Negative Effects Of Nuclear Weapons

A nuclear weapon is a guidance to show who has the power of the countries but also prevent wars from happening It is highly reliable technology to use by going uninterrupted for more than a year even with dealing with difficult weather conditions . Nuclear weapons can be put in a variety of locations.The energy from a nuclear weapon can provide the foundations for other technologies by being the naval vessel and giving power to hundreds to thousands of homes. Nuclear warfare can be the best thing a nation could have power and can make it where that one nation can have the ultimate weapon . If a nation would want to go to war they can have the best advantage to win with these mass destruction weapons these things can have a negative impact by

Of course the creation of the nuclear bomb was a watershed event of World War II in which more that 60 million people died. The United States thought that with the creation of the bomb and having such a weapon, they would no longer have to get involved in wars and would have peace. But the creations of the nuclear weapon led to other results. Nuclear power stations were being created that were able to give cheap energy and allowed progress. But, nuclear power stations were also very dangerous. In 1986 in the USSR, there was an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Due to this accident, a lot of people became sick from the radiation and that radiation was very bad for the environment and everything living around that area. But even due to the dangers, people cannot let go of nuclear energy.

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

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

During the cold war, both nations built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to achieve nuclear supremacy over the other. Both the soviets and the US hoped to use nuclear weapons as leverage against each other by assuring Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.

Few inventions have shaped war as much as the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb enabled massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale the world had never seen. The offensive capabilities of the atomic bomb were terrifying and many believed a nuclear war could destroy the world. Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Thomas Schelling, and André Beaufre describe the state of war the atomic bomb introduced in the Nuclear Age. Their writings show that atomic bombs changed warfare by changing the focus of arms development to avoid conflict and threats against civilians were now used to force surrender.

The nuclear bomb has been a weapon in the United States arsenal since the end of world war two, where the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From that day on the way wars were fought has changed forever. Soon after the bomb droppings on the two Japanese cities a race began between the United States and the Soviet Union named the cold war. The two major powers of the world at that time would threaten each other with nuclear war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union could no longer economically support communism. Then latter on the United States invaded Iran under suspicion that they had nuclear weapons. Years later may people have wondered in nuclear weapons are necessity. Is it really beneficial to whatever nation that possess it, or is it a disaster just waiting to happen? Debates continue to this day on whether nuclear weapons should be against the Geneva Convention. Does the possibility of a nuclear winter with the annihilation of all mankind outweigh the reason for keeping them for protection and military dominance?

The Cold war was a time of hardships in the mid 1900s and continued having a war between the two superpowers for which would have more of a sphere of influence on the nations worldwide. Sphere of influence, nuclear weapons, and propaganda were main ways on how the Cold war had started and were a few of the many “weapons” used in alternating ways for the war. Cold War began in many ways, but a few main ones were the nuclear weapon warfare, the sphere of influence among the two superpowers, the Soviets and the United States and the ways the two nations used propaganda to promote their ideologies on their citizens and others to gain influence. Nuclear weapons are a main source of conflict between the U.S.S.R and the U.S in the cold war.

Nuclear weapons have been a present factor in my lifetime, and in WWII the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused thousands of deaths. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane weapons ever created. Both in the scale of the devastation that they cause, and in their uniquely persistent, genetically damaging radioactive fallout, they are not like any other weapon. A single nuclear bomb detonated over a city could kill millions of people. The use of tens or hundreds of nukes would disrupt the world's climate, causing lots of famine.(Arguments for nuclear abolition)

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

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 historian Spencer Weart notes "You say 'nuclear bomb ' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world" The escalation of nuclear proliferation in and around the world, especially in the Middle East has led to the fear of nuclear war in the near future. Many countries built nuclear weapons because it felt insecure from the major nuclear states or from their neighbors conventional military or nuclear capabilities. This is the situation with China, India and Pakistan. Many other reasons encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons, but the main reason for acquiring nuclear weapons is the deterrence against any external threat and prevention external offensive that might lead to war. Nuclear weapons make such countries feel more secure, nuclear weapons can prevent war because countries will have the ability to deter any external aggression. At the same time, there is no guarantee that acquiring nuclear weapons may lead to nuclear war.

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 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)

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,