Nuclear Deterrence: A Justification for a world with Weapons of Mass Destruction
Most people in the developed countries believe that the inclusion of nuclear deterrence to the security of their country is vital to world peace. Nuclear deterrence are a philosophical theory which states that nuclear weapons serve the purpose of discouraging opposition countries from attacking with their own nuclear weapons due to the undertaking of retaliation via mutually assured destruction. But, is there any validity to this theory? I believe that nuclear disarmament and not nuclear deterrence is the key to world peace. Nuclear disarmament is the process of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons with an end goal to create a nuclear-weapon-free world. …show more content…
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion against this editorial and highlight the flawed rationale behind the nuclear deterrence theory.
Firstly, Spalding begins by stating the fact that it was the nuclear weapons that were responsible in resisting opposition against the Soviet Union and defending Europe from being captured by other superpowers. He then says that direct conflict between nuclear power always de-escalates to dialogue and this is one of the reasons that there has not been a World War III. Furthermore, Spalding says, “our country neglects the one aspect of national defense that can deliver this outcome: nuclear weapons.” (Spalding 1). Spalding sets up his initial argument by using historical evidence to glorify the role of nuclear weapons in resisting superpowers from attacking the US and its allies. Spalding later uses the word “defense” to emphasize a more positive connotation to the usage of …show more content…
Spalding says “Nuclear weapons are an affordable deterrent. The cost of the nuclear weapons represents less than 3 percent of the $526 billion (Defense Department budget).” and “The irony is distressing: We are funding weapons that kill on a daily basis to the detriment of the weapons that exist to prevent war.” (Spalding 2). This shows the state of mind of the author, he believes that nuclear weapons are economical and hence they must be manufactured much more to prevent wars. Spalding then implies that the US government needs to spend more money on nuclear weapons instead of other military hardware because the nuclear weapons do not kill as often as the regular military hardware. The entire premise of this argument exists of a false normative assumption and an illogical causal relationship. He assumes that all regular military hardware is used on a regular basis to kill people. This is an exaggeration with a narrow scope of view. Spalding does not account for other military expenditures besides firearms such as training, research, veteran community programs etc. Simultaneously, he assumes that nuclear weapons are never used and are only meant to degrade the opposition’s morale. This means that there is no need for more nuclear weapons. Despite this, Spalding appeals to the readers, to support the increase of nuclear weaponry by stating the
Most people in the developed countries believe that the inclusion of nuclear deterrence to the security of their country is vital to world peace. Nuclear deterrence are a philosophical theory which states that nuclear weapons serve the purpose of discouraging opposition countries from attacking with their own nuclear weapons due to the undertaking of retaliation via mutually assured destruction. But, is there any validity to this theory? I believe that nuclear disarmament and not nuclear deterrence is the key to world peace. Nuclear disarmament is the process of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons with an end goal to create a nuclear-weapon-free world. …show more content…
I am writing this letter to voice my opinion against this editorial and highlight the flawed rationale behind the nuclear deterrence theory.
Firstly, Spalding begins by stating the fact that it was the nuclear weapons that were responsible in resisting opposition against the Soviet Union and defending Europe from being captured by other superpowers. He then says that direct conflict between nuclear power always de-escalates to dialogue and this is one of the reasons that there has not been a World War III. Furthermore, Spalding says, “our country neglects the one aspect of national defense that can deliver this outcome: nuclear weapons.” (Spalding 1). Spalding sets up his initial argument by using historical evidence to glorify the role of nuclear weapons in resisting superpowers from attacking the US and its allies. Spalding later uses the word “defense” to emphasize a more positive connotation to the usage of …show more content…
Spalding says “Nuclear weapons are an affordable deterrent. The cost of the nuclear weapons represents less than 3 percent of the $526 billion (Defense Department budget).” and “The irony is distressing: We are funding weapons that kill on a daily basis to the detriment of the weapons that exist to prevent war.” (Spalding 2). This shows the state of mind of the author, he believes that nuclear weapons are economical and hence they must be manufactured much more to prevent wars. Spalding then implies that the US government needs to spend more money on nuclear weapons instead of other military hardware because the nuclear weapons do not kill as often as the regular military hardware. The entire premise of this argument exists of a false normative assumption and an illogical causal relationship. He assumes that all regular military hardware is used on a regular basis to kill people. This is an exaggeration with a narrow scope of view. Spalding does not account for other military expenditures besides firearms such as training, research, veteran community programs etc. Simultaneously, he assumes that nuclear weapons are never used and are only meant to degrade the opposition’s morale. This means that there is no need for more nuclear weapons. Despite this, Spalding appeals to the readers, to support the increase of nuclear weaponry by stating the