Policy Memo For Nuclear Weapons Essay

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

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 are currently 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world which is enough to destroy the entire human civilization twice” (Time for Change). The United States and Russia own 95% of them. Currently there are nine countries that obtain nukes: (US, Russia, India, China, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea). Before the production of nuclear weapons, war could be fought normally, could be conducted with an acceptable cost to the victor. Since most of the actual war could be fought and won on enemy grounds. After all, with the appearance of nuclear weapons and the dread of mutually assured destruction, wars happening now days are less likely to happen, because they would cause incomprehensible destruction to both the victor and the loser. Any perceived benefits of war are compensated by the possibility of astronomic costs. Serious-mindedness Nuclear weapons have assured our security for some time.

The United States alone spends billions of dollars a year on nuclear weapons, while other countries do the same. This diverts from more important funds that could be put in effect to help those living in the country. While important human resourcing programs and groups devoted to improving people’s quality of life get less funding, billions of dollars are being used to maintain thousands of deadly weapons not in use. It is not logical for a country to carry thousands of nuclear weapons at a time, because even a couple will have enough effect to destroy countries. One would say that the United States needs to keep this power. The United States alone is the leading country with the largest military expense by a vast margin. Taking away weapons that are able to destroy the planet hundreds of times over will not weaken military power within the country.

With many nations around the world currently spending a great deal of capital on their military, it is evident that an arms race is recurring once again in history. This being the 21st century, many countries are becoming heavily focused on nuclear weapons more than anything else. The question is why is an arms race building up in the first place. One reason could be because of the international competition between nations. While this may be a general reasoning, different nations ostensibly have their own motives. However, one compelling factor regarding this is that it can generate an international conflict, a statement that is also addressed in the article "Is Nuclear Armageddon More Likely than Ever?" (by The Week Staff).

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

Banning nuclear weapons may sound like a good idea, but what if all nuclear weapons were banned only to have one country secretly develop and launch one? How would the rest of the world fight against them? The bad guys by definition don’t follow the rules. Nuclear weapons can also be good for more than just attacking; they may even save lives by one country having possession of them. They can also give a country more negotiating power. Nuclear weapons were first developed in America because of Albert Einstein’s letter to F.D.R. telling him about the Germans’ attempts to make a missile powerful enough to “destroy an entire port and some of the surrounding territory.” F.D.R. then got together a group of scientists to develop one first. The

In the year of 1945, America tested its first nuclear weapon in New Mexico. It also was the first country to ever develop this nuclear weapon. Ever since then, it has been the world’s biggest threat. Building a nuclear weapon requires great expenses, can bring fear into people’s lives and kill millions of people. Some say nuclear weapons can assist those who are in need of defending themselves, it’s true but we mustn't forget that they are still weapons and can be used with no hesitation to kill their targets. Innocent families die because of these violent devices. Is this right? Will killing solve anything? I believe nuclear weapons are killing devices and shouldn’t be used in war.

The North Korean government continues to financially fund the research and testing of nuclear and ballistic missiles. Little information is known about the North Korean nuclear program and has been made available to foreign nations due to the secrecy and isolation of international affairs. The threat of a nuclear strike from North Korea has become an increasingly serious matter for many nations including the U.S. and its Asian allies, Japan and South Korea. Currently, there are only nine nations known by intelligent analysis that possesses the resources to manufacture nuclear weapons which do include the U.S. However, North Korea is the only nation in the 21st century to conduct a nuclear missile test that has been reported by North Korean

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.

It’s 2028 and the two nuclear giants are fighting against each other. Thousands dead, buildings in ashes and many hopes destroyed. Yet the worst is yet to come. The temperature of the world is decreasing to new records and is staying like that for many years to come. This is a nuclear winter that many scientists have predicted for decades. A nuclear weapon uses either uranium or plutonium. They work by using a nuclear reaction which breaks down an atom or nucleus into two pieces. This process produces a significant amount of energy which leads to an explosion. (Chan) A nuclear weapon can also be as big as a refrigerator or as small as a warhead. (Daniel) The first nuclear weapon was made in the 1930s known as the “Manhattan Project” made by the U.S. This project was suspended after Hitler was killed, but the U. S. used the weapon due to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. This attack put the U. S. in a rage, so the U. S had a plan to use the weapon and another nuclear weapon. The U. S dropped a bomb named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, which followed with the biggest explosion ever witnessed. Then the U. S dropped another bomb. (Lemouse) This was the first and last time anyone used a nuclear bomb, for now. While several people in the government and regular citizens argue that nuclear weaponry is stopping from giving any threats, but nuclear weaponry is actually causing an environmental turmoil and a radiation that will affect everyone in the vicinity for many ages to come.

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 Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

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)

Art, Robert J and Waltz, Kenneth N“Technology, Strategy and Uses of Force” (University Press of America, 1983)