The Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons for Deterrence Essay examples

War has been a inseparable part of the human experience. Well for most of our specie’s existence at least. It was always a way to secure your interests when diplomacy hits a brick wall. However throughout the 20th century all that began to change. In this essay I will aim to explain how the perspective of war changed for the individual, the state and globally in the 20th century through reasons such as the democratization, globalization and the rise of more advanced weapons. This research question links with the topic “changing communities” as war affects the smallest community which in my option is the family to the largest which is the global community. The main body paragraphs

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.

The top “contributors” of nuclear proliferation include countries like the United States and Russia (formerly Soviet Union). These two countries were the first to obtain and test nuclear weapons. They are responsible for more than 93% of all operational nuclear warheads. United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea all created nuclear arsenals to attain these weapons of mass destruction. The United States currently possesses approximately 7,650 warheads, Russia has

In order to ascertain the effect that technological advances had on the nature of warfare within this 146 year period, it is necessary to break down the definition of the “nature” of warfare. Within this essay it is understood to mean the ways in which wars were fought. Furthermore, one must also consider the non technological factors that affected the nature of warfare, and the ways in which wars were fought as a result of their impact. For example, factors such as economic power and resources have been known to significantly affect the nature of warfare. In evaluating the importance of these factors in comparison to

Technology, Discipline, Unique System of War Finance, Highly Aggressive Military Tradition, and Emphasis on Innovation are the five principles of the Western Way of War. Having a unique system of war finance, emphasis on innovation, and discipline are the aspects of the western way of war that describe warfare in the age of Napoleon (1789-1815).

Progress and development is a characterizing feature of all facets of the world, with military technology and warfare being no different. Throughout the history of humanity, warfare has evolved in pace with the available technology, proceeding through the stone age into the age of iron, then steel, and into the modern era of warfare characterized largely by the presence of gunpowder. Contemporary warfare however has evolved into something entirely different. Herein, it will be demonstrated that the tactics and technology employed during World War I are fundamentally different than warfare as it is currently practice.

North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons program is a major international crisis. In early September of this year the radical regime of North Korea conducted a Nuclear Weapons test, which broke regional stability and put the world on alert. North Korea continues to test intercontinental ballistic missiles and develop more dangerous nuclear warheads to eventually strategically strike South Korea and the United States. The test was later confirmed by many intelligence agencies as real and extremely powerful. With current policies failing to address the issue of North Korean Nuclear weapons program the international community should implement policies of coercive diplomacy, non-government organization executed soft power or putting pressure on China to end the threat of a nuclear weapons attack.

There are many arguments for and against the reliability of military deterrence. The simplest definition of military deterrence is threatening to use force to discourage another state or country from doing something that is not in your favour. One main example of this in history is the Cold War commencing 1947 – 1991. During the cold war both the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated a large supply of nuclear weapons. It was in the Soviet Union’s interest that they would use the nuclear weapons thus creating a nuclear war and that that it was likely they would fight and win. On the other hand the United States has adopted the theory of nuclear/ military deterrence threatening the Soviet Union with retaliation and punishment if they

This chapter discusses the tactics to support a strong army and navy implementing new advanced weapons to aim the independence of every country. War is a conflict of the armed forces, military and political aspects towards its enemy. The great victory of modernity and the start of new democracy and warfare proved the connection of the military services and political rights which helped discover conflicts and fixed our understanding of the political dimension.

The nature of warfare refers to; the duration of a war, the intensity, the experience of those involved and the arrangement and structure of both the forces and war itself. Over the period of 1845-1991 the nature of warfare undoubtedly evolved due to many aspects and factors. One of the notable developments during this period was the transformation of technology and the role it played in war. However, one must question whether it was the role of technology alone that changed warfare or if other factors were equally influential, these include; economic power, strategies and tactics, leadership, organisation and public attitudes.

Military weapons have highly been feared by many people, but not as much as nuclear weapons. The Manhattan Project was responsible in the creation of the first nuclear bomb; during World War II the U.S. was the first nation to ever drop the bomb on Japan. Thus leading to a nuclear arms race, where many world leaders stated that nuclear weapons protect the world. No, nuclear weapons do not make the world a better place; we need to get rid of nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear terrorism, to avoid nuclear accidents, and to stop the threat of a mass nuclear genocide.

How do military historians explain war? To answer a question like this, one must look to the scholarship. However, works alone cannot explain the total scope of war, which means that historians take from the scholarship, and input what they deem necessary to the explanation of war. The Western experiences of war shaped the outcome of further study into warfare. Authors like Victor Davis Hanson, John Lynn, John Keegan, Martin van Creveld, and Niall Ferguson explain in detail to what extent the Western way of war is superior to any other.

Although the authors have clearly different arguments and areas of focus, they both ultimately demonstrate that the nature of war has fundamentally remained unchanged but, that it is the character of war only that has changed and needs to be addressed for success in modern

Although the character of warfare has changed dramatically, the nature of warfare remains the same – political in nature, with its relations effecting both means and desired

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)