A Constant Increase of Nuclear Weapons - Assignment Example

What is likely to happen if nations are allowed keep developing and maintaining nuclear weapons? By Introduction Mote, Kelvin: Revitalizing Nuclear Operations in the Joint Environment. The Air & Space Power Journal, 2007 Mote Kelvin, an American author, says that nuclear weapons have for a long time been on a constant increase with nations advancing to nuclear weapons for security. He adds that in the recent past, a handful of initiatives has been going round advocating the long term elimination of the nuclear weapons, as well as the reduction of their near-term. However, some opposing bodies and governments have also stood firm to defend these weapons and given reasons for keeping them. There have been a number of attempts to stop countries from keeping these weapons. To cool down the nuclear weapon discussion, many nations are now developing secret nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is known for its explosive ability that can cause massive destruction. Such effects are against human dignity of life, human rights and respect. Therefore, keeping such weapons is directly risking the existence of the human race1. It is from this that I develop the research question; what is likely to be the future outcome of allowing nations to own nuclear weapons? This is a predictive study that tries to focus and bring out the likely unseen outcomes of the recent increase in possession of nuclear weapons. For many people, there are some obvious answers to this question. The most common ones are; deaths of many people in case of explosion land and property destruction. As much as there might be some scientific reasons for keeping nuclear weapons, the constant increase in the development of many of these weapons in most nations raises eyebrows. Many countries have been testing these weapons, and that brings even more fear. It is not common that someone will spend extraordinarily much to have something that will not be of use. Developing these weapons is costly, and it is not a process any nation would go through if the weapons are not to be used. Eventually, these weapons will be used, either by accident or intentionally, and the consequences are severely catastrophic. Therefore, this question can be of interest to the intelligence community as the answers will give the ultimate motive of these nations different from what they have been giving to the press conferences and international conferences. Corrina, Thomson: THE NUCLEAR OPTION. Engineering & Technology, 2014 Thomson, a British researcher and author, say that nuclear weapons create a direct as well as a constant threat to the human race everywhere. They are far from keeping peace as they breed fear and mistrust among all nations. They are the ultimate terror and mass destruction instruments that have neither legitimate military nor strategic utility. They are far way useless in addressing the real and current security threats such as terrorism, poverty, climate change or even overpopulation.2 Thomson clarifies that 40,000 nuclear weapons have been destroyed since the end of the cold war. However, the justification for keeping and maintaining these weapons remain basically the same. Many nations are still clinging to the misguided idea of the ‘nuclear deterrence’. They claim that being aware that another nation has a nuclear weapon keeps enemies away hence leading to peaceful coexistence. This is what is called a misguided idea. These weapons only lead to constant national and global threat and insecurity. There are dozens of documented instances of near use of these nuclear weapons due to miscalculations in the firms or accidents. How more can anyone explain how dangerous the existence of these weapons is?3 PATRICIA LEWIS. Middle East that is nuclear weapons free zone: possible, probable or pipe-dream? International Affairs, 2013 Lewis wrote that Nuclear weapons are known to be the only devices that were ever created that can destroy all the complex life forms on earth. It takes approximately 0.1% of the explosive yield of the existing global nuclear weapon to cause devastating agricultural collapse, as well as widespread famine. On the other hand, the smoke and dust from less than 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions is capable of causing an immediate slump in the global temperatures and rainfall.4 She additionally points out that in order for nations to successfully fund nuclear weapons project, a lot of funds are diverted from some important economic such as the health sector, education and other vital sectors of the economy. The nine nations armed with these kinds of weapons currently spend US $105 billion every year to maintain and modernize the arsenals. Currently, it is estimated that US alone spends over US $60 billion every year in maintaining its nuclear weapon. On the other hand, British is planning to substitute its ageing nuclear-armed submarines. As estimated, this might cost taxpayers over 100 billion Euros5. McNamara, Brendan: A nuclear energy safety and security treaty-Separating nuclear energy from nuclear weapons. AIP Conference Proceedings 1442, no. 1 ,2012. Brenda McNamara, an American scientist and author, claims that despite the fact that nations have recently renewed their commitments to realize and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world, all of the nations with nuclear powers are continually spending heavy sums of money to better their nuclear forces. Military forces are to help humans and keep them safe. Not just safe from the intruders and war, but also safe from any harsh conditions6. It is time to involve military and the intelligence society to help abolish these weapons completely. It is also a time to ensure that taxpayers’ money is redirected towards meeting human needs7. Jameson, Robert P. Shortening Fuse of Armageddon: How the developments in Nuclear Weapons Technology are Pushing Strategists to Mutually Assured Destruction, 2013 Jameson, an American atomic scientist says that there is no benefit in keeping these weapons. There are many adversities that may result in keeping these weapons. For instance, there has been a number of near- use cases. In this situation, if it occurs by accident, the attacked will quickly retaliate without thinking that the attack might be an accident. This can start a war that could possibly involve other nations with the same weapons. Ultimately, much will have been destroyed, and many lives lost. Additionally, an endless war may erupt and develop from such a situation8. Moreover, he adds that many studies have as well shown that with the current increase in the development and maintenance of nuclear weapons, there might be a predictable conflict in the future. It seems like there are some ground whispers that are lying within governments. As much as the United States advocates the abolishment of the weapons, they are still maintaining their weapon. This is what many studies base their argument on. Nations are currently not at peace and fear that without these nuclear weapons, they might be attacked. Dropping these weapons will, therefore, prove to be difficult. However, the intelligent society has a role to play in order to see that these weapons are abolished. If not abolished, then they should be in a state that they cannot be used, neither intentionally or by accident. Conclusion Looking at the above discussion, there are a number of outcomes that should be expected in the near future if nations will still be allowed to possess these deadly weapons. If these continue, the human race is likely to be at risk as there will be increased testing, which will affect the environment, as well as climate. Moreover, with these weapons at the exposure of different nations, human needs will no longer be a priority. Having these weapons also risks the existence of the human race as war that involves such weapons easily sweeps human lives. Finally, these weapons put us at a constant fear. The intelligent society can do much in ensuring that these weapons are dormant and not used either intentionally or accidentally. That is if intelligent society still performs the duty to protect the humans and keep them safe. Bibliography Jameson, Robert P. "Armageddons Shortening Fuse: How Advances in Nuclear Weapons Technology Pushed Strategists to Mutually Assured Destruction, 1945-1962." Air Power History 60, no. 1, 2013 LEWIS, PATRICIA M. "A Middle East free of nuclear weapons: possible, probable or pipe-dream?." International Affairs 89, no. 2 (2013): 433-450. Mote, L. T. C. Kelvin. 2014. "Revitalizing Nuclear Operations in the Joint Environment." Air & Space Power Journal 28, no. 1: 83-90 McNamara, Brendan. "NESST: A nuclear energy safety and security treaty-Separating nuclear energy from nuclear weapons." AIP Conference Proceedings 1442, no. 1 (2012) PRĂVĂLIE, Remus. "THE ABOLITION OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. A GEOPOLITICAL AND GEOSTRATEGIC PROBLEM IN THE LAST FIVE DECADES." Romanian Review On Political Geography / Revista Româna Geografie Politica 14, no. 2 (2012): Thomson, Corrina. "THE NUCLEAR OPTION." Engineering & Technology (17509637) 9, no. 8 (2014): 33-35. WALKER, WILLIAM. "International Affairs and the nuclear age, 1946-2013." International Affairs 90, no. 1 (2014): Read More