Why Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned - Assignment Example

Why nuclear weapons should be banned Nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat ever to human beings and are the most erratically atrocious weapons ever discovered. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as reminders of what destruction and mayhem nuclear weapons can do just in a flash. This implies that any use of nuclear weapons poses immense catastrophic effects and there is no efficient humanitarian response that would be possible to counter the consequences of radiation on affected people which usually results in death as well as suffering of the involved people several decades after the first explosion. Thus abolishing nuclear weapons is a pressing humanitarian inevitability and their banning and elimination is the only assurance against their proliferation and use. Nuclear weapons are a great threat to people’s security everywhere. Thus, such weapons pose a constant and direct threat to human beings everywhere. Instead of the weapons maintaining peace, they have resulted in mistrust as well as fear amongst nations. Thus, the so called definitive instruments of mass destruction and terror have no justifiable strategic or military utility and therefore are meaningless in addressing any of present day’s actual security dangers like climate change, overpopulation, extreme poverty, terrorism as well as disease. Whereas there has been dismantling of over 40,000 nuclear weapons since the cold war ended, the validation for their maintenance remain mainly unchanged. Some countries still stick to the erroneous notion of “nuclear deterrence”, while it is obvious that nuclear weapons merely lead to global and national insecurity. Numerous instances of close to-use of nuclear weapons due to accidents or miscalculation have been recorded (Kapur, 2009). A nuclear weapon in any given place is a possible terrorist bomb. For instance there have been numerous concerns for more than 15 years regarding nuclear weapons’ security in the former Soviet Union. However, presently such anxieties are more common. Current turbulence in Pakistan as well as suspicions in China have heightened the alarm regarding the instability and security in other nations. The incident of 6 nuclear weapons aboard a B-52 in America, without permission or knowledge of proper authorities such as base commanders is an event that served as a reminder to people that even in the US security is far from ideal. Numerous terrorists groups have also on several occasions stated their wish to obtain them for their own protection. This therefore means that the best way to avoid nuclear weapons from falling in wrong hands is totally eliminating them (Evan, 2014). Accordingly, there is no safe pair of hands as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. As long as any nation is in possession of these weapons, other countries will also want to possess them, meaning the world will be in uncertain condition. Thus, unless nuclear weapons are eliminated, they most certainly will be utilized once more, either by accident or intentionally, leading to catastrophic consequences. Normally, nuclear weapons do not discourage terrorists as well as terror networks. On the contrary, nuclear-armed countries are in-fact more susceptible to pre-emptive strike as well as terrorist targeting compared to non-nuclear nations (Evans, 2012). On matters environment, nuclear weapons stand out as the only tools ever invented that have the ability to annihilate all complex forms of life on our planet. Actually, it would take only below 0.1% of the explosive power of the present worldwide nuclear armory to bring about destructive agricultural collapse as well as extensive famine. Thus the dust and smoke from the less than 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions would lead to a sudden fall in global rainfall and temperatures. This basically implies that nuclear weapons pose an immense challenge to humankind greater than ordinary people can ever understand. Several people particularly activists and scientists realize, without any doubt, that such weapons are not only dangerous but deadly as well. They have also in the past been used in destroying as mentioned before, the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with a sole weapon demolishing an entire city (Kapur, 2009). Nevertheless, few individuals have struggled with the suggestion that these weapons are omnicidal; in the sense that they surpass genocide, suicide as well as omnicide and involves death of every living organism. If a cataclysmic explosion were to occur, it would lead to devastation of current forms of life on earth; in addition, these weapons would also eradicate not only the past but also the future, completely obliterating both human possibility and memory. Nuclear weapons would also wipe out each sacred aspect of being, and in its wake leave enormous emptiness and ruin where there was once existence of life, friendship, love, hope, decency as well as beauty(Kapur,2009). Scientists have warned that nuclear weapons create the sole largest risk to the planet’s environment. A new study based on the potential of universal effect of nuclear explosions, a team of American researchers have discovered that even small-level warfare would rapidly destroy the planet’s ecosystems and climate, leading to extensive damage, lasting for over ten years. Thus a blast of between fifty and hundred bombs, which is a mere 0.03% of the arsenal in the world-would emit sufficient soot into the atmosphere enough to cause climatic anomalies never witnessed before in human history. According to the study, there would be death of tens of millions of humans, there would be crashing of global temperatures in addition to most of the planet being unable to raise crops for over 5 years after the war. There would also be depletion of the ozone layer-the protective blanket that protects the planet from dangerous ultraviolet radiation by 40% over several populated regions as well as up to 70% within the poles (Krieger, 2010). Programs pertaining designing and manufacturing of nuclear weapons in most cases redirect public finances from education, health care, relief from disasters as well as several other essential services. Thus, the 9 nuclear-equipped countries use up to 105 billion US dollars annually modernizing as well as maintaining their nuclear arsenals. For instance, America alone uses over 60 billion US dollars yearly; with Britain planning to change her ageing fleet of nuclear-fortified Trident submarines would cost British taxpayers more than 100 billion pounds. Generally, therefore, the manufacturing, maintaining and modernizing of nuclear arsenals redirects huge resources from vital and basic programs such as those involving education, healthcare, mitigation of climate change, relieving disaster as well as development of assistance in addition to other critical services (Robock, 2014). Worldwide, annual spending on nuclear weapons is approximated at 105 billion US dollars or 12 million dollars per hour. In 2002, the World Bank predicted that a yearly investment of over 40-60 billion US dollars, or approximately half the figure presently utilized in nuclear programs, would be adequate to cater for the globally approved Millennium Development Goals particularly on alleviation of poverty by 2015-the target year. Inspite of these nuclear-fortified countries renewed assurances to attain a nuclear-weapon-free planet, all of them continue investing exorbitant amounts of funds in their nuclear projects. In 2010, for instance, nuclear expenditure was over twice the official development support offered to Africa in addition to being equal to the GDP of Bangladesh-a country with a population of more than 160 million persons. On the other hand the office in charge of disarmament affairs –which actually is the key UN body charged with pressing on a nuclear-free world-has a paltry yearly budget of 10 million dollars; a figure far less than the money spent on nuclear weapons each hour (Robock, 2014). The other key reason why nuclear weapons should be banned is so as to prevent potential nuclear accidents. There is an inherent danger of accidental war via miscalculation; miscommunication or worse still malfunctioning, which is particularly dangerous provided the thousands of nuclear warheads set up as well as on extremely high alert position. Given the limited timelines available in which a country ought to make a decision on whether or not it is under nuclear assault, in addition to whether to initiate a retaliatory reaction, there is a high danger of miscalculation. The world has been in danger of near-catastrophe especially during the crisis of Cuban missile when we escaped a possible World War III. This occurred on the basis of 2-1 vote between the 3 senior most Russian officers commanding a submarine, when they lost all communication with Moscow, following their coming too near a profundity charge from an American vessel barricading Cuban waters, completely unaware whether there was an outbreak of a war or not, submarine commander had to make a decision on whether to initiate his nuclear torpedo or back off-and with the responsibility so overwhelming he subjected it to a vote! Many a times, exhibition tapes of arriving artillery have been mistaken for the real nuclear thing; in addition instantaneous alerts have been set off by technical glitches as well as live nuclear weaponry being mistakenly flown over US without anybody’s notice till the plane returns back to its base. Nevertheless, launching of communication satellite has been mistaken for weapon launching and for instance in 1995,the then Russian leader, Yeltsin, was informed that scientific rocket launch by Norwegians was an incoming nuclear missile from US to which he should instantly strike back; fortunately he did not heed his advisers…(Evans,2012). Nuclear weapons should be banned so as to pay attention to cautions by world’s distinguished leaders. Eminent personalities throughout the globe, comprising of admirals, generals, scientists, Nobel Peace Laureates, presidents and heads of states have time and again cautioned of the inherent risks of depending upon nuclear arsenals for defense purposes. However, these warnings have fallen into deaf ears particularly from leaders of these nuclear-fortified states. It should be noted that nuclear weapons do not distinguish; nor should these leaders. It is imperative therefore, that such nuclear powers ought to apply similar standards, just like they would apply to themselves, by having zero nuclear arsenals. While, the community of nations has imposed blanket prohibitions on weapons having dreadful consequences-ranging from chemical and biological to cluster munitions and landmines-it is yet to do so for the most horrible weapons of all. There is a tendency of seeing nuclear weapons as legitimate in the control of some, something that must change immediately (Tutu, 2013). About 130 governments, different UN agencies, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons(ICAN) as well as the Red Cross gathered in Oslo in March 2013 to look at the cataclysmic effects of nuclear weapons use, in addition to the helplessness of relief agencies to offer an efficient assistance in the case of a nuclear assault. For so long, however, debates concerning nuclear arms have been neglected and pushed aside from such realities, instead with focus being laid on narrow concepts and geopolitics of national safety. Nevertheless, with adequate public pressure, I am of the opinion that governments can overcome hypocrisy that has long thwarted multilateral dialogues for years, and be persuaded as well as inspired to start negotiations for a treaty outlawing and eradicating these ultimate weapons of horror (Tutu,2013). Works cited Alan, Robock. "Ban Nuclear Weapons;Saving Money and Saving the World." Huffington Post (2014): np. David, Krieger. "Nuclear Weapons Present a Real and Present danger to Humanity and Life on Earth." Global Research (2010): np. Desmond, Tutu. "Nuclear Weapons Must Be Eradicated for all our Sakes." CommonDreams (2013): np. Gareth, Evans. "Why We Should Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ." Canberra (2012): np. Paul, Kapur. Dangerous Deterrent:Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia. Singapore: NUS Press, 2009. Read More