Why Nuclear Weapons are Essential

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

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 only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

Evidence: The Trident missiles can be given an extended life span, which will provide a massively capable and cost-effective platform for the decades to come. . . Our nuclear submarines are undetectable and cannot be taken out by a pre-emptive strike. That is why they provide the best form of nuclear deterrence available to us. (Hutton, 24, 26)

As time has passed since the end of WWII, several nations have shown that they no longer need to keep their nuclear arsenals, and they can still be secure on a foreign and domestic level without them. These countries that deactivate their stockpiles are only going to help make the world a more safe and more secure place to live in, without the threat of a global nuclear war. With the establishment of organizations such as NATO and the UN, the threat of global nuclear war has diminished. These organizations can find alternative ways to deal with severe

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

No doubt that most people believe that the world is a better place than it was 20 to 30 years ago. But actually, the world is becoming a very dangerous place with number of countries owning nuclear weapons increasing. ‘In all, there are approximately 27,600 nuclear weapons in existence’ (‘Weapons around the world’ 2005). They are constructed using either highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which then relies on two basic ways to release energy from an atom which

Nuclear weaponry has quite an extensive past. These weapons of mass destruction were introduced in World War 2 with the bombings of two major cities in Japan as a method to end the war. Then, in the 1960s, these WMD’s acted as a key part of the Cuban Crisis, which almost led to an entire war between the Soviet Union and America. Recently, the militaristic country of North Korea has started displaying threats to the United States, once again with nukes. This recent event (that’s still happening), along with past occurrences once again makes the world fear for its own life.

In today’s world, the way a nation reigns superior above all other nations can be traced back to their nuclear stockpile. The possession of nuclear arms has become a notable problem amongst global powers and small, undeveloped nations because of the potential arms race that could ignite, raising significant concern in national security. Furthermore, countless arguments have been made by researchers suggesting that the injection and possession of nuclear weapons has had a beneficial impact on the nature of society because it keeps nations from challenging one another. One of these arguments being the Nuclear deterrence theory which “constitutes a potent argument in favor of maintaining existing nuclear arsenals (that is, deterrence contributing

As Bacevich notes in “The Tyranny of Defense, Inc.”, the “national-security state derived its raison d’être from—and vigorously promoted a belief in—the existence of looming national peril”. The national security threat in the present situation is terrorism. Terrorists could, theoretically, attain a nuclear weapon and use it on United States citizens. The possibility of this, I argue, is due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons stockpiled by many countries during the Cold War, and not necessarily kept under control after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Even during times of relative peace, countries have to deal with the possible nuclear capabilities of other countries—the United States is doing so now with Iran. North Korea is also a worry as they continue to test delivery methods for their nuclear

“Just the fact of having nuclear weapons, and letting the rest of the world know, provides a great amount of security” (HR) With war most countries want to be the strongest so that the war can be won. When the people of a country are reassured that their military has nuclear weapons it creates a sense of security that does not go unnoticed. For Example President Barack Obama called for the United States to lead international efforts toward a world free of nuclear weapons. (U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy) “The Task Force report, titled U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, focuses on near-term policies to reduce nuclear weapons to the lowest possible level consistent with maintaining a credible deterrent.” The United States started to try to ease people’s minds by creating guides to surviving a nuclear attack, should it ever occur. There were even cartoons created to reassure children about this fear, such as Duck and Cover

“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.

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

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe