Amar Parikh: Arguments for Nuclear Weapons

             There has been a lot of talk about stockpiling nuclear weapons since the end of the cold war and the argument is that should we still need there weapons? The argument against nuclear weapons is that the power of the bomb will have catastrophic consequences to human life. According to ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons)  “No humanitarian response would be possible, and the effects of radiation would cause death and suffering to humans years after the initial explosion”. There are however arguments for nuclear weapons which have the basis of nuclear peace. In this case states that posse nuclear weapons are not inclined to enter conflicts with one another. I argue that states should keep their nuclear weapons so that they can be protected by other states through their nuclear barrier.

            Those not in favor of nuclear weapons argue that the use of the nuclear weapons will lead to mutually assured destruction but it can be argued that this can be a good thing. If one state knows that using nuclear weapons will result in a second strike, in which the other state can be assured to fire nuclear weapons back this will prevent both states from using the weapons. A big selling point for countries to have nuclear weaponry is to elevate their state in terms of power. The power does not come from the fact that a state would use the weapon; it is the fear that the state has in its possession nuclear weapons that creates the illusion of power.

            Since the collapse of the Soviet Union we cannot use history as an example of the benefits of nuclear power. However, with the end of the cold war neither the nature of the risk or the nature of its benefits has changed since. Some argue that within the past 70 years since World War II there has not been any major war since. Because of nuclear weapons the last 50 years of the 20^th century did not witness as much destruction of the world as it did in the first 50 with two world wars. I am not here to say that because of nuclear weapons it will cause world peace because it won’t grantee it. What nuclear deterrence does is preventing wars from going anything short of nuclear and creates a limit of the violence factor.

            There will always be a need for nuclear deterrence whether it is now or in the future. The interest of one state will not comply with the interest of another state. Even after the end of the Cold War Russia seeks to become a superpower state and with possession of nuclear they will use it as a leveraging point to get to this power. The same could be said for China who is modernizing and growing as a nation rapidly. Soon they will aspire to become a superpower and use nuclear weapons as leverage towards other non-nuclear states. Without nations like the U.S., UK, and France to use nuclear deterrence for peace I fear nuclear warfare would have come much sooner and hopefully not later.

Works Cited

"Arguments for Nuclear Abolition." ICAN. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.

"PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1997." PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1997. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.

Perkovich, George, and James M. Acton. Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009. Web.