Security of the World Without Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

Would a world without nuclear weapons be more or less secure? XXXXXXX XXXXX Affiliation: XXXXX XXXXX : XXXXXX Security is a major concern and a priority in any given social setting, and especially in governance aspects. Political freedom is highly dependent on social and economic security, making it a fundamental context of any given political empire. Determinants of security and the level of security in the world is defined and pursued differently by different countries and political settings, given the diversity and dynamism of the issue. In the recent times, the issue of nuclear weapons in the world has culminated exacerbating debates both for and against embracement of nuclear weapons (Colin, 2002). As a result, the security issue of the entire world in regard to these weapons has been comprised by these debates. Some countries have supported the move to embrace nuclear weapons while others have totally been against them. Protection of the masses does not lie on a mere word of mouth, but on the actions that the governing system enforces. Security is of immense importance to the entire world’s society. Negative effects, especially physiological are set to be experienced in a nation that fails to enforce safety and protection measures for its citizens. Feeling safe is prior to knowing that one is safe, and the most important component of security is safety. Summing up the individual persons in the world makes up the world’s people of society. This paper seeks to present an analytical and critical argument that shows a world without nuclear weapons would be more secure. Nuclear weapons are complex and specially developed weapons that a carry the potential to annihilate the entire human race that inhabits the world. On the same note, it not only humans that are at risk here, but all other species that lives in this world could be eliminated by the use of this weapons. The potential possessed by these weapons presents an opportunity to deprive live to all species characteristic to the entire world. Elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth therefore confirms that at least no species are going to lose their lives through the use of these weapons (Nunn, 2008, pg. 27). It is important to note that these weapons are not the primary cause of death for many species that are found on this planet, but it is also fundamental to consider the consequences of using such weapons on any place in the world. A world without these weapons is characteristic of safety that is necessary in measuring the level of security in any given place on the globe. Availability of nuclear weapons poses great probability of the occurrence of nuclear exchange between or among warring countries. Different countries based on the different political, social and economic systems they observe have different potentials in terms of resources and wealth. The world comprises of both developed and developing countries. This further implies that their potential to deal with wars or insecurity matters differs thereof. Advanced countries have the potential to manufacture and use these weapons in times of war. It is worth noting that wars hurt the innocent among the victims. Therefore, as long as these weapons are available, more danger to insecurity than to security is posed. Terrorists pose a great threat to the security of the entire world. They operate in organized groups based in different countries. They are specially trained people for organized crimes. Most of their activities have been termed to take political dimensions especially between and among warring countries. In this regard, if a total disarmament of nuclear weapons lack, terrorists are likely to acquire nuclear weapons. This would only make the world worse off than better off. Eliminating nuclear weapons this absolutely face out this possibility and therefore provide a secure line for the world people, knowing that the threat of these weapons landing upon the hands of the terrorists has been alleviated (Harold, 2007). Of course this is not the only avenue for risks that the world faces, but the risks the entire world faces in the light of these weapons needs to be addressed. In the process of ensuring a nuclear weapon free world, many other avenues used to smuggle weapons could be dealt with, thereby raising the security level to a better position that the one present in the context of nuclear weapons. Lack of nuclear weapons therefore increases the security of the entire world. Proliferation of nuclear weapons is expected even if only one country had them. Country by country would seek to acquire them through all means possible. Politics is a major tool that could be used to echo this urge. Political differences would further bring forth arguments of which nation is worth keeping the weapons and which one is not. The situation is only set to worsen with time as a result. When a nation relies on nuclear weapons as the primary means of eliminating the enemies, other countries will also follow suit. The best way to account for this is to ensure absence of these weapons in any given country. This is because, when more and more countries become nuclear-armed, more danger poses to the entire world, thus becoming more insecure. On the contrary, without these weapons, the security of the world is at hand. Presence of the weapons means getting more and more enemies to deal with all around the globe (George, 2008). The world court has declared that threats as well as the use of nuclear weapons are illegal. Such a declaration does not follow the realization of benefits; rather, it is as a result of the harm prone to the world as a consequence of using the weapons. In legal basis, to use or to threaten to use such weapons violates the laws observed by the people served by the world court. The laws that have put the court in place present the great dangers posed by the presence of nuclear weapons. In a bid to observe the international laws that the world people observe, all nations bound therein ought to advocate for a world without nuclear weapons (Jonas, 2008). In so doing, the world is set to become more secure than insecure through the elimination and prohibition of all nuclear weapons in the world. Moral notion towards nuclear weapons evidences the fact that a world without nuclear weapons would be more secure. These weapons are hardly supported by many societies across the globe. They are described as more of suicidal devices than weapons. Moral responsibility of governing bodies in the world refutes the use of these weapons upon the masses. The moral aspects of this argument revolve around what is good or bad for the society. Nuclear weapons development has been perceived to be wrong from the start. In this regard, ensuring that the world does without these weapons denotes that the absence is well taken by the society. The primary purpose for the development and establishment of nuclear weapons was to curb the occurrence of war. However, as it has been observed for quite so long, this is yet to be achieved. Many countries in the world have engaged in war even more. Nuclear-weapon states have engaged in war with other nuclear-weapon and non- nuclear-weapon states (Jonas, 2008). In fact, states that are known to possess nuclear weapons have engaged in war with each other even more with the development of these weapons. If these matters get out of hand and the states engage in large scale fights with each other, even the most peaceful of all countries faces the same risks as those of the fighting nations. Nuclear weapons in such a case only contribute in spreading insecurity among the nations that make up the world. War-prone nations have had their status worsened by the notion of availability of nuclear weapons. For example, Pakistan, Iraq and Israel have had long lasting wars with neighbouring countries. The presence of nuclear weapons in the area is not prone to any success of bringing these nations at peace. In fact, the perceived risks of the presence of these weapons make the situational status of these countries even worse (Colin, 2002). None of them has attained stability of possessing nuclear weapons even without using them. Another aspect of persistent crisis and insecurity resulting from nuclear weapons is the Kashmiri crisis. In this crisis, a nuclear shield is thought to have been built up, but in real sense all the participant bound therein only felt more insecure than secure. A nuclear war can result from such and similar crisis, and the only way to upholding a more secure world in that context is having no nuclear weapons at all. War and related insecurity is not the only form of insecurity that the world can face. Poor performance of the world economy is also insecurity in the economic context. Lack of adequate means to meet the demands of the population in terms of its basic needs is a social insecurity. The special features and complexity of nuclear weapons attracts huge costs to the countries that develop them. They also require proper protection measures and mechanisms, thereby requiring maintenance costs even they are developed. The costs herein are not limited to the current generation of population but are rather spread to the far future. This process deters present development plans and further slows down the pace of realizing sustainable development. Generally, the activities related to nuclear weapons are persistently making the general public insecure in all dimensions of life; physical, social, economic and political. Selected countries in the world have given up their nuclear weapons or have ruled out such developments, showing that actually the world can be secure without nuclear weapons. For instance, nuclear warheads were transferred to Russia by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). Brazil and Argentina are known for their decisions to have nuclear development programmes eliminated. These decisions have shown that the world can be more secure without nuclear weapons since none of them have initiated activities that harmed the masses in any way. Aborting nuclear weapons programmes is prior to intensive discussions of these countries’ welfare in the absence of such weapons (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). In conclusion, the world’s security environment is one characterized by many uncertainties. Some current developments in the world appear to put the world at more risk and insecurity than the latter. The current security level in the world is interdependent on the activities of each individual country that makes up this world. Each country needs to be sensitive of the welfare of all the others, in the line of wanting to pursue domestic interests. Even the developers understand that the effects of the nuclear weapons are universal, and therefore the whole world is bound to the same risk. In order to alleviate such dangers that pose insecurity to the entire world, then doing without nuclear weapons is a good start towards making the world more secure. Works Cited Colin L. Powell, “Statement on the U.S.-Russia Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions,” testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 9, 2002. “Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre Addresses the Conference on Disarmament,” May 3, 2008, http://www.norway-geneva.org/disarmament/store040408.htm (statement to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, March 4, 2008 George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, p. A15. George P. Shultz, “The Age of Diplomacy” (speech, International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, Oslo, February 26, 2008), http://disarmament.nrpa.no/wpcontent/ uploads/2008/02/Statement_Shultz.pdf. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008, p. A13. Harold Brown, “New Nuclear Realities,” The Washington Quarterly 31, no. 1 (Winter 2007– 08): 18. Jonas Gahr Støre, “Check Against Delivery: A Global Effort to Achieve a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” (speech, International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, Oslo, February 27, 2008. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Transcript of Remarks by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at the Plenary Session of the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, February 12, 2008,” http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/ off_news/120208/newen2.htm. Sam Nunn, “The Mountaintop: A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” (speech, International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, Oslo, February 27, 2008. Read More