The Nuclear Debate On 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

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

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.

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction

The creation of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were not originally intended as a War-Ending weapon, far from that. Regardless of the reason for its creation, it has left a profound mark on humanity as a whole. While in its infancy the fission weapons were able to destroy small cities, but only after a decade a tested fusion bomb was 750 times more powerful. These weapons of mass destruction ended the war, but not without consequences.

Soon after the Second World War, the two emerging super powers being the United States and Soviet Union began a 50-yearlong hostility known as the Cold War. The Cold War was simply a state of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union over issues of political influence and economic policy. A big characteristic of the Cold War was the arms race it caused. Initially, after the Second World War, only the United States had atomic bombs. But, in 1949, the Soviets successfully tested a bomb of their own, and the race began. Both sides began making more and more bombs, to the point of absurdity. Many people in the scientific community feared that this proliferation of these weapons could result in a thermonuclear war that could wipe mankind entirely. A noted figure in this fear was Albert Einstein. He was convinced that the only way to stop the risk of war and destruction was the act of nonproliferation and disarmament. He was quoted as saying “The war is won, but the peace is not”, (American Museum of Natural History). Within the context of geopolitical competition and tension, a claim can be made that previous decisions to stockpile nuclear weapons are disastrous in nature, and that these decisions ought to be reversed to protect the world from the risk of

The event that I chose to discuss is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe that this event is worth studying because it was the first and only time that an atomic bomb had been used in war. The significance of this event can be seen from different sides and affected not only future policies, national security, the future of energy development, and health related issues. This event is said to have ended World War II, and at the same time started the cold war. The bombs were said to have ultimately killed over 700,000 Japanese people (Nash, 2014). New medical and mental illnesses occurring due to dropping the bomb and radiation, and also starting new threats of nuclear attack throughout the world and the continued threat of creating and use of the atomic bombs. With the use of the atomic bomb, the world considered countries that had the power of the atomic bomb to be a superpower and countries like Russia wouldn’t let the U.S. be the only ones who had this power. Russia would build an atomic bomb and the threat of war was now considered to be fought with nuclear annihilation.

The realist acknowledged the concept of deterrence is compelling. The prepositions included that deterrence is a psychological-political concept with well declared intentions and the principal purpose of nuclear weapons is to preclude large scale war among major powers and not expected to prevent most forms of tactical conflicts and effective deterrence entails continuous technological advancements; presumably could lead to arms race in a classical sense to retain balance of power. It does not require piling up nuclear arsenals, as posturing to use even a small force is sufficient to convince adversary to believe that it could be matched to inflict sizeable destruction of population centers and industrial base translating into unbearable cost. The ever advancing complex nuclear technologies creeps uncertainties and put planners in a dilemma to balance force.

The advancing technology and knowledge about the atomic power shifted culture and consciousness of the people. The likelihood of a nuclear war was close, but far; this possibility was a terrifying suddenness. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly portrayed the power of only two atomic bombs. The attack completely obliterated the two cities and killed millions of people. Although Japan’s surrender contributed to the Allies’ victory during World War II, the effects of the bomb were unforgettable. The use of these bombs also created controversy on whether it was moral and justifiable to kill millions of people in order to end a war. It was consequently with no time when people began to wonder what new bombs would do to create greater

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 theory of Realism provides reasons why North Korea has positioned the nuclear weapon debate at the centre of its policy. One of the fundamental assumptions of Realism is in fact that each state, embedded in an international order characterized by a condition of antagonism, attempt to pursue its

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)