Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Triad

Pro Nuclear warfare should be used when the time is right and a war needs to be ended

There are many nuclear bombing tests that happen throughout each year and it’s extremely unhealthy for the environment let alone if a nuclear war happened. According to scientists, even if a small percentage of the worlds nuclear bombs were set off during a war, it would have an extremely devastating effect on humanity (Jha). Temperatures would drop quickly because there would be so much black smoke in the air that the smoke would absorb

In the aftermath of World War II, tensions heightened between the two dominant powers: America and the USSR. The differences between the ideologies of the communist USSR and the capitalist United States led to a rapid deterioration in relations. The era between 1945, which marked the end of World War II, to 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved, became known as the Cold War due to the fact that despite the lack of large scale conflict, both sides still feared a nuclear holocaust. Both the United States and the Soviet Union followed the military strategy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), meaning that neither side was willing to risk first attack lest the other nation retaliate massively . The fundamental tenet behind MAD that enabled it to serve as an effective deterrent was the idea of secondary strike capability. In essence, it was the ability of a nation to launch a counterattack and thereby ensure mutual destruction. Submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) fulfilled this criteria admirably due to their ability to stay submerged for extended periods of time, the difficulty involved with locating a submarine, and their invulnerability to nuclear missile attacks when submerged. As a result, the United States attempted to corner this leg of the nuclear triad.

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

Since the end of the World War II, the world countries are facing in political hostility characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare called Cold War. Within the nonstop Cold War of the world countries; finally, the World War III will be coming. Unlike the other past big world wars, World War III will be the most disastrous for human life. The reason is because many countries are armed with nuclear weapons. For example, at this time 16 thousand nuclear weapons are stored at sites in fourteen countries and many are ready for immediate use( source : www.icanw.org). These nuclear weapons are more than enough to make the planet uninhabitable. Initial blast of nuclear weapons could

After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers and subsequently a period of tension and hostility arose, known as the Cold War. During this time, a new possibility of complete nuclear destruction that would claim the lives of many emerged, therefore “the easing or relaxing of tensions” on both sides was needed, this period would be known as detente. Both countries had been guaranteed mutually assured destruction as they had both managed to stay ahead in the development of nuclear arsenals. By the late 1960s the Soviets had surpassed the United States in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) by 1,300 to 1,054. Although the U.S was still ahead

After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers and subsequently a period of tension and hostility arose, known as the Cold War. During this time, a new possibility of complete nuclear destruction that would claim the lives of many emerged, therefore “the easing or relaxing of tensions” on both sides was needed, this period would be known as detente. Both countries had been guaranteed mutually assured destruction as they had both managed to stay ahead in the development of nuclear arsenals. By the late 1960s the Soviets had surpassed the United States in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) by 1,300 to 1,054. Although the U.S was still

The Department of Defense oversees all of the nation’s armed forces and this includes those that are specially trained to handle nuclear devices. During the height of the Cold War the leaders of the Department of Defense, constructed a plan to be able to fend off any nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. They came up with what is known as the “Triad.” This Triad is a combination of the Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, the

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each constructed a supply of nuclear weapons. Soviet policy rested on the principle that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The United States embraced nuclear deterrence, the reliable threat of reprisal to prevent enemy attack. To make its threat substantial, the United States during the 1950s established and positioned several types of delivery structures for attacking the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. Each one of these systems came to be known as the Strategic Triad. One part of the triad was a long range manned bomber that would deliver the nuclear warhead. The second would be land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). The third part of this triad was nuclear

Next, America uses missile defence systems to protect us from nuclear attacks. These systems include orbital satellites, naval ships, and platform systems. Platform systems or THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) is a defence system that keeps ICBM

Throughout the 1950's and 60's both superpowers raced to build an arsenal of nuclear bombs (Intro. to the Cold War (1945-1991)). Seeing that the Soviet Union had been building their own nuclear bombs, the United States had their allies building nuclear weapons ("Nuclear Weapons" Lerney. K Lee) and placing them close to Soviet Russia. With both sides producing a mass of nuclear weapons, a thermonuclear war seemed to be around the corner and in 1961 with The Cuban Missile Crisis it seemed like it was going to happen (Intro. to the Cold War (1941-1991)). The United States military had a big play in the Cold War. The Cold War was never a war that had military battle but military influence in certain nations, when the war began, many United States officials wanted to strengthen their military alliance with other nations so that those counties would not turn to communism and form an alliance with the Soviet Union. With the alliance to China, North Korea, and Vietnam to the Soviet Union, the united States responded with military fortification of neutral Asian nations ("Cold War" Gale Encyclopedia of U.S.

After such strides in military achievement, the Soviet's military potential was then placed in an increased position relative to that of the United States. The Continental U.S. would now have fears of, for the first time, being vulnerable to serious damage from air and guided missile attack. The United States losing their monopoly on the nuclear market certainly reduced the effectiveness both militarily and psychologically of the Atlantic Pact. The United States had lost its capability of threatening to make an effective atomic attack upon the war-making potential of the U.S.S.R. without danger of retaliation in kind. Thus, Soviet possession of atomic bombs seriously threatened United States and Allied capabilities for air operations from the United Kingdom as well as other advanced bases. It also put a damper on the ability of and tendency towards amphibious operations against the European continent or other areas within range of Soviet attack.

Detailed histories of each of the established nuclear powers are always welcome. They add to the sparse scholarly record that has depended on a relatively small number of books drawing on declassified documentary records. Edward Kaplan is an associate professor at the US Air Force Academy, and his expertise on US nuclear (atomic) strategy reflects the views of the US Air Force’s (USAF) strategists and their predisposition to air power. Kaplan is reasonably explicit regarding this predisposition. The roles of the USAF, the Strategic Air Command (SAC), and nuclear bombardment in US strategy in the early to mid-Cold War years are discussed early in the book. The USAF and SAC had an actionable strategy for “winning” a war (so long as the other side did not have nuclear capability of its own and a means to deliver it), which is a reflection of the time. Still, I would have liked to see this book set aerial nuclear bombardment debates within the context of what would become ideas of battlefield nuclear weapons as an adjunct to air power—as they developed under President Dwight Eisenhower’s “New Look” strategy of the early 1950s. Interservice rivalry certainly played a part in overall national strategy, both declaratory and operational, as it did in other states, such as Britain and France, but strategic culture also played a part both at the interservice level, within government and treasury debates, and at the foreign policy level. While this complex interplay is present in

Today the United States of America still possess approximately 1,300 tactical nuclear weapons, including about 480 bombs deployed on NATO military bases deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom. In response Russia is estimated to possess at least 3,000 of these generally smaller, portable, but still devastating weapons. It only takes a fifteen-minute alert and the decision by one human being at the touch of the button in the U.S. to deploy hundreds of nuclear warheads. Surely with still such a large number of nuclear weapons still easily accessible, they cannot be strategically obsolete. Robert McNamara says, “It was luck that prevented nuclear war”. He continues: “At the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war.... Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today. The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations”. In the end maybe it was deterrence theory that won out, but from McNamara’s perspective this was not the case. McNamara mentioned in his Fog of War Interview that if it hadn’t have been for John F

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