Nuclear Weapons:

Their usefulness in modern society and the role they play as a deterrent of conflict

Fraser Olson
104454558
November 9th 2015

On August 6th 1945 the United States government shocked the world. For the first
time in history a nuclear weapon had been used in war. In the blink of an eye 80 000

citizens from the city of Hiroshima were snuffed from existence 1, again on August 9th the
United States detonated another atomic weapon this time on the city of Nagasaki; again
in the blink of an eye 40 000 lives1 had been washed from the face of the earth. The
United States bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forever changed the way war is
looked upon. Ever since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have
been one of the most controversial topics discussed among the populous.
One can argue that nuclear weapons can be used as a deterrent to prevent
conflict from occurring2, this is supported through the notion of total assured destruction
or mutually assured destruction3, it can also be observed that nuclear weapons may
have prevented a full scale war between Russia and the United States during the cold
war this can witnessed through the theory of Massive retaliation 4. On the other side of
the debate it can be recognized that nuclear deterrence has no place in the modern
political climate and the use, production, and possession of nuclear weapons should be
prohibited5.
The usefulness of nuclear weapons can also be highly debated; It can be
debated that nuclear weapons are useful to states as they can prevent conflict and even
end wars, as seen when the Japanese surrendered after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings. In addition it can be debated that in the present time nuclear weapons have
little usefulness other than a show of power 5.

The usefulness of nuclear weapons has been effective in certain situations in the
past while still being highly controversial. When the United States Government used the
nuclear weapons Little Boy and Fat Man, it caused enough damage and destruction that
the Japanese say no other option other than to surrender to United States. In the case

of Japan the United States choice to use nuclear weapons was highly successful; It was
successful as it cause the Japanese to surrender without the need for more American
soldiers to die.
While the use of nuclear weapons on Japan is without a doubt a tragedy, it is
estimated that had the United States not dropped the atomic bombs millions more lives
would be lost6. Had the United States chosen to not deploy its nuclear weapons on
Japan the United States would have been required to invade the Japanese mainland. At
this time the Soviet Union had also recently declared war on Japan, this would mean
the Soviets would also be obliged to invade the Japanese mainland. While it is
dependant on how forcefully the citizens of Japan resisted the invasion it was estimated
that allied casualties could reach into the millions and Japanese casualties could reach
possibly into the tens of millions6. While the use of the nuclear bombs caused an
immense loss of life; The casualties as a direct result of conventional bombing of the
Japanese mainland were in far greater numbers than the casualties caused by the
atomic bombs utilised by the United States Government. The fire bombing campaign of
Tokyo in March 1945 was responsible for nearly 120 000 casualties 6, a number which is
very similar to the number of casualties caused by the atomic bombs.
Although it can be noted that the Soviet declaration of war on Japan could have
contributed far more to the surrender of Japan than either the atomic bombs or a full
scale mainland invasion of Japan6. It is crucial to recognize that had the Soviet Union
and the United States invaded Japan, a divide of the country similar to that of East/
West Germany may have occurred6. Had Japan been divided it could have led to
vicious wars such as those observed in Vietnam and Korea. It must also be realized that

the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the world the ultimate horror that is
nuclear weapons; It can be hypothesised that the horrors observed in the aftermath of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have prevented the use of nuclear weapons during the
cold war6.
It currently seems as though in the modern political landscape nuclear weapons
have no place. For years now, the United States and Russia have been working to
reduce their nuclear stockpiles, president Obama has brought about a global zero
initiative project which seeks to reduce nuclear weapons to the point of not existing 7. In
line with this initiative NATO has stated that they strive to move toward a world without
nuclear weapons7. This shows that not only do nuclear weapons have no place in the
modern world, it also shows that while nuclear weapons have no place in the modern
world, states must continue to possess a stockpile in the name of deterrence, and all
nuclear weapon possessing states must reduce their stockpiles simultaneously7. While
in theory nuclear disarmament of the United States seems to be a good strategy, some
countries fear what could happen without the United States nuclear arsenal as a global
deterrent7. Among these countries include Japan, currently Japan does not have a
nuclear arsenal it may feel compelled to arm itself as a form of deterrence against
countries such as China, Russia, and a nuclear North Korea 7.
Another large hurdle in global disarmament is that countries such as Iran seek to
create their own nuclear arsenal as a form of deterrence; In addition countries such as
Iran see nuclear weapons as a way to fix their current security issues 7. Another issue in
the global zero initiative lies within non state actors, such as terrorist organizations.
Organizations such as AL-Qaeda and more recently isis have been very vocal in

pursuits to acquire nuclear weapons7. This is an issue as an unstable country who has a
nuclear arsenal such as Pakistan poses a potential security risk as could give these
terrorist organizations the ability to construct and build their own warheads or acquire
warheads from a country such as Pakistan which has a largely corrupt government 7.
Rogue states that may wish to attack the United States as well as non state actors such
as terrorist groups pose a problem to nuclear disarmament as nuclear weapons can be
used as a deterrent against these states who wish to attack the United States with
nuclear weapons. While in an ideal world nuclear weapons could be reduced to zero, it
does not seem that reducing global stockpiles to zero is the best move with the current
political climate7. Getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether could cause more problems
than it solves;
A more appropriate strategy would be to slowly reduce the size of global
stockpiles, this would allow states that possess nuclear weapons to still receive the
positive benefits of deterrence, while also reducing the global stockpile and lower the
threat that is nuclear weapons7. It can also be noted that decreasing the global nuclear
stockpile while it would appear to be a beneficial decision, could instead lead to
decreased international relations, instead of the sought after increase in global stability
from decreasing the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.
While nuclear weapons were a key point of escalation during the cold war,
nuclear weapons may have had an effect on preventing an all out war between Russia
and the United States entirely. This can be explained due to the theory of mutually
assured destruction. The theory of mutually assured destruction is a form deterrence
which stipulates that if a state equipped with a large enough nuclear arsenal were to

launch a nuclear attack on another state with a large enough nuclear arsenal, the states
would in turn completely and totally destroy each other due to the use of nuclear
weapons8.
By virtue of the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on another state would
result in one's state being entirely destroyed, this fact prevents the state from using
nuclear weapons, therefore mutually assured destruction is a form of deterrence. It can
therefore be hypothesized that by way of mutually assured destruction it prevented the
United States and Russia from directly attacking each other; Had they engaged in direct
conflict and either of the states launched a nuclear strike at the other, the opposing state
would have launched a retaliatory strike, thus causing the complete and total
destruction of both states8.
The cuban missile crisis is the closest the Soviet Union and the United States
came to direct conflict, if it werent for mutually assured destruction the cuban missile
crisis may have played out decidedly different 9. Had each side not had the destruction of
their entire state in jeopardy they may have chosen much different courses of action.
The Cuban missile crisis took place from 16th to the 28th of October 19629. The 13
days the crisis took place over were some of the most tense the world had ever seen;
This is likely the closest the Soviet Union and United States Governments came to
using their nuclear arsenals. The Cuban missile crisis occurred when an american spy
plane discovered short and intermediate range ballistic missile silos in Cuba, a mere 90
miles from Florida9. The United States decided to blockade Cuba to prevent more
missiles from entering Cuba. Nuclear deterrence played a role in how the events of the
Cuban missile crisis unfolded10. The United States had nuclear missiles placed in

Turkey and Italy10, these missiles were well within striking distance of Moscow and the
Soviet Union was well aware of this fact 10. When the crisis flared up both the leaders of
the Soviet Union and those of the United States were readily prepared to make
sacrifices to prevent war10; This is due to the theory of deterrence, each country's
leaders knew they had missiles within striking distance of their adversary, but they were
also fully aware that the other had missiles well within striking distance.
The leaders of the United States government and those of the Soviet Union
recognized that if either side launched their missiles it would end in catastrophe as both
parties would launch their full arsenal and through the theory of mutually assured
destruction both states would sustain catastrophic damage 10. This meant the leader of
both the Soviet Union and the United States governments were both ready to make
sacrifices to end the conflict, the leaders of each state realised the Cuban missile crisis
had to be solved peacefully or face certain destruction 10.
Another lesson learned during the cuban missile crisis was that while the United
States possessed a far greater nuclear arsenal at the time it did not greatly benefit their
position during the Cuban missile crisis10. At this point in time the United States had a
17:110 advantage in the number of nuclear warheads it possessed. President John F.
Kennedy was quoted saying What difference does it make? Theyve got enough to
blow us up now anyway10. The secretary of defence at the time Robert McNamara
stated the assumption that the strategic nuclear balance (or imbalance) mattered was
absolutely wrong10.This shows that while the United States possessed a far larger
arsenal it did not greatly benefit them due to the role of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban
missile crisis may perhaps be one of the best examples of nuclear deterrence as while

both the Soviet Union and the United States government were extremely close to using
their nuclear weapons, neither state decided to use their arsenal as they feared the
consequences of an all out war10. While in the short term it appeared the Soviet Union
had lost during the Cuban missile crisis, their perceived defeat led to the Soviets
building massive arms stockpiles and by 1970 the Soviet Union had matched the
nuclear capability of the United States10.
Eventually the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union were able
to come to a peaceful resolution that resulted in the Soviet Union withdrawing their
missiles from Cuba, and the United States withdrawing their missiles from Turkey and
Italy10. It can be argued that although it seemed as though the United States and the
Soviet Union were mere inches from all out nuclear war, that due to the robust nature of
nuclear deterrence both the Soviet Union and the United States governments were
much farther from nuclear war due to the mutual fear each state had of nuclear war 10.
Massive retaliation may also have played a role in preventing war in eastern
Europe as well as well as a war between the United States and the Soviet Union 4.
Massive retaliation was a United States Military doctrine that stated if the Soviet Union
was to attack a member of eastern Europe the United States would respond with a
nuclear attack that would overwhelmingly destroy Soviet cities and military
installations12. Massive retaliation is a form of deterrence in which a state threatens to
launch on overwhelmingly powerful nuclear strike if they or their allies are attacked. It
can therefore be hypothesized that as a form of deterrence nuclear weapons can be
effective when related to the theory of massive retaliation 11.

To conclude, nuclear weapons have had a profound affect on the world and an
even larger impact on how states interact. It can be seen that while it would appear that
getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely would be seem to be the best decision in regards
to global safety; Nuclear weapons still play a large role in the world today. One can
observe that nuclear weapons can play a vital role in global conflicts as nuclear
weapons have shown to be an effective deterrent in preventing conflict from occurring 2,
this statement can be supported by events such as the Cuban missile crisis 10. In
addition the theory of deterrence is can be observed through the notion of total assured
destruction or mutually assured destruction3. One can also hypothesize that nuclear
weapons could have played a role in preventing a war between Russia and the United
States during the cold war, this can witnessed through the theory of Massive retaliation 4.
On the other side of the debate it can be recognized that nuclear deterrence is an
outdated theory and nuclear weapons have no place in modern politics.
Whether or not nuclear weapons are useful can also be debated; It can be seen
that nuclear weapons can be useful to some states as they have the potential to prevent
conflict and even end wars, as was observed when the Japanese were forced to
surrender after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Notes
1. " Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." History.com. A&E Television Networks,
n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.
2. Castillo, Jasen J. "Nuclear Terrorism: Why Deterrence Still Matters." Current History
102.668 (2003): 426-31. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
3. Parrington, Alan J. "Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited: Strategic Doctrine in
Question." Airpower Journal 11.4 (1997): 4-19. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
4. Hallion, Richard P. "Evolution of the Secretary of Defense in the Era of Massive
Retaliation: Charles Wilson, Neil McElroy, and Thomas Gates, 1953-1961. Special

Study 3 in the Cold War Foreign Policy Series." Air Power History 61.1 (2014):
54.ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
5.Butler, Lee. "The False God of Nuclear Deterrence." Global Dialogue 1.2 (1999): 7481. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
6. Keck, Zachary. "How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives." The
Diplomat. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.
7. Rutherford, Ian P. "NATO's New Strategic Concept, Nuclear Weapons, and Global
Zero." International Journal 66.2 (2011): 463-82. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

8. Parrington, Alan J. "Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited: Strategic Doctrine in

Question." Airpower Journal 11.4 (1997): 4-19. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
9. Deinema, Michal, and Loet Leydesdorff. "The Two Faces of American Power:
Military and Political Communication during the Cuban Missile Crisis." Kybernetes 35.3
(2006): 547,566,280,283. ProQuest. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
10. Maritz, Dominique. "The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Deterrence Value of Nuclear
Weapons." EInternational Relations. N.p., 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
11. Hamburg, Roger. "MASSIVE RETALIATION REVISITED." Military Affairs 38.1
(1974): 17. ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
12. Massive Retaliation.ProQuest. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.