Nuclear weapons are the safest defense mechanism in the world. Although nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction and the loss of thousands of lives when detonated, they are the optimal solution to the conflicts between countries in the future. The actual use of the nuclear weapon is not the deterrent, but rather just the mere fact that a country could use it against another country which avoids the large scale conflict. Thus, nuclear deterrence presents itself as a preferred security option. Firstly, based on deterrence theory, nuclear weapons will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that if nuclear weapons are used in warfare, either side will not be able to succeed in winning, as the destruction caused by the weapons will be too much for either side to recuperate from. Since the detonation of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare again. The world saw the destruction which a nuclear bomb could have. Ever since, this has driven fear to never use nuclear weapons. Although many countries possess nuclear weapons today, they have yet to engage in a nuclear war. This has so far maintained “a tense but global peace” (Mutual Assured Destruction, 2014). As the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the ultimate destruction of humankind, nuclear deterrence is a viable security option as shown by the MAD principles, the application of the MAD doctrine throughout history and the current global stability.
As a nuclear war would result in a stalemate and in a catastrophic loss of life, it is the fear factor with their presence that creates stability. “Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and nati...
... middle of paper ...
....d.). The Stability-Instability Paradox, Misperception, and Escalation Control in South Asia . Stimson. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/ESCCONTROLCHAPTER1.pdf
Waltz, K. (2012, July/August). Why Iran Should Get the Bomb. Global. Retrieved January 17, 2014, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb
Mutual assured destruction. (2014, January 1). Wikipedia. Retrieved January 17, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Yamazaki, J. (n.d.). Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
Stability-instability paradox. (2013, September 17). Wikipedia. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability-instability_paradox
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Center for Strategic and International Studies. N.p., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014.
3. Leckie, Robert. "132. Nagasaki and the Surrender of Japan." Delivered from Evil: The Saga of World War II. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. 942-946. Print.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat." our enemies, as we would want to be treated. " If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified, and if you do provoke a nuclear war, you should be punished. That brings me into the second reason why countries retain nuclear weapons and that is a threat. It is a way of protecting your country, but you will protect yourself and retaliate if provoked.
The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." iBliblio.org - a. United States Government Printing Office, 1946. Web. The Web. The Web.
When looking at the aftermath of the atomic bomb in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima the devastation it caused is evident. The majority of the population in Japan could have never imagined such a catastrophic event. On August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945 massive amounts of lives were changed forever when an atomic bomb fell from the sky and created an explosion as bright as the sun. These two bombs were the first and only accounts of nuclear warfare. (“Atomic Bomb is…”) The impact that the two bombs left on the cities of Japan was tremendous. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima devastated the country through structural damage, long term medical effects, expenses, and the massive loss of life.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
Japan will never forgotten the day of August 6 and 9 in 1945; we became the only victim by the atomic bombs in the world. When the atomic was dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was World War II. The decision of dropping the atomic bombs was affected by different backgrounds such as the Manhattan Project, and the Pacific War. At Hiroshima City, the population of Hiroshima was 350,000 when the atomic bomb dropped. Also, the population of Nagasaki was around 250,000 ("Overview."). However, there was no accurate number of death because all of documents were burned by the atomic bombs. On the other hand, the atomic bombs had extremely strong power and huge numbers of Japanese who lived in Hiroshima
The development and usage of the first atomic bombs has caused a change in military, political, and public functionality of the world today. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revolutionized warfare by killing large masses of civilian population with a single strike. The bombs’ effects from the blast, extreme heat, and radiation left an estimated 140,000 people dead. The bombs created a temporary resolution that lead to another conflict. The Cold War was a political standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States that again created a new worldwide nuclear threat. The destructive potential of nuclear weapons had created a global sweep of fear as to what might happen if these terrible forces where unleashed again. The technology involved in building the first atomic bombs has grown into the creation of nuclear weapons that are potentially 40 times more powerful than the original bombs used. However, a military change in strategy has came to promote nuclear disarmament and prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. The technology of building the atomic bomb has spurred some useful innovations that can be applied through the use of nuclear power. The fear of a potential nuclear attack had been heightened by the media and its release of movies impacting on public opinion and fear of nuclear devastation. The lives lost after the detonation of the atomic bombs have become warning signs that changed global thinking and caused preventative actions.
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
From the creation of nuclear weapons at the start of the Cold War to today, the world has experienced struggles fueled by the want of nuclear power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s nuclear weapon program are some of the most important conflicts over nuclear weapons. Thanks to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 to end World War II, the world has come extremely close to a nuclear war, and more countries have began developing nuclear power. Unmistakably, many conflicts since the start of the Cold War have been caused by nuclear weapons, and there are many more to come.
In 1945, when the Americans bombed Hiroshima, Japan, approximately 140,000 men and women were instantly killed by the effects of American nuclear defense. With such extreme brutality and force how many people must die for one to finally realize the strengths of nuclear bombs and what damage they can cause. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they kill thousands of innocent humans at a time, destroy the environment, and inviolate human’s right to moral and personal freedoms.
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...