Is Nuclear War More Or Less Likely During The Post Cold War Era?

When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.

The dropping of the atomic bomb was the first of many nuclear projects. The first project was called the Manhattan project. Three bombs were created, one was a test, and the two others were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities in Japan. These bombs created mass destruction for the two cities; buildings were obliterated, fires erupted, and radiation spread for miles. After foreign countries saw what the United States was capable of, countries all around the world started to develop their own nuclear weapons, creating a surplus of weapons of mass destruction. “Today, eight countries in the world have nuclear arsenals (weapon supplies). The United States and Russia (formerly part of the Soviet Union) have most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Other countries with nuclear arms include China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom” (Kroenig). Following World War Two, the Soviet Union and the United States were leaders of nuclear weapons. This period was called the Cold War. Forty-five years of potential nuclear destruction loomed over the Soviets and Americans. It wasn’t until after the Cold War that diplomats created the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, or NPT for short, recognizes the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom as nuclear weapon states. Nearly every country in the world is a member of the treaty, even if they do not possess nuclear weapons, by law they state that they are a nonnuclear

The dropping of the Atomic Bomb changed not only warfare forever, but also all international relations. With that being said, the decision to do so was one of the biggest decisions made by any government in the history of time. Nuclear warfare was way more destructive and way faster than any other form of warfare preceding. With the United States seemingly always viewed to be “the good guys” it is puzzling that this country is the same one who killed hundreds of thousands of people all at once and essentially ruined not one but two entire cities within minutes of dropping two single bombs. This decision was not taken lightly, and with basically two schools of thought, liberalism vs. realism, insisting to do so or not to do so, and realism won out. Realism and the many counterparts that strengthen this school of thought is what drove the decision to go ahead and drop the atomic bomb.

The cold war in conjunction with the nuclear arms race raised a countless number of dangers that were new to Americans. One of the most obvious risks raised by the nuclear arms race was the blast of the bomb itself. The bombs that were emerging were only getting colossal, and the effects were reaching potential world destruction. For example, the atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were minuscule compared to the Hydrogen bomb, which the U.S built to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. But as history has shown itself, the Soviet Union came kept up with the competition and created a Hydrogen bomb as well. Now both countries possessed bombs that could decimate out entire countries.

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

The various miore events of invasion and prevention of expansion had sharpen the Cold War to become what it was. The various events in question mostly involved the United States and Russia arguing over territory. Although these events influenced the outcome the Cold War, undoubtedly the formation of the Soviet sphere, the Truman Doctrine, and the attack on Afghanistan prolonged tensions during the Cold War. During the span of a few years, the demand and production of nuclear arms was increased significantly.

The development and use of nuclear weapons in 1945 changed not only warfare, but how countries approach warfare as a whole. As Andrew Heywood notes in his book, Global Politics, says that there’s a tendency “for any weapons to proliferate” or spread. With that knowledge it should be assumed that many nations would want to obtain nuclear weapons after seeing what the power that they hold. A state being in possession of a nuclear weapon can deter potential enemies and make them a power on the global scale. The Cold War era and post- Cold War era both saw an in increase in the spread of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, after the US first used a nuclear weapon in 1945, states that gained nuclear capabilities were the France, the UK, China and the Soviet Union. Post – Cold War era India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all gained nuclear weapons and shows the problem with proliferation of them. India and Pakistan are neighboring states and rivals which can lead to the possibility that they could be used at any moment. North Korea is a dangerous militaristic state that constantly threatens other states. This illustrates that the spread of nuclear weapons is a global problem because nuclear proliferation can possibly put WMDS, weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of rival states or extremely dangerous nations. There’s also the possibility of them falling into the hands of non state actors such as terrorists groups. Nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament/arms

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.

When Russia detonated its first atomic weapon, America advantage of having war was over because the fears over the consequences of nuclear conflict. Later West Germany was

When scientists discovered the power of nuclear fission, the new technology was applied to invent the atomic bomb in the early 1940’s. Only a few years later, it was utilized in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6, 1945. Due to the immense destruction it caused, there has been no use of nuclear warfare ever since. Though it seems that nuclear weapons are things of the past, “the threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the severest tests facing the international system in the early twenty-first century” (“Nuclear Weapons” 1898). The effects and strength of nuclear weapons are more powerful now than they were before.

Throughout history, war has been the most common resort for nations to solve problems or show off their strength. However it wasn’t until recently where mankind had just live and experience a war that not only did it have the potential destroy nations, but also had the potential to destroy the whole world and humanity itself. This was known as the Cold War where after WWII, citizens of the world witnessed the potential of the atomic bomb and feared the possibility of nuclear fallout or total annihilation of the Earth. The only two superpowers remaining at the time were the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. These two nation competed against each other in a nuclear arms race. They fought to spread the ideals of either a free democratic, capitalistic society or a controlled socialist, communist society. After a 45 year struggle from 1945-1991, the Cold War came to an end due to the fall of the Soviet Union. It was inevitable due to the fact during the last few years of the war, the USSR face internal domestic problems such as their financial/economic situation, failed political reforms, and revolution throughout the Union itself. The causes to the collapse of the Union not only affected them but affected the world to present day.

During WWII there were many different countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. The countries that were trying to develop them, wanted them because they wanted to the first nuclear superpower in the world. If any of these other countries ‘d developed them before the U.S. did, the way we live in today’s world would’ve been completely different than what we know it as.

The ongoing debate of whether or not nuclear weapons are obsolete or not is a very complex one. Numerous studies have purported that nuclear weapons no longer serve an important strategic purpose for countries such as the United States of America and Great Britain. Clausewitz stated that war and politics were inextricably linked. So the distinction between “political” and “military” viability of nuclear weapons is one without meaning. Essentially this implies that deterrence theory still works, at least between state actors. After all, no nuclear power has ever been attacked by another state, and the same can’t be said about attacks by nuclear powers on non-nuclear states.

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

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