Why Conflict Is Wrong

“There are currently 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world which is enough to destroy the entire human civilization twice” (Time for Change). The United States and Russia own 95% of them. Currently there are nine countries that obtain nukes: (US, Russia, India, China, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea). Before the production of nuclear weapons, war could be fought normally, could be conducted with an acceptable cost to the victor. Since most of the actual war could be fought and won on enemy grounds. After all, with the appearance of nuclear weapons and the dread of mutually assured destruction, wars happening now days are less likely to happen, because they would cause incomprehensible destruction to both the victor and the loser. Any perceived benefits of war are compensated by the possibility of astronomic costs. Serious-mindedness Nuclear weapons have assured our security for some time.

“War. War never changes,” Is a water downed quote from Einstein which is a very true

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.

Nuclear weapons have been used for intimidation and power amongst countries around the world. Even till this day, there is news of tension and oppression between countries for power and use nuclear weapons in order acquire the upper head. But in reality, if the world ever goes on the brink of an all out nuclear war, everyone would be dust flowing in the wind. Author Arthur C. Clarke speaks against nuclear weapons in his book 2001: A Space Odyssey. In his book, the message that he tries convey is that technology is advancing rapidly, and the use of it could be either beneficial, or can ultimate be the cause of the destruction of the human race. Its where have to look at our priorities and see what can be used for the greater good.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”-Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was a prominent twentieth century physicist who remarked, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Mr. Einstein was a distinguished figure in World War II. He was part of the Manhattan Project: the project that created the atomic bomb. This quote is important in the contemporary world because we reside in a world of perpetual warfare. Today, there are always threats of a World War III. I do not recognize exactly what weapons will be used, but there is a weapon that is capable of obliterating the entire Earth. It is the atomic bomb and has the power to decimate all of mankind. If used, the unconquerable bomb will wreak havoc and exterminate the whole Earth.

The presence and development of nuclear weapons dictated a necessary shift to our strategic thinking. There was a necessity for a broader understanding in terms of security, war and deterrence with the rise of new technologies capable to put at risk human safety. The presence of new elements at the time to analyze and direct our strategies, became a clear evidence that our traditional conceptions had change and there was an increasing necessity for new ones to be put in place. The theories of Carl Von Clausewitz's and his views on war such as “a continuation of policy by other means” was no longer our most effective tool, as that absolute war characteristic of previous conflicts such as World War I and World War II, will now represent total destruction.

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”(Margaret Thatcher). Although this quote sounds ridiculous, it is absolutely right. Arguments have been made by President Obama that “nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to U.S. security.” However, history proves that weapons of mass destruction whether– biological, nuclear, chemical or radioactive, are a necessary evil to sustain global stability, deter attacks from rogue nations and encourage diplomacy.

In his prediction, Einstein mentions that he does not know what weapons World War III to show that weaponry revolutionizes mysteriously. Moreover, Einstein focuses on the idea that the war following World War III, World War IV, will be fought with minor arms to represent that the world is leading its own downfall. As the inventor of the atomic bomb, Einstein probably believed that society would destroy itself because he recognized that there is both a positive and negative side to weaponry; it can be modified to an extent. It is also likely that Einstein believes that as society becomes more advanced with technology and arms it can easily fall apart. War, itself, destroys the simplicity of life and brings the fate of humanity to an unclear ending.

“It is a near miracle that nuclear war has so far been avoided.” This opinion is that of Noam Chomsky, an American philosopher and linguist. He believes it is amazing how humans have kept from using their most powerful weapons in order to destroy their enemies. That “miracle” is the various nuclear policies of the world. After the invention of the nuclear warhead, nuclear policy has become one of the most important aspects in keeping the world as we know it. In order for there to create an environment for positive diplomacy between countries, governments must decrease the number of warheads in the world, not increase them.

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

Further contrast towards these ideas is apparent in the modern societies of 2016. Nearly every assault in the Middle East increases the threat of a radical uprising in adjacent states. Imagine the consequences of an air attack , let alone an atomic bomb. Okuda asks the perfect question relation to these topics, "How can we avoid this type of warfare from this point forward, whether carried out by nations or by individuals taking up weapons?" Thankfully, that question was answered shortly after the events of Japan. The United Nations formed an official treaty preventing the Great Powers of the world from using atomic warfare. Upon a violation, the nations partake in mutually assured destruction. Nobody wins in this terrifying situation, but

“If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows” Lord Mountbatten. This quotes, by a famous British Naval Officer, summarizes the threats nuclear weapons present to the entire world. With the development of the atomic bomb during the Second World War, a new war was started: the Cold War. The ideology behind this war continues on to this day and has led to many treaties and other attempts to stop the production and potential use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a scientifically impressive feat; however, they present a difficult situation in terms of the global political system.

The end of the cold war, is often considered as marking the dawn of a fundamentally different political environment. This change in environment, has brought about new salient questions by scholars and policy makers about the relevance of nuclear weapons in the world. In his article, ‘learning to love the bomb’ Jonathan Tepperman calls president Obama’s plan to rid the world off nuclear weapons wrong, dreamy, unrealistic and a big mistake. I found this article interesting as it seems rather paradoxical as he implies that the world would be much more dangerous without nuclear weapons. In this paper, I will analyse and criticise Tepperman article. Before getting down to criticisms of the points made in the article, I will try to place Tepperman’s approach conveniently in one of the theoretical shelves of strategic studies.

“Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.” – International Committee of the Red Cross, 2010