Nuclear Disarmament Is Wrong

“Our challenge is to reconcile, not after the carnage and the mass murder, but instead of the carnage and the mass murder.” Carl Sagan’s speech “On Nuclear Disarmament” is a powerful call to save humanity by putting an end to weapons of mass destruction. Sagan claims that he does not know if we are ever going to come to a complete peace, or if we will kill ourselves in the meantime. The claim made throughout ‘On Nuclear Disarmament’ is both compelling and thoroughly expressed. Sagan presents his claim with rhetorical devices such as parallel structure, hyperbole, and repetition drawing the listener to act upon his plea to prevent senseless carnage.

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.

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

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

“On Nuclear Disarmament” is a brilliant piece of work by Carl Sagan detailing the costs of nuclear war. From the mass destruction and finality of nuclear weapons, to the fool's bargain we’ve made, and how we only reconcile after lives have been lost it is evident we must do everything in our power to prevent a nuclear war. We, as the human race, have made so many technological advancements to better our lives and improve our environment. However, when it comes to our weapons, it seems we may have gone too far.

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

With all this fear and conspiracy flooding the world, Nations have made efforts to bring down the number of active nukes. A movement known as “Global zero” has gained in strength to attempt just that. It was established in the wake of January 2007 newspaper column by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, william Perry, and Sam nunn, Advocating a nuclear free world (O’hanion 2).

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

As this essay will illustrate, the act of possessing nuclear weapons has a unique stance in the Catholic Church. As seen in the Pastoral Letter, the Church knows how countries came to the decision of possessing nuclear weapons, and that is due to sovereign states possessing the knowledge to produce these weapons, but lack the rational central authority. This caused many dissimilar ethical and unethical decisions about the generation and the act of possessing nuclear weapons. As seen now, with mixed results, this brought the world to the present treacherous situation.

“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.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

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,

In the article, “No Nukes,” Steve Coll, the author, talks of the problem that is worldwide affecting the existence of nuclear affairs, the controversy of the problem, and the downfall of the Global Nuclear-Nonproliferation Regime. With the discussion presented in the article on nuclear affairs, Coll clearly solidifies his position on the subject of the abolition of nukes and makes powerful, argumentative cases, backed up with opinions and facts, for his point of view. Through the citing of the well known figures, in the form of ethos, factual evidence that focuses on foreign affairs and danger, and strong use of words that show strong emotion, Steve Coll constructs a respective, persuasive article in hopes to change some of the audience's views on nukes.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party