Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

?Nuclear weapons Some nations own or possess nuclear weapons based on the legitimacy they place upon themselves, where they are termed as being a source of security. However, many other reasons for which these weapons are in use or exist, which form the base of this essay. This is addition to looking at the consequences of having such weapons on the world in terms of economic and social implications. Morality, Prudence, and Nuclear Weapons states clearly that nuclear weapons are used for their traditional role in the pursuit of national security, where even their deployment is for the same purpose (Lee 1996, p.2). This brings out the question of moral authority over why they own them, as without these weapons there can still be peace and security in any given country including those that possess these weapons. As such, the justification for the possession of the weapons does not lie with the efficiency of military power or even national security, in which case the implications are that provided those in military leadership find the possession and use acceptable, then they should be kept. It is as a result of this that countries own these weapons of mass destruction to achieve their own ends, and these ends are not necessarily the ends of every citizen whom they lead because the weapons are the disposal of the military, at the command of the president and even military leaders (Paret 1986, p.762). In addition to this, there is the potential that these weapons are owned by some nations for the sole purpose of intimidation so as to protect overseas interests and assists as said by Caldicott (2004, p.73). In this case, he argues that there is no way that any country or military power would use nuclear weapons against its own citizens, and then he goes on to state that some countries have enormous oversees interests. As a result, the legitimacy for having these nuclear weapons is to protect the country from any external acts of aggression by other nations, just as the tradition of war goes. Besides this, the argument of having a peaceful world that is free of threats to national insecurity is a new justification to the possession of nuclear weapons owing to the presentation of new information in makers of new strategy. In this case, it is said that all wars since the inception of the nuclear weapons have been irrational and impossible due to the possibility of destroying the enemy finally (Lee 1996, p.12). From this perspective, justification is that nuclear weapons make the world a safe place by use of the theory of nuclear deterrence, where no nation dares wage war due to the possibility of obviation in the event of nuclear warfare. Therefore, war becomes outdated considering the nuclear arsenal available to the world in modern times and the countries that hold this arsenal are the ones that control the eventuality of war and ensure that the world is protected from itself and international feuds likely to explode into full-blown wars. In addition, there is the question of power, which can be brought up in reply to why some nations own nuclear weapons, which can directly point towards abuse. With this, nuclear power amongst the countries in possession of these arms is indicative of how they keep the world in check concerning the improved tactics of warfare across the world that are not restricted to guerrilla warfare, but go as far as air strikes with enhanced accuracy. This is especially so in modern times and based on recent events and history that goes as far back as the 1950s to show what possession of nuclear weapons has saved the world from destroying itself. Looking again at the abuse of power, the cold war can be used to show the consequences of having nuclear arms, and this does not paint a good picture at all for the world as a whole. In spite of claiming that nuclear weapons ring stability to the world, they also focus power on a few nations that then get into conflict as shown in the cold war of the 1980s. Consequently, the justification of nuclear weapons cannot be done when looking at why some countries own nuclear weapons. Other than this, these nations are in possession of nuclear weapons as a sign of development in terms of military and technological power, where the ability of these nations to manufacture these arms is a clear indicator of this. This is in spite of countries that have developed significantly lacking the same arms, which again points towards abuse of power and not necessarily the potential for prevention of war and promotion of global peace. The consequences of having such weapons are severe for all in the world, which is for both those in possession and those that do not have the said weapons. With this in mind, one can look at past events, which brings reference to the cold war of the 1980s, which shows a power standoff between countries that have the arms and what it can do to the world. With this, the biggest consequence is the state of distrust amongst these nations and others in the world since power is concentrated on certain ends and not all citizens of the world can access it. This creates stand offs between different countries and fosters fear all over the world due to uncertainty, where even theorists and analysts eyed the cold war standoff with fear due to the potential for massive retaliation with nuclear arms. Nuclear weapons have also raised the question of why there is need to have nuclear weapons, since with improved technology and modern warfare techniques destruction is imminent. Because of this, even with a few weapons of the same nature aimed a particular target would end up in ultimate destruction for both. The consequence hereby appears as unnecessary destruction and inebriation of assets and life because the potential of a nuclear war only spells out the difference between conventional war and nuclear war by destroying everything, while conventional war holds the potential for blossoming of life once the war dies down. However, there is a point that remains significant in the justification of possession of nuclear weapons in that there is the issue of acceptability, which brings out the greater good and the lesser evil. With this, the consequences depict the death of moral substance, where economic value and territory, as well as political interests are considered more valuable in comparison to human life and nuclear weapons are not just meant to avert war or destroy enemies, but the innocent are also caught in it. This is especially considering that it is the leaders who engage in political games and the soldiers go out to clean up the messes made by their leaders by killing other soldiers doing a similar job. In this case, too, the debate over the lesser evil and the greater good brings out the issues of moral death in that it shows how certain nations want to amass power for themselves, and leave the rest out. This is arbitrarily playing with the lives of the rest of the world, where they make all the decisions for everyone and playing the role of the higher power (Lee 1996, p.11). Besides this, there is also revolution of warfare, where war is no longer fought on battlefields, as it is conventionally done as it has opened new avenues for settling scores and disputes. As a result, there are not that many wars on a full-scale level meaning that nuclear weapons in select countries have its fair advantage. In addition, there is the intimidation and blackmail, which is portrayed as part of modern warfare and is used to coerce other nations into submission of needs of nations that own these nuclear arms. From this angle, nuclear arms are used to gain unfair advantage over nations that do not nuclear arms in war, where the advantage is termed as prudential advantage based on the amount of loss that a nation faces, especially those in the opposition (Lee 1996, p.15). This way, the presence of nuclear arms amongst select nations has contributed to abuse of power, which again points to the cold war incident, where countries with nuclear arms hold one another at ransom by enforcing their own policies and agendas on others. From all the above, it can be said that nuclear arms are available in several countries across the globe with different legitimate and illegitimate reasons depending on the perspective from which the facts are viewed. As a result, the presence of these weapons has been for global peace and putting other countries in check, as well as ensuring national security and military power. This way, the consequences have been reduced warfare among different nations and widespread peace, as well as intimidation and moral degradation in which case the nations in possession of the arms make decisions for the rest of the world. References Lee, S. (1996). Morality, prudence, and nuclear weapons. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press. Caldicott, H. (2004). The new nuclear danger: George W. Bush's military-industrial complex. New York: New Press. Paret, P. (1986). Makers of modern strategy: from Machiavelli to the nuclear age. Oxford [Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. Read More