Would a World Without Nuclear Weapons Be More or Less Secure?
Nuclear weapons are the deadliest weapon ever created by the human being, “Western newspapers struggled to explain how thousands of American, British and Canadian scientists had managed to harness the power of the sun to such deadly effect” , becoming weapons of mass annihilation. Though, do they provide us security? It’s true that they can provide nuclear deterrence, but can they actually physically protect us against a nuclear attack? The answer is no. Thus, possessing them doesn’t make us any safer. In fact, if nuclear weapons fall on hands of inadequate people like terrorists, or are employed by accident and miscalculations; effects can be lethal and irreversible. John F. Kennedy said, “The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution”. Living in the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, with nuclear weapons more broadly available, deterrence is decreasing while increasing danger. Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in January 2007: “It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year they make our security more precarious”.
Nuclear weapons can also be thought of as ‘military equalizers’, making a country think twice about attacking. Often giving a nation a false sense of security. For instance, they did become essential in maintaining international security during the Cold War because there were a means of deterrence. However, if deterrence fails, even if its only one nuclear weapon; the world would be instantly facing catastrophe. Hence, deterrence is not a viable solution, especially when threats such as terrorism cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence being a psychological phenomenon and as such, inherently unstable, destabilizes political relationships by endorsing mistrust, hostility and arms racing.
Nonetheless, some researchers argue that the bomb may actually make us safer. As Kenneth Waltz said “We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s
Nuclear weapons can also be thought of as ‘military equalizers’, making a country think twice about attacking. Often giving a nation a false sense of security. For instance, they did become essential in maintaining international security during the Cold War because there were a means of deterrence. However, if deterrence fails, even if its only one nuclear weapon; the world would be instantly facing catastrophe. Hence, deterrence is not a viable solution, especially when threats such as terrorism cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence being a psychological phenomenon and as such, inherently unstable, destabilizes political relationships by endorsing mistrust, hostility and arms racing.
Nonetheless, some researchers argue that the bomb may actually make us safer. As Kenneth Waltz said “We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s
Bibliography: The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. [Ch.23: ‘Nuclear Proliferation’] • Gusterson, Hugh (1999) ‘Nuclear weapons and the Other in Western Imagination’ • M.Siracusa, Joseph. Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2008. • Spear, Joanna and Robertson-Snape (2001), ‘Arms and Arms Control’; in Little, Richard/White, Brian/Smith, Michael • Williams, Paul D. Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2008. [Chs • Tepperman, Jonathan. (Aug 28, 2009) “Why Obama should learn to love the Bomb” The Daily Beast. • Record, Jeffrey • "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" Wall Street Journal By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. The Wall Street Journal January 4, 2007; Page A15