Should Nuclear Weapons Necessary?

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

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

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

On the 6th November 1945, a United States bomber flies over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 bomber was an atomic bomb waiting on its target. At 8.15am the bomb dropped on 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.

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

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,

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

As Albert Einstein said in 1946, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” (Harris and Bender, 12). The development of nuclear weapons shook and is still shaking the international system down to its core. Never before has there been a weapon developed that could effectively obliterate if not the world, an entire state, with a few clicks of a button. Above the issues of nationalism and great power conflict, nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to global stability in the near future because of the possibility of accidents and misunderstandings between nuclear states, a deterrence system based on instability and bluffing, and the chance that nuclear weapons will land in the hands of terrorist organizations.

After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagazaki, international politics have never been the same. The threat of war requires countries to ensure their survival through whatever means is more effective. Prior to World War II, states would ensure their survival through technology and the quantity of their forces. The invention and possession of a nuclear bombs created a world in which the superpowers engaging in war could no longer be winners. The use of nuclear weapons also did not guarantee survival after the war. In response to rise of nuclear weapons, states had to revolutionize their foreign policy. Otherwise, they were accepting defeat. By refusing to enact policies, a state loses the ability to guarantee that a war would not occur by balancing the power with a nuclear equipped adversary. Indirectly, nuclear weapons cause peace between states led by rational leaders, under the premise of fear.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has had a major impact on how states operate both domestically and internationally. Moreover, the potential consequences to states possessing nuclear weapons (one of the three types of weapons of mass destruction) have caused a contentious divide between those who support the possession of nuclear weapons and those who are vehemently against it. While some states believe that nuclear weapons pose a lethal threat to innocent civilians and undermine international security. Others argue that nuclear weapons are what ensure international security. In particular, the deterrence theory argues that the presence of nuclear weapons deters states from engaging in war with each other for the fear that the opposing state will retaliate with nuclear weapons (Lindamood, 2016). Thus, states would rather settle their differences than suffer the consequences of a nuclear war. In light of the deterrence theory, one can argue that the world would never be global zero or “a world without nuclear weapons” (Lindamood, 2016). States with nuclear weapons will want to maintain their security and relative power by keeping nuclear weapons while states looking to improve their security and relative power will want to obtain nuclear weapons. For the interests of improving security and increasing one’s relative power, states will continue to possess and proliferate nuclear weapons, making global zero impossible.