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
To start off, one of the key ideas behind the tense, yet somewhat stable peace between the Soviet Union and United States during the second half of the 20th century was the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. As both of the world’s superpowers attempted to outstrip each other in a nuclear arms race, it grew increasingly apparent that should one nation attempt to strike the other or its allies with nuclear weapons, the consequences from the secondary strike would cause an unacceptable loss of life and likely the extinction of the human race. Consider the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance. There were multiple times where all out nuclear war between the East and the West ca...
Sherill, C. W. (2012). Why Iran Wants the Bomb And What. Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2012 , 32-49.
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
An idea that has not sunk into the politicians and generals of the nuclear powers skulls is the fact that nuclear weapons are expensive. In 1983, a missile submarine cost more than the education budgets of twenty-three 3rd world countries. A comparison for nuclear weapons would be akin to that of computers: It becomes obsolete very quickly, and the state of the art technology used is astronomically maintenance expensive. Building nuclear weapons is like dumping your money in a hole: It is not going to be coming back.
Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.
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
In the late summer of 1945 the decision was made to vaporize over 70,000 Japanese civilians with a single nuclear payload dropped on a city possessing virtually no strategic value. It is estimated over 100,000 more civilians died as a direct result of this bombing in the years that followed. The rationalizations and excuses made to justify the act are myriad. Some say that it saved lives, that it shortened the war. Others say it was justified revenge for the Japanese attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor. The truth is that the United States felt a need to showcase its nuclear dominance to the world. There will never be a legitimate justification for this bombing, which to this day remains the most destructive singular act carried out by human beings against other human beings. The most evil invention in history is nuclear weaponry, a shockingly destructive force that has the capacity to level an entire city, and reduce its population to ash and bone. Nuclear warfare has not taken place since the last days of World War II, yet this is not for lack of nuclear capabilities. In the decades following there has been a proliferation of nuclear capability despite the knowledge that if one nuclear device were to be used, the consequences and implications would be likely irreparable. Nuclear war has the potential for extinction of the human race, yet no genuine attempts at moving towards a complete nuclear disarmament are being made. The amount of nations with nuclear capabilities is unconscionable; yet the number will only increase with the greatest of these nations unwilling to consider a complete nuclear disarmament. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Immediate use of the atom bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future nuclear weapon use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. Erica Cook said “with the development of the atomic bomb, science has unleashed the means to destroy the world and burdened future generations with its destructive presence” (1997, 2). This paints a dark picture of the atomic bomb in terms of the future of our planet. “Nuclear weapons are the most terrifying weapons ever created by humankind. They are unique in their destructive power and in their lack of direct military utility. Most national leaders repeatedly express their hope that these weapons will never be used” (Cirincione, 2007). Since the creation of the atomic bomb, the world has become aware of atomic power and the concept that the entire world can be destroyed by said power. Citizens and government realize that if there were to be anothe...
... examined the importance of the nuclear weapons military revolution and its lasting impacts on modern day society. Evidence presented supports why this military revolution had the most impact of all on warfare and was carefully illustrated through the immergence of new threats, the shift from total war and high intensity conflict to low intensity conflict and finally, the critical role that technology and innovation has played since the advent of nuclear weapons. This is important in today’s operational and strategic environment due to the fact that American military and political leadership will continue to have taken in account the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. As globalization continues to set the conditions for nuclear weapons proliferation worldwide, the restraints and operational risks will dramatically increase and affect all strategic planning.
A nuclear weapon in current society places great danger and risk on our states, even though the creating and usage for a nuclear weapon at the time was to ultimately uphold state security for the duration of the cold war, by states keeping nuclear weapon was a way of assuring security. After the cold war, the idea of having security ‘Nuclear Weapon’ decreased chances of getting threats from other states this installed confidence amongst states, nevertheless dependence on the nuclear weapon for protection is gradually becoming dangerous.
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
Throughout half the century of the 19’s hundreds a period of new advancements in the creations of a bomb had arisen. On August 8th, 1939 President Roosevelt received a letter from Albert Einstein which ended up being the fundamental support in the creation of the Atomic Bomb. There are two types of atomic bombs fusion and fission, the first atomic bomb was created in 1939 by the Manhattan Project, three weeks later after its first test, it was used in an actual war. It’s capable of wiping out a whole entire city and killing instantly anyone in its way. Now we have better more precise bomb know as hydrogen bombs, these bomb use the energy released when the nuclei of a hydrogen come together or fuse, unlike a fission bomb which gets its energy from when the nuclei of a heavy element such as plutonium or uranium splitting apart creating a chain reaction leading to a large explosion.
'Nuclear weapons protect our country. The very fact we have them means no-one will ever use them' In this account, I am going to discuss the diverse arguments which concern the issue of nuclear weapons, and whether or not their ownership actually voids use. Exploring both contrasting arguments, I will discuss both sides to the subject; arguments which support this statement contrast a great deal to those who rebut it, yet both sides have their valid reasons to their case; those who favour the statement believe that the weapons are somewhat of a taboo, however, those who support the opposing view look at the matter a lot more practically, after all nuclear weapons are extremely destructive. Supporting arguments have a legitimate cause to believe that their theory is right; there is a profound degree of responsibility which goes in hand with owning a weapon of this calibre, which taking into account the potential destruction they can cause extinguishes any possibility of usage. In support of this is a substantial measure of evidence, the cold war, for example.
America’s nuclear weapons composite is large and complex. The organizations and departments involved in the various phases of nuclear weapons consist of the Departments of Energy, Defense, State, Commerce, and Homeland Security. The Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration is the primary U.S. Government agency that is in charge of the proposal, manufacture and upkeep of U.S. nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 in reaction to the energy predicament troubling the country during his term in office. Even though many Americans will classify nuclear weapons with the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy has control over all nuclear energy linked matters.
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 ...