Arguments Against Nuclear War

Improved Essays
1. The United Nations defines chemical and bacteriological weapons as chemical agents or chemical substances that are either gaseous, liquid or solid and are use due to its toxicity and harmful effects towards animals, plants and humans. Furthermore, bacteriological agents of warfare are living organism, that as well as chemical weapons, are intended to cause disease or death in animals, plants, and humans. The difference is that bacteriological weapons “depend for their effects on their ability to multiply in the person, animal, or plant attacked” (p. 203). The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention prohibited the use of biological weapons, and it was signed by 103 nations. The nations that signed the treaty agreed that the use, development, as …show more content…
There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives. The long-term dangers of radioactive fallout and environmental contamination potentially affect innocent people, allies, enemies, or even one’s own population. Hence, since the side effects of nuclear weapons can’t be measure or controlled, can’t be ever justifiable. The psychologist Eric Fromm supports part of this view by claiming that logic of the way that wars back in the day used to be, are not the same, nor hold for the same standards for modern nuclear wars. The pacifist position argues that the use of nuclear weapons will always be morally wrong because: “1) their use will result in widespread noncombatant deaths and 2) the destructive effects of such weapons will necessarily be out of proportion to any political or military objectives achieved” (p.208). Yet, there are some objections against the pacifist position. First, an argument against the view that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it’s inevitable and will eventually escalate to nuclear war, is that since 1945 there is not a single case recorded with the use of nuclear weapons. Second, by taking this pacifist’s position

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Mutually assured destruction prevented an outbreak of nuclear warfare during the Cold War. The stance against the employment of nuclear weapons arose from shifting norms in international society, as states were prompted to dedicate themselves to preventative war. Additionally, it was challenged whether the enormously devastating impact of nuclear weapons was ethically sound and whether it could be effectively used militarily. The notion that there was no winner to a nuclear war, however, predominately restricted states from resorting to nuclear warfare. The was no nuclear conflict in the Cold War because of mutually assured destruction.…

    • 1053 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    People have different thoughts on if the U.S should retain or dismantle their nuclear arsenal. People that think it should be kept make arguments like how nuclear weapons help keep the U.S safe and how they can be used if there were to be any sort of war. On the contrary People that feel our nuclear weapons should be dismantled say our nuclear weapons cost too much to be kept and they make us seem hostile to other nations. So should the U.S keep its nuclear arsenal? Well there are lots of pros and cons to both sides of this argument.…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Schlosser agrees with this point but he also states that since the deterrence is psychological and not physical it could not work in the future and bring about disastrous results. For example, if India and Pakistan used their nuclear weapons on each other, more that one billion people would be killed. The next point that examined is nuclear weapons violate international law. This is true as nuclear deterrence is like holding a nation hostage. Also nuclear weapons cannot differentiate between military targets and civilians it violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians.…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Iran’s ambition for nuclear weapons has already created deep-seated tensions within the region and its development of nuclear weapons holds the dangerous probability of destroying the peace created by regional international regimes. Waltz’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility of states having different motivational factors in developing nuclear weapons than simply for…

    • 1015 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    This is because self-defense can only occur after an armed attack , since the text says 'after ' which means that a preemptive strike could never comply with section 51 . This presents a very restrictive interpretation of section 51 which is supported by the UNSC, General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and international scholars . This is seen with the international condemnation of Israel for preemptively attacking Iraq 's nuclear factory . To further support the anti-preemptive strike stance, the International Court of Justice have also ruled that it would take a restrictive interpretation of Article 51 as seen in Nicaragua v. United States. This criticism is, however, being flawed if looking at it from a logical perspective and given a new threat that terrorist can now pose.…

    • 2568 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    According to Schelling there are different types of deterrence, general, extended, etc., but the one we are most focused on is nuclear deterrence (Schelling). Nuclear deterrence focuses on how nuclear weapons raise the cost of war to unacceptably high measures, which falls right in line with Waltz’s neorealist ideals. This would entice countries to avoid the risk of the usage of nuclear weapons. Of course this only is a viable option to avoid war if the states had nuclear weapons and had demonstrated a willingness to use the weapons. Pluto and Saturn are not seeking to develop nuclear capabilities, which, according to nuclear deterrence and Waltz, this leaves the door open for interstate war (Waltz).…

    • 1953 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is because of the concept of MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. All major powers are forced to rethink the notion of war due to the Mutually Assured Destruction nature of nuclear weapons. Possible total destruction of the states presents too many risks to the rational leaders of the respective states. For rational…

    • 1047 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If we can not use it in right way, it will become a disaster to world. Because it is impossible to ask human leave it, nuclear has been played an important part in our life. How to use it in right way is the most important problem. First, forbid to use nuclear weapons if the war happens. So that, the countries which have nuclear weapons must to limit them.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    War Argumentative Analysis

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Thus the victory as a proper outcome to be expected of the use of American arms was intractable for the duration of the cold war, for the reason of the sensible fear of the escalation of nuclear holocaust. In nuclear age, it is dangerous to compel our enemy to do our will. So, the only kind of conflict that the United States dared to wage in the nuclear era was limited war. For instance, fear was clear during Vietnam War, where nuclear option was expelled from US strategy during the war, although the US was losing the war and nuclear power could be its only way to achieve its political outcome. Fearing that the nuclear escalation in that war will lead to total war with china, who had established nuclear test a year earlier, or USSR who have been already in the nuclear club.…

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This shows how the average American couldn’t truly believe everything when discussing about Truman and his decision to attack Japan. One of the myths that surround USA’s use of weapons of mass destruction is that Harry Truman could only choose between bombing Japan or invading them. Walker states that there were other ways to be able to end the war. According to Walker, “some important questions about the use of the bomb will never be answered in a definitive or unassailable way because they are matters of speculation, assumption, or uncertainty rather than matters of conclusive evidence” (6). What he is basically saying is that even though some people believe that he only had two choices when trying to end the war as quickly as possible, there is no real way to find out for sure because of the amount of speculation that every theory…

    • 989 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics