Nuclear War : Power Versus Peace Essay

"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society - shrunk into one community with a common fate - finds itself, but only a few acts accordingly. Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragicomedy this is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world. But on that stage, on which the actors under the floodlights play their ordained parts, our fate of tomorrow, life or death of the nations, is being decided. It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by man himself, such as the atomic bomb and other means of mass destruction equally

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

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.

August 6, 1945. The day the world and warfare were changed forever. After the first nuclear warhead was dropped, humanity was, and will forever be on the brink of destruction. A single press of a button could end humanity as we know it, bringing total chaos and destruction to the earth. Nuclear weapons are considered to show the power of a country, have nearly been set off due to a false alarm, nuclear weapons are vulnerable to cyberterrorism, and if set off will surely bring an end to the world as we know it.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Although many people carry on with their daily life half indifferent and half frightened, their tomorrow’s fate solely lies in their thoughts, actions and decisions at the current time. “The Menace of Mass Destruction” is a speech that was previously given by Albert Einstein to the General Assembly and the Security arm of the United Nations during the second yearly dinner of the Foreign Press Association. Ideally, the speech is among the most influential speeches ever given because it addresses critical issues that threaten human peace, outlines the reasons for the mishaps, and provides adequate solutions to their problems. The speech is the most effective since it focuses on the real issues affecting today’s generations that in turn determines the future generations’ peace and stability. In addition, it gives guidelines into how different nations can live peacefully without posing threats to the future generations.

World War II ended suddenly as America destroyed two Japanese cities not with traditional strategic bombing, yet with the extremely powerful atomic bombs. As a result of dropping the atomic bombs, the world was thrust into the nuclear age. Just a few short years after World War II, the Korean War started. The Korean War challenged many assumptions held about war within a nuclear era. Three of the assumptions challenged were that nuclear weapons would deter war, that war would not be limited, and finally, that the Soviet Union would be America’s next military enemy.

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.

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.

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.”

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

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,

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