Preview

More Nuclear Weapons Better?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1906 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
More Nuclear Weapons Better?
May more nuclear weapons be better?
To give an answer on whether more nuclear weapons would be better we need first to define what is meant with more and what we consider to be better. Does more refer to the quantity of weapons or the spread of them to more countries? And more importantly, in what ways is a situation with more nuclear weapons better than a situation without or no further increase to what already exists?
Whether one concludes a positive or negative answer to this question the argumentation would benefit if emanating from Kenneth Waltz reasoning, that in 1981 provoked a debate that until this day is engaging scholars and strategists. Waltz’s positive answer to the question stood, and stands, in sharp contrast to the general public understanding that proliferation of nuclear weapons is dangerous and undesirable. The classical debate that Waltz initiated has been focused on whether nuclear weapons create stability or not. Many scholars have acknowledged the need to broaden the focus and taking other factor into account, for example implications nuclear weapons have for economy or environment (Knopf 2004: 42-43). Because of the limit of this paper I will build my argument within the scope of the classical debate in order to answer the question.
Waltz argues that more states with nuclear weapons will have a positive effect on stability in the world. This stems from a realist perspective on the international system and states’ behaviour; assuming that states coexist in a condition of anarchy and that they act rationally. In the anarchic order, self-help is the principle of action, meaning that states help themselves by providing for their own security. In this case self-help refers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As rational actors states wont run major risks for minor gains and thus war becomes less likely when the costs of war rises in relation to possible gains. Waltz therefore concludes that the knowledge of the large-scale destruction

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    On the 6th November 1945, a United States bomber flew towards the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 bomber was an atomic bomb – ironically nicknamed “Little Boy” - that was to be dropped on its target. At 8.15am and at a height of around 2,000ft the bomb exploded above Hiroshima, taking 140,000 lives with it. Most of the 140,000 died instantly, horrifyingly the rest of the innocent civilians that were not in direct contact with the bomb died painful deaths in the four months following. They died from radiation sickness and different types of cancers.…

    • 1341 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pf con case

    • 809 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Subpoint A – Nuclear proliferation is an action fueled by fear and if there is increase in military force interference, that fear will be legitimized. According to the article “Why Countries Build Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century” by Zachary Keck, “Iran’s nuclear program is better explained, then, by the rise in the potential conventional threat the U.S. poses to the Iran.” As many countries are, Iran was obviously intimidated by the massive military force of the U.S. and made the decision to begin proliferating nuclear weapons. And if the U.S. uses military force as an act to prevent nuclear proliferation, that goal may not be fulfilled.…

    • 809 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Iran's Nuclear Program

    • 1439 Words
    • 5 Pages

    “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds,” (Oppenheimer, 1965, 0:47). So said Julius Robert Oppenheimer, one of the men credited with creating the atomic bomb, when describing the first test detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, at the Alamogordo Bomb Range in New Mexico ( Sublette, 1999), as he quotes the Hindu holy text, the Bhagavad Vita. Nuclear weapons have only been used in warfare twice, both times by the United States during World War I, when the United States dropped the ‘Fat Man’ and ‘Little Boy’ bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945 (Sublette, 1999). In the 60 intervening years, a number of other nations have since developed nuclear weapons of their own. Because of nuclear proliferation, and the unparalleled destructive power of atomic weapons, nuclear non-proliferation has become an international concern, with the United States leading the charge. The past decade, however, has seen new nations try to enter the ‘nuclear club’ the most recent country being Iran. A nuclear armed Iran poses many concerns to the United States. In this paper, I will discuss the history of Iran’s nuclear program, what steps have been taken to curb the Iranians efforts, and where the two major political parties of the United States stand on the issue.…

    • 1439 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Moral dimension of U.S. nuclear weapons policy held prominent place in International relations during the Cold War….…

    • 556 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    U.S World History 05.06

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Despite the fall of the Soviet Union 19 years ago in 1991, the issue of nuclear arms, besides terrorism, remains one of the chief security concerns in the contemporary world. Accordingly, the following issues concerning nuclear arms remained unresolved security concerns.Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These events not only brought about the surrender of the Japan and an end to World War II, but they also helped shaped the nature of international politics for the next six decades.The atomic bomb is the crudest form of a series of powerful nuclear weapons to be eventually developed and come into existence. Both superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, eventually built massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. This escalation of nuclear arms possession led to…

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Every time I hear a word "War" as a child, I still have to hear a word "Nuclear Weapons". From that time, I didn't know what they are. But when I grow up, I learned that Nuclear Weapons are the device that can destroy many people or one small country. So I believe that They are the killing device. From these reasons…

    • 276 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The nuclear resources of the United States and the Soviet Union are larger, better equipped, and deadlier than at any other time in history. This incisive book contends that the superpowers, while exhibiting…

    • 408 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each, together with the fear of escalation to general nuclear war, keep it that way.” (Art, Waltz, 1983) Yet there are many who also share the view of Jonathan Schell who dramatically infers that if we, society, do not “rise up and cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons, we will “sink into the final coma and end it all.” (Schell, 1982) The central purpose of this essay is to challenge the conventional wisdom about nuclear proliferation; that nuclear weapons do indeed induce a greater stability amongst international politics however this does not justify countries to continue nuclear arms proliferation with seemingly no endless bounds. However despite this it is naïve to declare that a world without nuclear weapons would be without peace either. Nuclear weapons are more than just symbols of destruction and chaos but however hold far more important roles in international politics. They are at the forefront of national security and hold considerable importance in domestic debates and internal bureaucratic struggles and serve as international normative symbols of modernity and identity and as such have to be treated with utmost care and with a sense of supreme responsibility by countries that hold them.…

    • 2181 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.…

    • 5226 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    A fundamental component of the proliferation debate revolves around the perceived or alleged efficiency of nuclear deterrence. Proliferation optimists argue that, “more may be better” because nuclear weapons increase the cost of nuclear conflict, ultimately deterring states from engaging in nuclear warfare with a nuclear-armed state (Suzuki 2015). Optimists argue that nuclear deterrence works reliably, thus there seemingly less to be feared from nuclear proliferation and beneficial to a state to…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the modern world the mass media are often critical about nuclear weapons and the threats they pose for society, but this begs the question; why have nuclear weapons not been used in conflict since 1945? To answer this question the issues of taboo and deterrence and the arrival of virtual nuclear arsenals must be called into question, as well as theoretical ideas such as rationality from proliferation optimists and proliferation pessimists. I will also look at whether we currently live in a non-proliferation regime, and look at the alternatives for peace and nuclear non-usage.…

    • 2145 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.” This quote is the wise words of Omar Nelson Bradley and I agree with him, therefore, I must disagree with the resolution: “Resolved Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent unclear proliferation.…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The idea of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has undoubtedly sparked up an international debate on both sides of the isle. While many in the west debate about which actions to take to prevent the development of the bomb or if Iran is even developing the bomb other countries like Russian and China have been reluctant to criticize. From a western perspective we have to decide whether or not a patient diplomacy is the best approach to Iran’s nuclear problem or not. The consequences of attacking Iran could prove to be just as disastrous as not attacking Iran and being threatened by ban attack. In “Taking Side” two scholars on this issue debate this very question. Christopher Hemmer, from “Responding to a Nuclear Iran” and Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large for the opinion journal “Commentary” argue on both sides of the issue. This is a general overview of the situation, a summary of each authors main points and a conclusion based on my own opinion.…

    • 3654 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Georges Clemenceau once said “war is too important to be left to the generals.” In Dr. Strangelove, Col. Ripper remarks that now “war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought” but Kubrick’s message implies that war is too important to be left to anybody at all. So with the persistence of nuclear technology as weapons of mass destruction, the question arises: Do we, as decision-makers, have the restraint not to use such weapons on one another? The question remains unanswered, but if there is to be peace, we must remain cautious and aware of their implications. Nuclear technology gives humanity an incredible opportunity to move forward, but if misused, it could send all life on earth back to the stone…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Haile Selassie

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms o peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace…Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays