Staff Reporter
By Alisa Perekopskaia
NUCLEAR weapons have been a controversial topic for many years since the first nuclear weapon was created in the 1940s.
In the decades since, these weapons have shaped global politics, inspired intense social debate and fuelled a complex arms race that continues to influence international relations today.
Over the years there have been a lot of arguments against and for nuclear weapons and in the following article we will dive into both aspects. If nuclear weapons were to be used, they would have a catastrophic impact on the world in many ways, including environmental impacts, which would seriously impact our lives in the long term. The use of nuclear weapons would result in many deaths and serious damage to buildings and homes.
This essay will argue that the overall effect of some states possessing nuclear weapons is to reduce the number of wars and create international stability. I will first look at the arguments for nuclear weapons before examining the arguments against. However, this essay will argue that their existence is a major factor that prevents war and ensures security to different nations.
Advantages of Nuclear Weapons
When one thinks of nuclear weapons one doesn’t usually see the benefits they might bring for the world but sees only the disadvantages. However, nuclear weapons act as a strong deterrent because of the principle known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means if one country uses nuclear weapons, the other countries in possession of nuclear weapons are capable of retaliating with equal force, destroying both sides.
As a former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, for example, thought that nuclear weapons made the prospect of great power war much less likely. This terrifying possibility makes nations think twice before engaging in war, helping to prevent major conflicts.
In the modern world, a good example would be the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which escalated on 24 February 2022. In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the West under the Budapest Memorandum, but some argue that keeping them might have made the situation even more unstable. However, the fact that Russia has nuclear weapons prevents the start of the third world war because other countries with nuclear weapons don’t want to get into a direct military conflict with Russia, since it could lead to serious nuclear destruction.
Long-term stability between superpowers can be achieved by nuclear weapons. Due to the serious risk of nuclear retaliation, countries with nuclear arms are discouraged from engaging in direct war against each other.
The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan, which began in 1947 over territorial disputes in Kashmir and escalated with nuclear tests in 1998, is an excellent example. Both countries now have nuclear weapons. One could argue that other nuclear-armed nations, such as the US, would be less likely to intervene in the conflict as peacemakers if Pakistan and India did not possess nuclear weapons since there would be less at stake. This establishes a balance of power that discourages hostile behaviour and contributes to the preservation of a generally peaceful international environment among the world’s major powers.
Furthermore, it could be argued that while the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were tragic, they may have had a significant impact in raising global awareness and attitudes toward nuclear weapons. These events made people base their beliefs and fears on the reality of nuclear bombs.
As Stephen Herzog from The Conversation recounts from a survivor of Hiroshima, Setsuko Thurlow:
“It was like a procession of ghosts. I say ‘ghosts’ because they simply did not look like human beings. Their hair was rising upwards, and they were covered with blood and dirt, and they were burned and blackened and swollen. Their skin and flesh were hanging, and parts of the bodies were missing. Some were carrying their own eyeballs.”
This haunting description captures the unimaginable human cost of nuclear weapons and explains why global leaders were so shaken in the aftermath of 1945. I believe that if these bombings had not occurred, nuclear tensions during the Cold War arms race might have been far more extreme, and nuclear weapons could have remained abstract or mythical threats rather than actual dangers. Therefore, if nuclear weapons weren’t to have been tested, we wouldn’t know the actual dangers surrounding nuclear weapons and their widespread impact.
Another advantage is that nuclear weapons are spread throughout various political systems, such as democracy in the US, authoritarianism in Russia, and communism in China. Because these global powers all possess nuclear weapons, it creates a balance among different political regimes, potentially deterring unilateral aggression.
Some people who are not in an authoritarian regime might argue that it would be safer if authoritarian regimes did not have nuclear weapons, given concerns about their decision-making processes. Mutual deterrence, however, reduces the likelihood of use because both authoritarian and democratic states possess these weapons. This debate is made more complex by the fact that, to date, only democracies have used nuclear weapons in combat.
Disadvantages of Nuclear Weapons
Although I personally believe that nuclear weapons act as a major source of security and have more benefits than negatives, I still see the destructive side of them. Nuclear weapons have the potential to cause massive destruction and loss of life. This could be proved with the fact that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 resulted in approximately 210,000 deaths within three months.
Nuclear weapons are very powerful and capable of causing mass destruction. They release huge quantities of energy when they explode, producing a large blast, intense heat, and dangerous radiation. This can result in building destruction, fires, and serious injuries or fatalities of many people.
The concerning part is that nowadays nuclear weapons have grown in power and capacity, especially with the development of the hydrogen bomb. As Stephen Herzog from The Conversation explains:
“What had once seemed a decisive end to a global war now looked like the onset of an era wherein no city or civilization would truly be safe.”
This perfectly highlights the shift from the atomic age to the thermonuclear age — a change that makes today’s nuclear arsenals even more terrifying than the bombs of 1945.
Furthermore, nuclear weapons can have an extremely destructive effect on the environment. Some consequences of nuclear weapons can have a devastating effect on wildlife, plants and entire ecosystems. If a nuclear weapon is used, the explosion would cause smoke and dust from firestorms to block sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface and would cause a very noticeable drop in global temperature.
This is called “nuclear winter.” This abrupt drop in temperature would lead to agricultural collapse where the cooling would disrupt growing seasons, leading to very large food shortages. Whole ecosystems would collapse due to the release of intense radiation that can damage the DNA in living organisms, causing genetic mutations. These mutations can lead to birth defects, reduced fertility, and long-term harm to animal populations and the extinctions of certain animals.
In opposition to my argument, someone might claim that the presence of nuclear weapons may produce a threat to international security since they raise the possibility of devastating wars. Although having nuclear weapons makes potential conflicts much more dangerous, I still firmly think they act as a deterrent rather than provoking war.
In the case of Iran, worries about its nuclear program have made Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States very nervous, raising fears that a war could cause a lot of damage. Iran’s nuclear program worries many countries because they think Iran might use it to make nuclear bombs, even though Iran says it is only for peaceful reasons.
Due to this, the United States and its allies have engaged in many disputes with Iran and imposed punishments such as economic sanctions to try to stop its nuclear ambitions. As President Barack Obama stated in Prague:
“The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,”
—a reminder that modern tensions make the threat of nuclear conflict just as serious today as it was during the Cold War.
Knowing that the other side possesses nuclear weapons makes nations less likely to initiate a major conflict because its effects would be terrible for both parties. Due to this, I think that even though nuclear weapons are dangerous, they can also bring stability and stop major conflicts by avoiding direct confrontation between superpowers.
Even if nuclear weapons are not used, someone with the alternative view might argue there is an economic cost to them. Governments today obsess over nuclear programs causing them to neglect other aspects of civil society like healthcare, infrastructure and education, resulting in a militaristic society.
In 2024, the 9 nuclear-armed nations spent over $100 billion on their nuclear weapons — a total of $11,409,071 per hour. This could cause an unsustainable economy and citizen unhappiness because money is being spent on weapons rather than healthcare and education. In the long-term however, we must consider that the existence of nuclear weapons saves more lives.
Nowadays, AI has had similar threats since both nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence are examples of man-made forces that have the power to instantly alter history. AI evokes a similar fear of power eluding human control, as nuclear weapons demonstrated how a single invention could endanger the survival of the entire world.
Following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Albert Einstein issued a warning:
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”
Even though he was speaking of nuclear weapons, his warning about AI is still relevant today. The concern is that AI is superior to human beings and can alter our beliefs, undermine trust and lead to catastrophic harms.
Conclusion
In conclusion I believe that although nuclear weapons could heavily impact our world if used, they still prevent war between large nations.
If two nuclear weapons possessing countries are close to conflict or engage in war, other countries who have nuclear weapons will most likely act as peacemakers. Additionally, if war between these nuclear weapon possessing countries occurs both sides understand and acknowledge that many lives are at stake.
This mutual understanding leads to a very complicated situation where everyone is aware that the consequences of war would include mass casualties, environmental destruction, and the collapse of cities. Due to this, nuclear weapons encourage countries to think twice before taking aggressive actions and involving nuclear weapons in any conflict.
This makes them act as a strong deterrent, pushing leaders toward diplomacy instead of physical war. So, while the threat of nuclear war is very terrifying and possible, these weapons have also helped keep the world from sliding into destructive wars between major powers.
Click here to read more Sponsored Article News from The Olive Press.
