The Importance Of Nuclear Weapons

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

When scientists discovered the power of nuclear fission, the new technology was applied to invent the atomic bomb in the early 1940’s. Only a few years later, it was utilized in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6, 1945. Due to the immense destruction it caused, there has been no use of nuclear warfare ever since. Though it seems that nuclear weapons are things of the past, “the threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the severest tests facing the international system in the early twenty-first century” (“Nuclear Weapons” 1898). The effects and strength of nuclear weapons are more powerful now than they were before.

The world has slowly been transforming into a hostile environment, especially with the growing threat of nuclear attacks. To create a foundation for the understanding of the global issue, one must comprehend that nuclear proliferation is the spreading of nuclear research, materials, and weapons to Non-Nuclear Weapons States. Many world leaders have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will lead to unavoidable tensions and conflicts. As a result, countries signed the non-nuclear proliferation treaty in 1968, which came into force in 1970 (“Nuclear Weapons Timeline”). One of the countries that luckily took charge in the movement, was the United States. From the signing of the treaty to present day, the U.S. has strongly opposed nuclear

Nuclear weapons are used for many different reasons. A lot of times, people assume that their country’s nuclear weapons are used for war and intimidation. This statement is true in some cases, but it is not the only thing they are used for. In the late twentieth century, nuclear weapons played an important role in International security. Political change and advancing technology suggest that the strategies of nuclear forces will be different in the twenty-first century. Nuclear weapons are to this day hold the “supreme” title in the military today. They are not used for attacks. Nuclear weapons are used for defense and counterattacks.

The potential damage of nuclear weapons caused a dramatic change in warfare. “Unlike tanks or aircraft, the impact of nuclear weapons on international security is mainly about ideas. To a considerable extent, nuclear military power is a thinking experiment, and nuclear war a war of thoughts.” Strategic warfare produces better results than attacking another country and harming civilians, and nuclear weapons have been great for peaceful resolutions.

“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.” (Oppenheimer). This infamous quote comes from J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “Father of the Atomic bomb”, describing the reaction of observers watching the first successful test of an atomic bomb. Oppenheimer was correct, nuclear weapons have changed the world. However, whether that change has been for better or for worse is a topic for debate. While nuclear weapons do have the capability of causing massive death and destruction, one must not ignore the fact that they can also be used to prevent death.

Countless individuals assert that nuclear weapons are vital shields for the planet. They claim that nuclear weapons are disincentive, and prevent the world from breaking out in total bloodshed. Nuclear weapons have had a large impact on the world, but have we gone too far in nuclear weapon proliferation? Are they doing more harm than good? Many claims that nuclear weapons have been keeping peace and creates a feeling of security. However, the effects of Nuclear weapons appear to be more miserable than vigorous. Nuclear explosions produce both immediate and delayed violent effects. Blast, thermal radiation, and ionizing radiation cause significant destruction within seconds or minutes of a nuclear action. The delayed effects, such as radioactive fallout and other environmental effects, cause damage over a continuous period ranging from hours even to years. The world's first nuclear weapons explosion on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico, when the United States tested its first nuclear bomb. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It killed or wounded nearly 130,000 people. Three days later, the United States bombed Nagasaki. Of the 286,00-people living there at the time of the blast, 74,000 were killed and another 75,000 sustained severe injuries. Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945; it also resulted in the end of World War II. In subsequent years, the United States, the Soviet Union and Great

Although nuclear weapons have obvious scientific and political effects, cultural effects on society can also be observed. Since the world first saw the power of nuclear weapons in 1945, their role in culture (in America and across the world) has grown as time went on. Nuclear weapons have bred fear across the world, and the threat of mutually assured destruction still ominously hangs over us, even today. In popular culture, nuclear weapons remain a popular theme, and many highly rated films or other forms of media, such as Dr. Strangelove, revolve around nuclear weapons. Post-bomb society has shown a desire for peace, and the de-nuclearization of countries in possession of nuclear weapons, and culture has reflected this. However, society has also expressed a desire for nuclear weapons to remain, for fear of other countries’ nuclear capabilities. Although both sides have a point, through mutual understanding and an expressed desire for peace around the world, denuclearization can be a viable option for peace.

In a split second, a single atomic bomb can wipe out and level an entire city. For what purpose do nuclear weapons serve other than to kill and destroy? Therefore, nuclear weapons should not be produced, much less used, anywhere on Earth. They are incredibly dangerous and devastating to human life, cause social tension between countries during times of war, and leave toxic radiation in the environment that fatally affects nearby life for decades after.

In this essay, the focus will be on whether or not nuclear weapons should continue to be produced, or if dismantling the world’s stockpiles would be the better decision.  There is a lot of conflict going on around the world at this time. My family lived in an area where there are a lot of people from the Middle East, so we hear a lot that tensions are extremely high.  Luckily, the majority of countries that have the stockpiles of nuclear weapons are not really involved to the point of even considering them as far as society knows.  Even though it is obvious that the cons outweigh the pros, but that does not mean that nothing good has come from , or nuclear weapons themselves.

In the past century, nuclear bombs have played an essential role in world politics and influenced the dynamics of warfare. The nuclear bomb possesses the capability of destroying an entire city in a matter of seconds. No other weapon would be capable of accomplishing that goal. Some people may say that because of the catastrophic and world-ending possibilities that the nuclear bomb would cause, future wars would be prevented. This point-of-view does not take into consideration that if a full-scale nuclear war would begin, the human population would be eliminated and may render the Earth uninhabitable. With tensions building between nuclear wielding countries growing higher, a nuclear war is pending. Because of the tremendous environmental

In a speech to the US Congress, Winston Churchill once said, “Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands” (1952). Although said more than 60 years ago, this quote brings up a common controversial issue argued perhaps more today than ever before: the existence of nuclear weapons. Each opposing side feels that either the existence or the proliferation of nuclear weapons will lead to global chaos and destruction on a scale larger than ever before. In a global situation like this, the United States is commonly looked to as a leader, because of the high number of nuclear weapons that they possess. In response to this, the United States should not pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament at home and abroad.

When nuclear weapons were created everyone was amazed by it. It was a huge accomplishment. The first nuclear weapons were used in the cold war. Soon after that they were used in about every war. Till this day they are still used because it helps not having wars go on for so long but is it worth causing all this damage?

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has had a major impact on how states operate both domestically and internationally. Moreover, the potential consequences to states possessing nuclear weapons (one of the three types of weapons of mass destruction) have caused a contentious divide between those who support the possession of nuclear weapons and those who are vehemently against it. While some states believe that nuclear weapons pose a lethal threat to innocent civilians and undermine international security. Others argue that nuclear weapons are what ensure international security. In particular, the deterrence theory argues that the presence of nuclear weapons deters states from engaging in war with each other for the fear that the opposing state will retaliate with nuclear weapons (Lindamood, 2016). Thus, states would rather settle their differences than suffer the consequences of a nuclear war. In light of the deterrence theory, one can argue that the world would never be global zero or “a world without nuclear weapons” (Lindamood, 2016). States with nuclear weapons will want to maintain their security and relative power by keeping nuclear weapons while states looking to improve their security and relative power will want to obtain nuclear weapons. For the interests of improving security and increasing one’s relative power, states will continue to possess and proliferate nuclear weapons, making global zero impossible.