Preview

Would a World Without Nuclear Weapons Be More or Less Secure?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1610 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Would a World Without Nuclear Weapons Be More or Less Secure?
Nuclear weapons are the deadliest weapon ever created by the human being, “Western newspapers struggled to explain how thousands of American, British and Canadian scientists had managed to harness the power of the sun to such deadly effect” , becoming weapons of mass annihilation. Though, do they provide us security? It’s true that they can provide nuclear deterrence, but can they actually physically protect us against a nuclear attack? The answer is no. Thus, possessing them doesn’t make us any safer. In fact, if nuclear weapons fall on hands of inadequate people like terrorists, or are employed by accident and miscalculations; effects can be lethal and irreversible. John F. Kennedy said, “The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution”. Living in the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, with nuclear weapons more broadly available, deterrence is decreasing while increasing danger. Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in January 2007: “It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious”.
Nuclear weapons can also be thought of as ‘military equalizers’, making a country think twice about attacking. Often giving a nation a false sense of security. For instance, they did become essential in maintaining international security during the Cold War because there were a means of deterrence. However, if deterrence fails, even if its only one nuclear weapon; the world would be instantly facing catastrophe. Hence, deterrence is not a viable solution, especially when threats such as terrorism cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence being a psychological phenomenon and as such, inherently unstable, destabilizes political relationships by endorsing mistrust, hostility and arms racing.
Nonetheless, some researchers argue that the bomb may actually make us safer. As Kenneth Waltz said “We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s



Bibliography: The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. [Ch.23: ‘Nuclear Proliferation’] • Gusterson, Hugh (1999) ‘Nuclear weapons and the Other in Western Imagination’ • M.Siracusa, Joseph. Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2008. • Spear, Joanna and Robertson-Snape (2001), ‘Arms and Arms Control’; in Little, Richard/White, Brian/Smith, Michael • Williams, Paul D. Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2008. [Chs • Tepperman, Jonathan. (Aug 28, 2009) “Why Obama should learn to love the Bomb” The Daily Beast. • Record, Jeffrey • "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" Wall Street Journal By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. The Wall Street Journal January 4, 2007; Page A15

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Scare

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In addition to the reduction in weapons, the number of countries which were developing, had developed or were seriously discussing nuclear programs has dropped since the 1980’s. This was due to a combination of factors that still determine such decisions today, including security, expense, need for status or prestige, internal politics and other factors.…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Wittner, Lawrence S. "There Is an Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." Nuclear Armament. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." hnn.us. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.…

    • 946 Words
    • 3 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

    Nuclear threat and terrorists threats are prevalent attacks still being used to force fear into a society. They are similar in ways by deterring economic growth and forcing governments to reevaluate…

    • 396 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the earliest part of the cold war the United States enjoyed a clearly superior nuclear force to the Soviet Union but eventually nuclear parity was achieved and a new phase of the cold war had started. Realizing their vulnerability each side began producing nuclear weapons at a furious rate in an attempt to stay ahead of the other. The United States adopted a policy called Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD where protection for the population was achieved by ensuring the capability to utterly destroy the attacker if attacked. (Wilde)…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I agree with the nuclear optimists that nuclear proliferation will make international politics more stable and less war prone. Since nuclear weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), more specifically as true WMD (Baylis pg 386), I believe states that possess nuclear weapons will be reluctant to use them against states who also possess nuclear weapons, out of the fear those state will retaliate with their own nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons poses risk to a state that chooses to use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear proliferated state. Therefore, by this logic it benefits to a state to be nuclear proliferated as a defensive precaution or a deterrence mechanism.…

    • 581 Words
    • 3 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
  • 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
  • Powerful Essays

    The damage the atomic bomb would cause to the environment and to the Japanese people was not predicted. The development of more powerful nuclear weapons could unexpectedly cause immense damage to the world. While the weapons can bring unexpected damage they also prompt other countries to research and develop more powerful…

    • 1057 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Due to increasing tensions among nations around the world, several countries remain preparing for the worst. To expound further, numerous countries remain looking for ways to fortify the military and prepare themselves for global warfare. Hopefully, this never has to happen. In addition, nations such as North Korea remain a primary example. For those unaware, North Korea remains ruled by a dictatorship. Therefore, the well-being of his people remains of no concern. In addition, North Korea remains a nation known for its nuclear programs. In fact, its nuclear programs have caught the attention of nations such as South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Moreover, the nation has continued to provoke the United States into engaging in war with them.…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    On the other hand, one could produce an equally valid argument against the use of nuclear deterrence. While nuclear deterrence helps with reducing the chance of nuclear war, it is by no means a guaranteed barrier. It is easily seen that nuclear weapons hold the potential for the loss of innocent life; around 150,000 were lost in the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition to the loss of life, the loss of large sums of government money is a second argument against nuclear deterrence. It is estimated that between 1940 and 2000, $5.5 trillion were spent on nuclear weapons programs, and nearly $350 billion is estimated to be spent in the next ten years. It can easily be argued this money would be better spent on government projects…

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Living under the threat of nuclear war would have been a very scary and unimaginable event, especially in the 1950s. Terrorism is another very dangerous threat, but it is different in its own.…

    • 307 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Nuclear

    • 1499 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The end of the Cold War has meant that there are no more nuclear-armed opponents, except India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons do not serve even an arguable purpose when a country has friendly relations with a former opponent.…

    • 1499 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays