The Disastrous Consequences of a Nuclear War

“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

The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 to foreshadow the end of a long and bloody war. It killed an estimation of eighty thousand people with its detonation; one of the finest instruments of murder humanity has managed even to this day. Its presence was a catalyst. Decades after its first showing, World Powers across the globe continue the escalating stockpilation of their nuclear arsenals. In 1978 however, Canada came to an executive decision to rid itself of its nuclear weaponry. Canada acknowledged the mounting tensions of the nuclear competition and its potential to lead to war, as well as what the ramifications of such a war could mean for earth’s inhabitants—extinction—and decided, with its reputation and connections,

Three days later, after Japan failed to heed our cry for surrender, we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki, killing another 40,000. This was quite possibly one of the most questionable acts during World War II, if not during the modern era.While on one hand, Japan wasn’t going to surrender without one hell of a fight and this act saved millions of young american lives, it also negatively affected that many japanese in one way or another. However this ethical dilemma wasn’t the driving force behind this essay. Rather it was astounding success of the Manhattan project. Scientists from all over the globe came together against a common enemy and managed something spectacular. Before the war, nuclear anything was in its infancy. However, together these physicists and engineers and rocket scientists managed to break down a new frontier. While it would be immoral to condone the creation of such a destructive device, one can’t deny its purpose. It saved lives and brought to an end a war that had gone on too

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 third and final proposal is taking greater action on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to confirm all nations are on the same playing field to dismantle nuclear weaponry. I plan on providing updated analysis in these issues as well. The Seventh Decade was written in 2007 and a lot has gone on since then in regards to nuclear activity and I plan on making it clear to the reader where the U.S. and the rest of the world stands.

The Cold War was the greatest example of Nuclear Deterrence in history. The U.S. and Russia, had threatened nuclear war as a deterrence for almost fifty years. Next, we will evaluate logical fallacies, inform what it means to be a Strategic Airmen as well as how this course maintains my strategic focus in the conclusion.

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

I have many reasons on why the United States of America should maintain Nuclear Weapons. Out of these many reason there will be three for this paper. The world is in grave danger by Nuclear Weapons, so it needs to be explained what could happen and more.

“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.”

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 U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.