The Controversy Of Nuclear Weapons Essay

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.

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.

America's decision to drop two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a profound effect on millions of lives of both Americans and the Japanese. Not only did it carry a significant amount of casualties but many American lives were spared. By entering into WWII, there were so many innocent lives that were lost including millions of civilians so when this monstrous war was coming to an end in 1945, I believe that President Harry S. Truman acted on a prompt decision in order to spare many more American lives. As stated in U.S. History in Context, Historians writing closer to 1945 tended to accept President Harry S Truman’s interpretation of events, that an invasion of Japan, which had been badly wounded but was hardly defeated in August 1945, would have cost over one million American lives and many more Japanese (History in dispute, 2000). The same article advises that the atomic bomb, a new weapon developed in such secrecy that Truman, who succeeded to the office on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in April, knew

Perhaps the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. While the sequence of events preceding that fateful summer morning of August 6,1945 are fully understood, the motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy. Top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a horrendous weapon, while the obvious advantages to the bomb, traditionalists argue, was a shortened Pacific War. Parallactic views between traditional beliefs and revisionist theories suggest that the issue is still very much unresolved. Why is the issue so hotly debated? Partially because of the overwhelming

President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this

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.

Every American president makes decisions with enormous repercussions for the future. Some of these decisions prove successful; others turn out to be blunders. In virtually every case, presidents must act with contradictory advice and limited information. At 8:15 a.m., August 6, 1945, an American B-29 released an atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan. Within minutes, Japan’s eighth largest city was destroyed. By the end of the year, 140,000 people had died from the bomb’s effects. After the bombing was completed, the United States announced that Japan faced a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which had never been seen on this earth." Background: In 1939, Albert Einstein, writing on behalf physicist Leo Szilard and other leading physicists,

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of 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

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.

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 Islamic Republic of Iran’s conquest for nuclear energy technology commenced during the 1950’s, inspired by U.S President Dwight Eisenhower’s program called “Atoms for Peace”. This program fabricated a plan in which the U.S Atomic Energy Commission would lend Iran as much as 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium in order to further develop their nuclear industries, including health care and medicine.i Two years following the agreement, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi established the Tehran Nuclear Research Center at the Tehran University, and the United States to arranged to supply a five-megawatt reactor. Several years later, in July of 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

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