

with bias.
RITCHIE, NICK. "Waiting for Kant: Devaluing and Delegitimizing Nuclear
Weapons." International Affairs 90.3 (2014): 601-23. Web.
This source is a peer-reviewed research paper in an International Affairs Journal. This paper
reference Kantian philosophy and makes the connection between nuclear weapons and
economics. It also covers a few ethical dilemmas associated with growing and maintaining a
nuclear weapons arsenal. This source is strong because it covers two very important aspects
of the argument. It also makes connections on an international level which is useful in

analyzing nuclear weapons.

Suni, Antti-Ville. "When are Nuclear Weapons worth having?" Defence and Peace
economics 26.5 (2015): 555-65. Print.

The source is a printed case study analysis that cites over 20 peer reviewed resources. The paper
was published in 2015 so it is likely that it has had a chance to be reviewed a sufficient number
of times even after publishing. The paper revolves around analysis of a case study regarding the
United Kingdom's "Trident" Nuclear Weapons program and its cost-benefit analysis. The
research and analysis completed in this paper will be critical in arguing for change in the United
States' current program. This source outlines part of the economic portion of the argument that I
want to make and will cooperate with other sources that cover topics that include, but are not
limited to: humanities and ethics, global security, environmental science, etc.

"U.S. National Debt Clock: Real Time." U.S. National Debt Clock: Real Time. N.p., n.d.
Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
This source is a non-peer-reviewed source that counts the United States National debt in real
time. This website will be useful in drawing connections between nuclear weapons and the
national debt. By bringing in specific statistics about the debt and making the connection to

the economic disadvantages of nuclear arsenals, I can strengthen my argument. Of course,

this is only possible when using this source in conjunction with other credible sources.
Wilson, W. "The Gordian Knot: Moral Debate and Nuclear Weapons." ETHICS &
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS27.3 (2013): 319-28. Web.
This source is a peer-reviewed research paper published by The Cambridge University Press
in an Ethical and International Affairs Journal. This source discusses both the ethical and
moral advantages and disadvantages of growing and maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal.
As such, this source will aid me in supporting my claim on the basis of ethical dilemmas
regarding nuclear weapons. Many of my other sources depend on the connection between
nuclear weapons and ethics, so this source will be both strong and cohesive reference
material.

Section 3:
To be frank, essentially the entire essay is missing. Little to no work has been completed
so far on the actual paper other than an absurd amount of reading, preparation, and research. I
had a similar assignment in my English 1 class, so I believe I have a pretty solid understanding
of what kind of work needs to be done before-hand in order to write successful paper. The most
helpful feedback at this point would be source analysis. Tell me if my sources seem credible and
if my annotations seem reasonable.