The Ethics Of Nuclear Weapons

President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

Whatever danger proliferators pose today would be far greater in a disarmed world, even though the previously nuclear states would eventually be able to rebuild nuclear weapons, they would be unwilling to accept a period during which a proliferator enjoyed a nuclear monopoly.”

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.

“There are currently 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world which is enough to destroy the entire human civilization twice” (Time for Change). The United States and Russia own 95% of them. Currently there are nine countries that obtain nukes: (US, Russia, India, China, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea). Before the production of nuclear weapons, war could be fought normally, could be conducted with an acceptable cost to the victor. Since most of the actual war could be fought and won on enemy grounds. After all, with the appearance of nuclear weapons and the dread of mutually assured destruction, wars happening now days are less likely to happen, because they would cause incomprehensible destruction to both the victor and the loser. Any perceived benefits of war are compensated by the possibility of astronomic costs. Serious-mindedness Nuclear weapons have assured our security for some time.

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.

Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

“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.

The use of nuclear weaponry, or threat thereof, in a time of war could be a major aspect in the result of the war. It could either further progress the length and casualty occurrence in the war, or it could result in an immediate halt of conflict due to the amount of casualties and catastrophic damage from the bomb. However, just because the use of such weaponry is potentially necessary, does not mean it is ethical. The chaos caused by a nuclear weapon has the potential to scar the lives

The prospect of the atomic bomb was considered to be problematic in the face of Judeo-Christian morality. What were some rationales for religious or moral opposition for the bombs? What influence did the possibilities of nuclear war have on religion and morality?

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

Nowadays, in international relations, there are many norms and sets of rules set by the major global power. Some rules are followed, and some are not likely to be followed by states across the globe. Typically, rules such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are contested by a number of states. For instance, this particular treaty aims to reduce the further spread of nuclear weapons and to maintain peaceful cooperation between countries who currently possess nuclear weapons. In fact, several states do not comply with this treaty and numerous other rules. This list of countries includes North Korea, South Sudan, Israel and some other states. Therefore, in this paper, I aim to examine under what degree these states decide not to comply with global norms particularly, the nuclear weapons treaty. Furthermore, I also seek an answer to under what condition the North Korea pursues nuclear power and focuses extensively on their military strength. I will use the Realism, Constructivism, and finally Individualism theories to explain this argument. These three international relations theories will provide three different perspectives which will certainly explain why North Korean military spending over-performs their GDP and what objectives they hope to achieve as a result of this action. Moreover, I will also compare another states’ similar cases to North Korea in order to further develop my argument. The comparative perspective is salient because they will likely

To begin, it should be understood that this analysis focuses on alternative possibilities and therefore impossible to prove or disprove. Instead, this should be viewed as a play on facts and behaviors of the states involved and applies arguments made by different theorists regarding nuclear weapons.