Unintended Nuclear Attacks

Later on, when the United States decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. The places that were targeted were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The aftermath of these weapons were extremely devastating and shocked everyone in the world. Especially the USSR, who feared that the United States might turn around and use this weapon on them. The USSR knew that the bomb was one of their strong weaknesses. They would have virtually no way to stop this from happening. This scared the USSR so much that they were really unsure how to deal with the situation that has been placed in front of them. With this it might be fair to say that the USA might have provoked the USSR with this bomb and tried to create a fear within their military. But on the other hand, the USSR could easily be accused of over reacting to the bomb and jumped to conclusions that the USA might use it on them.“With great power, comes great responsibility(Kort 35).” Micheal Kort says this in his novel, The Cold War when he says this he is saying that when power (like the power of an atomic bomb or a great nation) is given to you, it is not free. You need to be responsible with it, and never abuse it.

was the Americans use of nuclear warfare justified in their bid for world peace? President of the

As stated by Davidson and Lytle, the actual meaning of the fact of dropping the bomb actually had quite practical hidden motifs. The authorities of the US claimed that they would need to intervene as far as “the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond

The United States’ dropping of the nuclear bomb, a weapon of mass destruction, in an effort to quickly take Japan out of the war had many more side effects than originally anticipated. For one, it incited the Soviet Union to fast-track their research and production of nuclear weapons, which led to a tense situation between them and the United States. Each side was waiting for the other to initiate before putting to use the many nukes they had been manufacturing after the end of World War II. Although, the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, prevented either side from taking

For the 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worry and Love the Bomb” shows a story that has a crazy United States Air Force general who orders all of his army to have a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union going behind the presidents back without getting his approval. The film has two important characters which include the President of the United States and the United States Air Force general. The president has to work with the Russian leader so they can try and recall the bombers to prevent a nuclear disaster caused by the dropping of the atomic

Amid the Cold War, the danger of atomic weapons put the destiny of millions in the hands of a couple of individuals. Be that as it may, reacting to today 's difficulties, the dangers of terrorism and normal debacles requires the wide engagement of common society. The terrorists ' picked battlegrounds are liable to be possessed by regular folks, not warriors. What 's more, more than the loss of honest lives is in question: an atmosphere of apprehension and a feeling of feebleness despite misfortune are undermining confidence in American goals and powering political demagoguery (van Rensburg, Pearson & Meyer, 2015). Maintaining the United States ' worldwide administration and financial aggressiveness eventually relies on upon reinforcing the

Nuclear deterrence was a key component of American security during the Cold War. The nuclear stockpiles accumulated by the United States and Soviet Union throughout this time period produced a situation of mutual deterrence. The catastrophic risks of a nuclear strike kept the countries from all-out war. In the aftermath of the Cold War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union took steps to reduce their nuclear arsenal, first in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty (INF) then with START I (Pifer, Bush, et al, p. 8, 2010). New START, like its predecessors continues the bipartisan process of reducing U.S. and Russian strategic arms. In doing so, the Treaty presents several key benefits to U.S. national security.

A nuclear action could be started accidentally and both parties engaged would suffer a great deal of unacceptable collateral damage, which would eventually affect neutral countries. The strategist of the nuclear conflict came from two schools of thought. The first was the nuclear strategist, which sought an effective strategy for the eventual deployment of nuclear weapons. The second strategist is the arms controller, which sought to make the world safer by controlling and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons. The United States overall sided with the arms controller in order to eventually rid the world of its nuclear threat.

Views on the matter taken from the public or congressional perspective are limited except where expressed in the stance of particular high ranking military officials of the period. He argues that while the threat of such massive escalation in any conflict was indeed a powerful if not totally dominating trump card, the cost and logistical planning of such an attack was staggering, so much so that politicians and bureaucrats could not properly plan ahead. He contrasts this with the USAF’s ready plans to target strategic locations, appropriately limit collateral damage, and their near immediate response in developing better equipment and specialized vehicles to specifically suit atomic weapons usage. Conversely, Kaplan’s narrow coverage of the perspective and operations of the USAF leave much to be speculated upon in terms of the Soviet stance on the implementation of nuclear weapons. The mention of advancement of technology in the Soviet Union such as the launch of Sputnik and the development of ICBMs are primarily used to segue between subjects in the book and are rarely ever expanded upon or analyzed in a way that provides sufficient context for the massive atomic mobilization being carried out by the USAF. This leaves the dense and focused information without much ground for support as a completely internal data

Nuclear weapons were a crucial aspect throughout the history of the Cold War. Scientific and military development in the early 20th Century had demonstrated the potential of atoms and other properties to create large-scale nuclear weapons. The developments of the arms race within the context of World War I and World War II further led to the emergence of nuclear weapons for combat. Countries such as the United States, USSR, and Britain also sought to create effective nuclear weapons. Subsequently, the major application of nuclear weapons emerged when the US dropped two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Whereas President Truman mainly sought to protect Americans from further deaths by launching atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the USSR posed a different question. Did Truman consciously drop the bombs to intimidate the USSR? Therefore, the Soviet Union interpreted the use of these nuclear weapons as an anti-Soviet move. This further set the basis of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race between the two countries. In this case, the United States use of nuclear weapons in the Second World War was crucial to intimidate the USSR and its emerging global dominance to set the foundation for the emergence of the Cold War.

Although Japan instigated America’s decision to declare war, this justification cannot be applied to the usage of nuclear weapons on

To understand nuclear deterrence at first we need to understand that what actually deterrence is. Deterrence is something which actually deters someone of conducting certain things. Deterrence can be understood by two terms. One is threat of punishment and another one is denial. Threat of punishment requires punishment and says that if anyone does something which goes against my interest he or she will have to pay the price and whatever benefit he gets I will make sure that the cost which he will have to pay that will be greater than the benefit. Denial states that I will deny that persons full objective. Whatever he is intended to achieve I will deter him and he will not be able to achieve his full objective and again the cost will be greater than the benefit. I am deterring someone from attacking me.

Warfare, has been used throughout the centuries by kings, emperors, and rulers to protect their land and more so their people. There are two types of warfare, one being that of traditional warfare which generally, consists of leaders using mass armies to conquer the opposing side, however, changes in technologies and weapons meant that leaders had to rethink the way in which they fought battles. The use of gunpowder weapons changed the way in which battles were fought dating back as early as the late 13th century with the introduction of the bronze-barrelled cannon (Rietbergen, 1998). Bacon argues that with the introduction of the new technology, the way in which the state observes the rest of the world has changed. That is, trade routes

I had found a video on YouTube for Nuclear Attack Preparedness Procedures and family fallout shelters from the 1960’s American Civil Defense. In the video, it describes how to build and stock a bomb shelter and family fallout shelters. The video states that if people took simple precautions that they could protect themselves. A basement can work as a great shelter, if it is constructed of 8 inch concrete walls. Here are some things to do to keep you and your loved ones safe in case of a nuclear attack. Put a sufficient mass between yourself and the fallout shelter. Each shelter needs to have adequate air vents in them. This mass can include brick, sand, or concrete. These will work the best. The best way to keep safe is to have an approved

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