Nuclear Deterrence is the Best Defense Against Nuclear War Essay

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

There have only been two instances in world history of nuclear weapons being used against another nation during a military conflict. In both instances the bombs were dropped by U.S. forces on Japanese soil during WWII in hopes that it would generate fear within the Japanese people, and finally break the government into submission. Since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, no other nation has employed the use a nuclear weapon against another country, so why is it that the United States still possesses a stockpile of nearly 5,000 nuclear warheads if they are not being utilized? The United States has long held the strategy of deterrence, meaning that the purpose of the U.S. arsenal is intended to deter other states from attacking with their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, the United States’ has been taking steps towards reducing its nuclear arsenal and declaring to end developments on new warheads.

Ever since the cold war many people think that it is necessary for the United States to have nuclear weapons just in case a nuclear war were to break out. As stated in institute for public policy “most discussants were of the opinion that as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, the United States must also have them for deterrence purposes” (49). There is no real answer to how much money the United

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.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

Nuclear weapons show power. The cold war ended over 25 years ago, but over 17,000 nuclear weapons still exist (Helfand, et al.). Nuclear weapons are said to show the power of a country. Putin has “…boasted about the size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.” (Schlosser). Putin claimed that Russia was, “the only country in the world capable of turning the USA into radioactive dust” (Schlosser). Statements such as these leads to countries battling over who has the most nuclear weapons and who has the greatest nuclear weapons.

Extended deterrence can be summed up as the prevention of an attack or invasion against another country. For example, the United States has used its military might and its deterrence strategies to prevent the spread of communism by stepping in between Russia and the countries the former Soviet Union wanted to invade. The Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are just a few such examples. Nuclear deterrence dissuades the adversary. It is a psychological pressure that most surely affects enemy decisions. The U.S. doesn’t just step in the middle of conflict to extend deterrence; it also places its nuclear weapons in allied countries to persuade adversaries against invading or threatening them. This “nuclear umbrella” as it has been termed, discourages expansion, thwarts threatening behaviors, prevents invasions, and inhibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When the nuclear umbrella is extended to U.S. allies, those countries become bound together to fight against more powerful nations such as Russia. Allied nations then garner protection from an equally powerful America and thus, they tend to not seek nuclear weapons of their own. Extended deterrence has not fully prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons however. According to Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Director,

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

However, if arms control was a national or international policy it could have prevented the cold war and the United States and Soviet Union from coming close to all out nuclear war. All it would have taken was either the United States or the Soviet Union to step down and reduce their arsenals and stop production of nuclear weapons. There would be no competition to have the most weapons and therefore, the war would have never happened or could have stopped with reduction of nuclear weapons. The cold war ended when the U.S. had outspent the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons and related technologies are very costly. They are also somewhat pointless to have because if a country fires missiles at another country then that country will send more missiles back which would endanger the world as we know it. In recent years, (2010-2018) The U.S. has spent an average of twenty billion dollars per year. During the cold war the U.S. spent an average of thirty five billion dollars per year. Currently, that is equivalent to fifty five billion dollars per year. All of the money spent on nuclear weapons which are somewhat useless could go to other needs of a country. ( US nuclear weapons on a

In 2015, the Doomsday Clock, a symbolic countdown to the end of the world, was changed to three minutes to midnight. This is the closest the world has come to total destruction since 1983 (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). Current nuclear policy is not even putting a dent in reducing the reach that thermonuclear weapons have. Currently, most countries have an unlimited supply of radioactive material, a key ingredient in the production of atomic weapons. In addition, the ceiling for any number of nuclear weapons owned by a nation is too low. Until worldwide sanctions similar to these can be imposed, current policies are useless (Glaser et

Deterrence is preventing an adversary from taking actions one regards as undesirable by threatening to inflict unacceptable costs on the adversary if the action is taken. In the second chapter of the documentary, it is discussed how the Soviet Union continued to test nuclear weapons in Cuba thus ending a two-year moratorium.

The American doctrine of deterrence stemmed from the development of nuclear weapons. Strategic analysts, using this development as a point of departure, recognized that a nuclear capability established a defense scenario that was, in fact,

The government is throwing away billions of dollars to fund something outdated and ultimately unnecessary. Annually, the U.S spends nearly 6.5 billion dollars on nuclear weapons purposes such as safeguarding and maintaining its current stockpile, developing new devices such as earth-penetrators and upgrading old ones, advanced weapons research, and improving the test readiness of warheads. In addition to that 6.5 billion dollars, another 1.34 billion dollars is spent on nonproliferation programs that prevent an increase in the number of countries that possess nuclear weapons (3). But despite all the money being thrown into the nuclear defense department, the silos housing ICBM's, the most powerful weapon the U.S. possesses, are poorly run, inefficient, and literally falling apart.

One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a