Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The development of atomic weapons paired themselves with the willingness to win by any means necessary and destroy the enemy. The weapons are so powerful and capable of indiscriminate destruction that they have only been used in a hostile manner twice by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Brodie, 1946). Perhaps, nations have realized the terrible destructive powers of what they possess and agreed to get rid of them forever, as witnessed by recent disarmament campaigns. Nevertheless, some nations have embarked on a program escalation, developing and building atomic weapons with greater yield, capable of mass destruction. Nuclear weapon program escalation and the Cold War have yielded mutually assured destruction (MAD) countermeasures.
Discussion
The MAD theory is a security doctrine that preaches deterrence or avoiding conflict based on the understanding that any attack by an aggressor using nuclear weapons will be met with an equally destructive response. It reinforces the understating that in an atomic war, where both sides are armed with the firepower to destroy the planet, nobody wins, and therefore war is to be avoided (Glad,1990). It raises concerns about whether nuclear weapons endanger the world or make it safe. Narang (2013) argues that superpowers have wrong models because nuclear scholarships have existential bias. For instance, the fictional movie Dr. Strangelove explores the extremities of nuclear war, where a demented U.S. general frustrated by sexual impotence plans to launch a war against the Soviet Union (Kubrick, 1964). From the perspective of a liberalist, all nuclear states are the same, and having nuclear weapons is not sufficient to deter a conventional attack. However, the destructive power of atomic weapons has changed the idea of deterrence. The nuclear weapon has made that threat credible, but it can be flawed with the inability to make a rational decision by key decision-makers.
Global Effects of Nuclear War
There are policies to prevent nuclear war and the development of nuclear weapons. It has been questioned whether spending this much money on weapons that will never be used is necessary. Secretary of State George Shultz, while responding to an interview question, claimed the purpose of these nuclear weapons was deterrence and to provide a balance against possible Soviet Union adversaries (Riley, 1983). From an individual perspective, there is no doubt that with too many nuclear warheads worldwide, they will inevitably be used at some point. A nuclear attack is the greatest existential threat to everyone everywhere due to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons. The existence of this weapon and knowledge of its production threaten humanity due to its limitless capacity for destruction (Sagan,1983). Direct radiation, the most immediate of detonating a nuclear weapon, is enough to erase an entire citys population from the earth.
The destructive nature of nuclear weapons means people will have nowhere to hide, completely wiping out humanity and destroying the environment. Those who survive the nuclear attack could experience extensive climate change caused by massive fire storms. Even a small-scale nuclear war could release enough soot, smoke, and particulate matter into the atmosphere, disrupt agriculture, and cause the planetary cooling effect of a nuclear winter (Rubinson, 2014; Sagan, 1983). The film The Day After illustrates the devastation that would occur in the weeks preceding and following a nuclear attack on the United States (Hume, 1983). Overall, nuclear policies have allowed the human race to save the world. Everyone hopes to see that and act on it for the world to have a happy ending if it is inevitable.
It is generally agreed that nuclear weapons are dangerous, so there is a treaty to stop their production. Nevertheless, these agreements do not apply to everyone, and a handful of countries like the USA, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom allow its production. According to Sagan (1996), states that produce nuclear weapons cite an anarchical international system that forces them to rely on self-help to protect their sovereignty and national security. Therefore, any state that seeks to maintain its national security and balance rivals by gaining access to nuclear weapons due to its enormous destructive power.
If nuclear weapons are for self-protection, then it raises questions about why some nations are not allowed to build them. The five countries are allowed atomic weapons because they created them before signing the non-proliferation Weapons Treaty (Sagan, 1996). North Korea has produced nuclear weapons because President Kim Jong U prioritized its production since withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty (Braut-Hegghammer, 2018). Yet, because Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has not been able to weaponize its nuclear program (Tabatabai & Samuel, 2017). Nuclear development involves extensive research by scientists and significant resources, and any country that decides to pursue its production must commit substantial funds to create atomic weapons. Self-protection is a potential justification for nuclear production in new countries. The argument is that the non-proliferation agreement has made the haves and have-nots, but it has successfully limited the number of nuclear states in the real sense.
Global Nuclear Politics
The discussion on a nuclear weapon is based on damage and loss of lives unparalleled in human history. Many have questioned how it is possible to conceive of using atomic bombs (Hume, 1983). For instance, a recent war between Russia and Ukraine has raised a considerable threat of nuclear attack on Ukraine, triggering World War III. According to Gaulkin (2022), any nuclear explosion creates radiation, heat, and blast effects, resulting in many quick fatalities. If Russia were to use its nuclear weapon on Ukraine, the blast would obliterate the country, including the people. The idea of disarmament campaigns that countries with nuclear weapons will eventually relinquish them seems a farfetched dream.
Nuclear weaponization has quickly instilled fear, with China, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France threatening the U.S. nuclear monopoly. Notably, other emerging threats like North Korea and India as nuclear states have posted enduring concern for American foreign policy and the world. Since the advent of nuclear weapons, nations have had to sort them, believing they protect from attack besides their prestige and destructive powers (Sagan, 1983). Many leaders and scholars grew concerned that nuclear proliferation would become widespread, raising the danger that these weapons would be used again (Rubinson, 2014).
Conclusion
Today, people have realized the potential risks of nuclear to the environment and consequences for humanity, with intensified campaigns for disarmament. Ideally, spending billions on weapons acquired to ensure nations never need them for keeping peace defeats logic. Such an idle stockpile of warheads, which can only destroy and never create, is not the most effective way of ensuring peace.
References
Braut-Hegghammer, M. (2018). Analysis | why North Korea succeeded at getting nuclear weapons when Iraq and Libya failed. Washington Post. Web.
Brodie, B. (1946). War in the atomic age. In: The absolute weapon: Atomic power and world order (pp. 1456).
Gaulkin, T. (2022). Nowhere to hide: How a nuclear war would kill youand almost everyone else. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Web.
Glad, B. (1990). Psychological dimensions of war. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Hume, E. (Director). (1983). The day after [Streamed]. ABC Network.
Kubrick, S. (Director). (1964). Dr.Strangelove [Streamed]. Hawk Films.
Narang, V. (2012). What does it take to deter? Regional power nuclear postures and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(3), 478508. Web.
Riley, M. (1983). The day after nuclear war/deterrence discussion panel ABC news viewpoint (november 20 1983). YouTube. Web.
Rubinson, P. (2014). The global effects of nuclear winter: Science and antinuclear protest in the united states and the soviet union during the 1980s. Cold War History, 14(1), 4769. Web.
Sagan, C. (1983). Nuclear war and climatic catastrophe: Some policy implications. Foreign Affairs, 62(2), 257. Web.
Sagan, S. D. (1996). Why do states build nuclear weapons?: Three models in search of a bomb. International Security, 21(3), 5486.
Tabatabai, A. M., & Samuel, A. T. (2017). What the Iran-Iraq war tells us about the future of the iran nuclear deal. International Security, 42(1), 152185. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.