Are Nuclear Weapons Strategically Obsolete?

The reasons why McNamara and Kennedy and other U.S. politicians were so fearful of a nuclear was because according to U.S. analysts at the time, the 24 MRBM’s (Medium range-ballistic missiles) and sixteen IRBM’s (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) that were found in Cuba had significantly increased the number of U.S. targets that the Soviet’s could lethally attack by forty percent.[8] Furthermore, having missiles within Cuba allowed the Soviets to bypass the U.S. warning radars, especially the Ballistics Missile Early Warning system, which was stationed in the North Pole.[9] By bypassing the U.S. warning radars, it certainly amplified the risk of a surprise strike upon certain American air bases and important command posts.[10] To address this risk, the U.S. army went from “Defence Condition Five” (peacetime alert) to “Defcon 3” (war alert) which further illustrated the high levels of precautions the U.S. government were taking in order to protect itself from an offensive attack from the Soviet.[11] It was quite clear from these precautions that the impending nuclear threat in Cuba threatened the lives of American civilians, troops, and government officials. In the event that the situation escalated out of control, the two world superpowers could have engaged in a third World War that, with nuclear technology had the potential to kill hundreds of millions of civilians and soldiers.[12] Fortunately, the Cuban Mission Crisis never escalated this

Nuclear weapons are like the latest toys for state actors. It’s something that everyone wants to have because it shows your strength, wealth and power. Trying to deter people away from that will be a very difficult task. However, I believe that it is achievable to prevent future states from nuclear proliferation. I believed that if we get all the nuclear states on board with a campaign for nuclear disbarment policy, it could be achieved. That would entail involving the U.N and the IAEA and of course major funding to start this campaign. In addition to having a campaign for nuclear disarmament, it would also be very important to stress how they’re other ways to protect ones country other than nuclear weapons. Options, which include other technologies similar to nuclear weapons without nuclear waste being involved, biological weapons, chemical weapons and the old fashion

President Kennedy came to office with warnings of a missile gap. The Soviets had achieved or were achieving a significant advantage in strategic nuclear weapons. Though tensions ran even higher, "Eisenhower’s strategy of massive retaliation made little sense and did not account for the rapidly growing Soviet nuclear arsenal4. Kennedy's nuclear strategy became known as flexible response. The idea was to acquire the military forces that could deal flexibility with varying levels of Soviet Aggression3. The most serious confrontation between Russia and the US was the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Link to Stephanie's page) Soviet leader Khrushchev attempted to place intermediate range missiles in Cuba. Kennedy responded by imposing a quarantine on Cuba. This resulted in the removal of the Soviet missiles and led to Kennedy making the decision to dismantle U.S. missiles based in Turkey. Some analysts argue that the successful outcome was due to the United States’ nuclear superiority, which proved that strategic superiority offered important political advantages5.

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

People knew that if another World War broke out it would result in nuclear weapons used that could end the world. Even countries who had nuclear bombs but didn’t threaten to use them were considered a very possible threat. Between the USSR and the USA it was like walking on very thin ice. The nuclear buildup was called the balance of terror (Doc. #7). Having an abundance of nuclear weapons insured that the balance of terror was kept. The Cuban Missile Crisis contributed to this fear. When the Cuban Missile Crisis progressed the USA began to make demands. The USA demanded that they must secure the withdrawal of the missiles (Doc. #8). Cuba persisted that they were just for defensive. They promised they would remove them if the USA swore not to attack (Doc. #9).

In his article, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Marc Trachtenberg considers three historical approaches to the role that nuclear arms played during the 1962 conflict: first, the view that nuclear arms played no role at all, with U.S. and Soviet weapons cancelling each other out, second, the interpretation that the risk involved with nuclear warfare heavily influenced policy making, and finally the view that the strategic imbalance of nuclear force, characterized by a substantial American advantage, significantly impacted the outcome of the crisis. In weighing the three interpretations, Trachtenberg dismisses the first in supporting the existence of the second, using a variety of primary sources to identify instances when decision-makers were influenced by the risk of nuclear warfare. The focus of the article, however, is on advancing and complicating the third approach, which Trachtenberg claims is congruous with the second. In this third section, Trachtenberg advances the approach that the imbalance of nuclear capabilities impacted Soviet strategy but not American decision making. Accordingly, Trachtenberg’s article is characterized by two central claims: that risk of nuclear war influenced policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that American nuclear superiority disproportionately affected Soviet decision-making.

The event of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. Fifteen years into the cold war, the two superpowers continued the fierce competition to increase their military strength. In 1962, the Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the nuclear arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe, whereas the US missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. In late April 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba which would double the Soviet strategic arsenal and provide a real deterrent to a potential U.S. attack against the Soviet Union. The fate of millions

Without any regulations on the expansions of their nuclear arsenals, both sides became interlocked into a deadly nuclear arms. “The Soviet Union tested its first atomic weapon in 1949, this made American stockpiles of nuclear bombs seem unconvincing, and the development of hydrogen bombs became relevant” (Swift). This would prompt both nations to build up nuclear stockpiles, as one nation gained a stronger and more powerful weapon the other would follow suit, in the name of having a better defensive against the other. Each nation rose one another in the race and would eventually escalate them to a breaking point. “Within John F. Kennedy’s presidency, the world stood on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962” (Swift). In order to combat this, Kennedy exercised MAD, which foresaw the equal destruction of both sides. This became the essential turning point for political leaders and citizens of both nations, they were both bound to destroy one another. Upon agreement, the U.S.S.R dismantled its nuclear arsenal in Cuba, while the U.S did the same to theirs in Turkey. Kennedy and Khrushchev took many measures in de-escalating nuclear proliferation in order to avoid another near disaster similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The installation of Salt 1, which regulated missile stockpiles, became the first step in relieving the tensions of a nuclear

The third argument for the absence of nuclear weapons since 1945 is through the concept of deterrence. Deterrence is the measures taken by a state or an alliance of multiple states to prevent hostile action by another, in this case through nuclear weapons. Colin Gray is one theorist who believes

The Russian nuclear model, SS-18, and the U.S. MX models have the capabilities to cause more destruction than all the munitions used in World War II (A.G. Arbatove/ Belous, V.S./ Pikaev, A.A./ Baranovsky, V.G). As devastating as that may be to know, these models make up but a small portion of the Russian and United States' nuclear arsenals. These weapons as well as others are constantly maintained on a high alert status, creating more ground for an accidental exchange of "massive nuclear strikes". The dangers of nuclear escalation are real threats, threats that don't need a serious situation to occur. Today, several states have made progress in their attainment of nuclear arsenals. These activities are an inevitable result of the current nuclear position of several countries including the United States. The reasoning behind it all is the fact that possession of nuclear weapons by some states stimulates other nations to obtain them, so as to avoid becoming inferior or open to attack from any other country. The philosophy of the modern day

Both the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaties reproduced attempts by the superpowers to accomplish strategic nuclear expansions in such a way as to calm mutual deterrence. These attempts were, first, ballistic missile defenses were outlawed; secondly, "first strike" weapons were decommissioned, and last but not least, civil defense was discouraged. Nevertheless, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was comfortable establishing their country's defense on deterrence. Moreover, we have seen some have started a movement to fully ban the weapons in non-nuclear states. Stated in the article ‘Humanitarian reframing of nuclear weapons and the logic of a ban’, “ICAN and other proponents

Do nuclear weapon prevent a war? Does possessing of nuclear weapons offset conventional force imbalance and deter military threat?

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States long for nuclear weaponry is down to the fact that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can stockpile most of the nuclear warheads in the world then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is certainly not the case. By having so many dangerous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to terrorists but also a huge threat to your countries morality. If the leaders of a country say that it is ok to use nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing to a smaller scale? In the beginning atomic bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous amounts of lives. By this, I mean that multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered then the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of the nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the intention of unnecessary mass murder. What makes the monsters that enforce the use of nuclear weaponry any different from Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin? Even though the atomic bombs are not in use at this moment, anyone or any government in possession of these weapons have the intention to inflict large amounts of pain on vast