1

Ben Narlock

Mr. Wolfe

Research Project

17 May 2019

The Use of Nuclear Weapons

One weapon could destroy the world or bring some peace to the world. Nuclear weapons are a

hot topic in the modern day. Ever, since the first atomic weapon at the end of World War

2 in 1945.. Then, after that the cold war set in and the nuclear arms race took place. After

then almost every major nation has some nuclear arsenal. With the cold war a topic of

M.A.D.; mutually assured destruction, if one country shoots one of their nuclear weapons

at another country the other fires all of they're insured in both countries' destruction.

Which some say is enough to stop countries from starting a total nuclear war. There are

enough nukes in the world today to destroy the earth many times over. Modern politics

many of negotiation revolve around the topic of nuclear weapons and who can get their

hands on them. In the hands of terrorists, they could have horrible outcomes compared to

the hands of the US or other nations where it is safer. But with major powers, nuclear

weapons can be used to keep other countries to stay in line and follow by their rules.

Thus those keeping nuclear weapons could retain peace by being a deterrent for other

nations from taking negative actions and could be used to protect other nations, but on the

downside, if they get into the hands of terrorists, and are extremely dangerous.

Those in favor of larger nuclear arsenals believe that the super-powered nations can use

these nuclear arms as a deterrent from opposing nations from starting a conflict. Looking
 2

back to the cold war; probably the world has been to total nuclear war, and with the threat

of nuclear war, “applied effectively, deterrence discourages an adversary from pursuing

an undesirable action”(62). Nuclear war isn't good for any nation, so with a treat of

complete destruction; it could be used as persuasion from another nation doing something

inadequate. Usually, when a nation or group is making threats or demanding something

to a world superpower they're not thinking rationally, but when “deterrence rests on the

assumption that where risk is involved, humans act rationally”(62). As soon as an

opposing nation realizes the costs that their actions could have they start to act more

rational and change and stop what they're trying to do. If you can get people to think

rationally you can get them to follow safer actions. All in all a larger nuclear arsenal for

major superpowers can help stop other nations from starting conflicts.

The other view of those in favor of larger nuclear arsenals is that nuclear arms can be used to

protect other nations. As the united states are the main world super-power we use that to

help protect our allies which we can use our nuclear arms as a way to protect our allies

from conflict. The US has one of the largest nuclear amounts in the world and they easily

have the “will and the means to use its nuclear weapons, if necessary, to protect [their

allies] from aggression”(1). With their large assort

of nuclear arms, they can easily help their nearby allies from treats. Which is good to build trust

and be a good ally with our nearby neighbors With many allies in Europe and in NATO

who we've been supporting since the cold war we started to share our “nuclear strategy

and nuclear deployment capability with NATO”(1). NATO is our biggest allies and we
 3

are sharing with them our nuclear strategy which is very important to our nuclear plans.

Which is one of the biggest pieces of the American defense

strategy. To wrap it up to the pro side main points is about you can use the large number of

nuclear arms to make the world better.

On con side to large nuclear arsenals; firstly they believe that the problem of nuclear weapons

getting into the wrong hands. After, major catastrophes such as 9/11 many feared about

what would happen if “terrorists might get their hands on highly enriched uranium and

make a primitive nuclear device.”(35). In the world, today terrorism is already a big deal

and that is without terrorists having nuclear capabilities. Just imagine the destruction they

could have if that became a reality they could

destroy cities with the press of a button. A non terrorist nuclear threat is another country here in

the pacific, North Korea. Ever since the Korean war, they have been attempting to get

their hands on nuclear weapons and now that they do it has “stoked fears across the

region and beyond”(1). They have been expanding the capable range on their missiles;

now being able to hit the US. North Korea is dangerous and they’re not following

international law when it comes to nuclear arm, so it unsafe to

say what they will do with their nuclear arms. In conclusion, nuclear weapons in the arms of

terrorists or unstable governments put the world in danger.

Lastly, these weapons, which are completely dangerous and cause destruction. As the US is the

only nation to have used a nuclear weapon against another nation; Hiroshima and

Nagasaki. We know the amount of destruction they can bring and how truly dangerous

they are. Nuclear weapons for years have caused “Nuclear weapons have fueled
 4

apocalyptic anxieties for decades”(1). With one wrong press of a button, the world could

be over. Which makes very nervous to the idea that one push of the wrong button the

world

could be over in a matter of hours.With all the amount of sanctions and international laws over

nuclear weapons, but the bad news is “the nuclear nonproliferation and arms control

regimes are fraying badly”(1). With the danger of nuclear arms, they would have better

legislation to control these dangerous weapons. It's not a good sign that the most

dangerous weapons the world has; have some of the worst regulations over them. To sum

up, is that nuclear arms are dangerous and the way they are being

taken care of is putting the world in danger.

To wrap it all up; the world is somewhat split on the topic of nuclear arms. Whether they are

used in protecting people and keeping the peace; or the issues we could have if they get

into the wrong hands or how dangerous they really are. With all the recent talks of what

North Korea can do with their nuclear arms, and how we must respond to them. With the

constant threat of conflict and how these nuclear weapons will be involved; with this

issue dating back all the way to the cold war till the modern

day, and probably for the rest of our lives. These weapons will always be a hot topic because of

how powerful they really are. With the capability of leveling cities with ease. We really

need to look together and truly understand how we can use these weapons to benefit our

lives, instead of controlling our lives.

 5

Work Cited:

Colby, Elbridge. "If You Want Peace, Prepare for Nuclear War." Foreign Affairs, Nov. 2018, pp.

25. SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Krepinevich, Jr,Andrew F. "The Eroding Balance of Terror: The Decline of Deterrence." Foreign

Affairs, Jan. 2019, pp. 62. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

“North Korea.” Global Zero,

www.globalzero.org/north-korea/?gclid=Cj0KCQjww47nBRDlARIsAEJ34bnLE4MbY_

SEDCEmEtKo5ADFPWBkbl5V_AO3175nPERphinAW-4PjRsaAmDvEALw_wcB.

Patrick, Stewart M. “The Lingering Specter of Nuclear War.” Council on Foreign Relations,

Council on Foreign Relations, 2019, www.cfr.org/blog/lingering-specter-nuclear-war.

Sagan, Scott D. "Armed and Dangerous." Foreign Affairs, Nov. 2018, pp. 35. SIRS Issues

Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Sonne, Paul. "Mattis Portrays Nuclear Strategy as a Check on Russia." Washington Post, 07 Feb.

2018. SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

Vergun, David. “U.S. Nuclear Umbrella Extends to Allies, Partners, Defense Official Sa.” U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 2019,

dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1822953/us-nuclear-umbrella-extends-to-allies-par

tners-defense-official-says/.
6