The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate

Within our global political arena, many parties have varying motivations keen on improving their national repute and military ability, but it essential to the preservation of ourselves and our planet to think objectively about the consequences of uninhibited and ever-advancing military possibilities. We must learn from the past to be able to better prepare for the future. We have witnessed the pervasive harm that has come from the irresponsible use of nuclear arms. This has instilled in modern cultures worldwide a wariness about these weapons. We recognize the importance of keeping military technology in check in order to prevent another arms race and to mitigate current rivalries and instabilities within the global political arena. Treaties such as the NPT demonstrate the unanimous consensus of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and the CTBT emphasizes the stark contrast between states which have little interest in ever conducting nuclear weapons research and those which view their ability to test nuclear technologies as essential to remaining global military and political powerhouses. All states, however, regardless of their ambitions with nuclear technology, are aware of the repercussions of the proliferation and use of these weapons, and recognize the importance in continuing to regulate both peaceful

Like many other decisions made by governments, the choice of keeping nuclear weapons poses many questions. Why do we need them? When will we use them? What do they do? The general answers to these questions, as explained by the governments around the world, are:

Since conception, nuclear technology has symbolized an indomitable source of power and wartime security. The repercussions of the irresponsible usage of nuclear weapons and reactors has been crippling to victim nations, destroying urban centers and irradiating whole swathes of land, rendering them uninhabitable. The consensus of hesitation regarding intentionally destructive nuclear technologies has led to the drafting of ample legislation in order to restrict their use and to stop further development of evermore pernicious applications of this technology. Many groups throughout the years have called for total nuclear disarmament, but that is a quixotic proposition now that the cat’s out of the bag. Diplomatic attempts have aimed at preempting the development of more advanced applications and thwarting unauthorized research, but the constant progression of technology often outpaces the speed with which diplomatic agreements can be contrived and enacted. Nonetheless, peace-promoting organizations have worked vigilantly to regulate and control the spread of benevolent nuclear applications while ostracizing and inhibiting states that overstep international precedent and threaten nuclear annihilation. Legislation such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Many international relations theorists have speculated about the effects of nuclear weapon development; while some argue that weapons of mass destruction promote peace, others believe that humanity should not have the capability to cause so much destruction. This debate has been renewed by the Iran Nuclear Deal, which involves western states placing sanctions on Iran to diminish Iran’s nuclear program. I argue that, while constructivist and liberal paradigms may hold some validity, their perspectives are too optimistic and do not consider the root of the problem—power struggle. Thus, analyzing the situation from a realist perspective is the only rational approach.

Many US policy-makers and international relations scholars argued that states seek to develop nuclear weapons when they face a significant military threat to their security and this cannot be met through alternative means. If these nations seeking for nuclear weapon do not face such threat, they will willingly and extemporaneously remain non-nuclear states.

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader in Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects of conflict and nuclear weaponry coexisting with humanity, these warnings have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. As Israel and Iran have different religious ideologies, this has created tension and conflict to occur, but more recently, in relation to nuclear weaponry, their conflict has worsened into that, of a modern day cold war.

To begin, it should be understood that this analysis focuses on alternative possibilities and therefore impossible to prove or disprove. Instead, this should be viewed as a play on facts and behaviors of the states involved and applies arguments made by different theorists regarding nuclear weapons.

The nuclear peace theory is the idea that nuclear weapons can reduce or even prevent conflicts between nations. The American political scientist and neorealist Kenneth N. Waltz who has served in both world war 2 and the Korean war argues that more nations should obtain nuclear armaments. Waltz argued that nuclear proliferation would serve to bolster world peace not threaten it, as these weapons would serve as a deterrent to any escalation in conflicts between nations (Munro,2016). A major component to nuclear peace theory is that of Nuclear Deterrence. Nuclear Deterrence is a military strategy that uses nuclear weapons as tool to deter or discourage any potential aggression by foes, no matter how more powerful they may be. Nuclear deterrence

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.

As Albert Einstein said in 1946, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” (Harris and Bender, 12). The development of nuclear weapons shook and is still shaking the international system down to its core. Never before has there been a weapon developed that could effectively obliterate if not the world, an entire state, with a few clicks of a button. Above the issues of nationalism and great power conflict, nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to global stability in the near future because of the possibility of accidents and misunderstandings between nuclear states, a deterrence system based on instability and bluffing, and the chance that nuclear weapons will land in the hands of terrorist organizations.

The creation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons has raised many issues over the years. Some include the ethics of making them or when it is moral enough to use them. Another issue is what safeguards a country has that another country will not use these types of weapons on it. This problem can be solved by the idea of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the idea that an enemy is dissuaded to use nuclear weapons on another country because of some action that will happen. There are many different theories of nuclear deterrence. However, this paper will focus on the three theories known as MAD, NUT, and existentialist by explaining them and then evaluating these theories.

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.

Initially, it is important to clarify that necessity is an ‘indispensable thing’ , however, that can be down to perception and the rationale of the individual. The author believes the security of any state is the most important reason why a country has a nuclear weapon, this is based on a theory of realism, where it is believed that the international system is anarchic and states will do what needs to be done to protect their security. This reflects a need of being and feeling secure, where a nation will always want to do what is best to guarantee their safety. North Korea is an example of this. They state their reason for nuclear weapons is deterrence due to the threat of aggression from other countries around them, notably USA.

Did you know that nine countries hold all 15,375 nuclear weapons on Earth? (World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile). Nuclear weapons are harmful to the environment, and of the 15,375 on Earth today, most are many times more powerful and harmful than the ones dropped on Japan in 1945. Nuclear weapons are harmful to the environment, and can affect the detonation area for years to come; therefore, we should institute an international committee to control nuclear weapon use.

Nuclear weapons play a significant role in our understanding of international relations. They are the weapons that shape the most powerful governments in the world. These weapons act most often offensively because they are