Bianchini 1

Geoff Bianchini

Mrs. Walters

World Lit/Comp M8

November 20, 2009

Need for Nukes

When the words “nuclear arms” are mentioned to people, thoughts of massive destruction

or large scale fatalities come to mind. Maybe some of us even think of the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty—the treaty to rid the world of nuclear weapons and material. But are these

types of thoughts really justified? Seriously, the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used

was when the United States dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end

World War II. According to the New Zealand Herald on July 1, 2007, these bombs were

unavoidable in order to end the war. Other than that, there have not been any nuclear attacks in a

single area of the world. Sure, we all have seen footage of nuclear bomb testing or the infamous

mushroom clouds that these explosive metal capsules produce, but it does not make sense for one

to automatically think of the few negative effects of nuclear weaponry. In fact, the numerous

positive effects, one being deterrence, have been proven to offset the negative ones.

The positive effects of nukes are so overlooked that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty, or NPT, has been ratified by 189 countries. Five of these countries actually possess

nuclear weapons. This treaty was opened for signing in July 1, 1968, and was proposed by

Ireland to lessen the amount of nuclear weapons around the world. The NPT contains three

pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology. While many

consider this treaty to be protecting the world, in reality, it is making life more dangerous. In

February of 2007 the DATSD (Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
 Bianchini 2

Nuclear Matters) claimed that it is impossible for anyone to wish away the realities of the

nuclear age. For the better of our world, The United Nations should abolish the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty. To prove this idea reasonable, I will examine the significance of deterrence,

how it is impossible to erase nuclear technology, and how many countries would fail to counter

nuclear threats without the existence of nuclear arms.

The presence of nuclear weapons will solidify the well-being of mankind by means of

deterrence. Deterrence is the idea of having a “if you attack me, I’ll attack you back” mentality.

Because nuclear weapons can be so devastating, no one wants to attack a country that possesses

nuclear arms for fear that the defending country will retaliate. Without nuclear weapons, this

deterrence strategy would fail miserably which ultimately leads to unstable global safety. In the

Cold War, Russia, or USSR at the time, and the United States both had nuclear weapons aimed at

each other. Both countries knew that if they were to drop nukes, the other would get even with

just as much force. This would result in both countries being extremely crippled. Because of the

possible nuclear devastation, neither country ended up attacking.

This is just one example of how effective deterrence is. In January of 2007, DATSD

reported that the sole possible function of nuclear weapons is to deter other countries from using

them. The only nuclear attack ever occurred in Japan and was mainly because the US felt that

their nuclear bombs could do more damage than Japan could retaliate with. If the Japanese had

their own arsenal of nukes at that time, USA would not have dropped those bombs for fear of

their own countries well being. A January 17, 2009, article in The Star indicates that the “axis of

evil” is a greater threat now than it has been before. The idea of deterrence keeps the world’s

nuclear powers from attacking anyone because they know whatever they attack with will come

right back at them and may even be more deadly. The Christian Science Monitor reported in
 Bianchini 3

August, 2007, that the United States will retain its nuclear arsenal for deterrence only and will

not employ nuclear weapons except for in retaliation. In the history of the world, deterrence has

never failed. The only reason nukes were dropped on Japan was because Japan did not have any

nukes. Other than this, conflicts between two nuclear armed countries, such as the Cold War,

have never resulted in nuclear detonation. The only way deterrence will work is if nuclear arms

continue to be produced.

Another reason nuclear weapons need to exist is easily justified by the fact that getting

rid of all nuclear arms would be impossible. No one can erase nuclear technology that has been

widely accepted for decades. In July of 2008 the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that

because there is no effective protection against a terrorist-caused nuclear disaster, the only

solution is to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place. While all

countries’ governments may abide by the NPT, non-state terrorist organizations will still have

the required knowledge and resources to create nuclear weapons. Now, I’m not saying that there

isn’t a way to enforce the disarmament of all nuclear devices; I’m just asserting that there will

always be technology available that will result in the continuing of nuclear weapon production.

Since nuclear weapon technology will always be around, it is unwise to disarm nuclear

weapons around the world. This would cause an even greater risk for a nuclear attack from

terrorist organizations due to lack of deterrence. The January 4, 2009 Wall Street Journal

revealed that achieving a world free of nuclear weapons would require measures to counter

nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening. As of now, not one country has a solid

plan for how it would handle a nuclear threat from terrorists if there were nothing to retaliate

with. I’m not saying there is a 100 percent chance that this will happen, but I am saying there is a

greater chance of this happening if the NPT is continued to be implemented. This further
 Bianchini 4

endangers the safety of all life on earth and is yet another reason why the UN should get rid of

the NPT.

The NPT is a good idea at a glance, but when you look into all the problems that could

arise, the NPT is actually a treaty that no country should ratify. If the NPT continues to progress,

there will be lack of deterrence, inability to eliminate nuclear arms technology, and no way to

counteract nuclear threats that may occur. To combat this, the United Nations should abolish the

Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. It is quite ironic that the only way to keep the world safe is to

keep producing the weapons that people think are a source of instability. Nuclear weapons may

be dangerous to possess, but to not possess them is even more perilous.