Nuclear Proliferation Pros And Cons

Good Essays
While deterrent strategies have proven successful, especially during the Cold War, the recent emergence of international terrorist organizations reveals a major flaw of the deterrence theory. It cannot be assumed that terrorists will worry about the negative consequences they will suffer if they bomb another country with nuclear weapons; on the contrary, it is not unsafe to assume that they will readily bomb other countries to instigate terror in people. Therefore, it is irrefutable that extreme measures need to be taken to prevent terrorist organizations laying hands on these weapons. The proliferation of nuclear technology or weapons to countries with high terrorist activity is thus highly risky. If proliferation to Iran is successful, “the likelihood that …show more content…
Although it is true that proliferation may prevent wars through deterrence, and that eradicating nuclear weapons will lead to a lower sense of security, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits. Nuclear proliferation can lead to catastrophic devastation to the entire human population through the deaths of millions of people and losses of trillions of dollars in property. The chances of nuclear terrorism and the growth of a nuclear black market will increase significantly if proliferation occurs in new countries. Furthermore, the deterrence theory does not apply to terrorists and dangerous proletariats such as North Korea due to the huge role psychological mindset plays for the success of the deterrence theory. The growth of nuclear weapons can be countered by a policy of conservative internationalism. Finally, the gradual eradication of nuclear weapons will only engender a safer world- a world where people are not continuously fearing a nuclear attack, a world where devising plans for nuclear retaliation and deterrence is no longer necessary, and a world where governments are not paying billions of dollars to ensure

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    According to this theory, nations possessing nuclear weapons will not attack other nations because of the potential of an outbreak of nuclear war. In effect, the fear of nuclear war, its chthonic, devastating consequences, and its resultant widespread civilian casualties act as deterrents to the commencement of a major war in the modern age. “Nuclear weapons have helped maintain peace between the great powers and have not led their few other possessors into military adventures”(Waltz). While this simple theory may have been successful in the past 60 years, the precarious way it rests on the ever-growing precipitous cliff of nuclear war cannot be overlooked. A major flaw of the deterrence theory is the the assumption that leaders of countries will act in a rational manner- considering the consequences of their actions on their citizens and citizens of other countries.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    And even if we never go to war with our weapons, Worldwide transgressions and arguments are solved easier because they know of our power. On the other hand people who believe our nuclear weapons should be dismantled state their view that nuclear weapons only cause problems. They make other nations not like us because nuclear weapons are very hostile and have nothing friendly about them and hurt the morals of our nation and others ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 8 ). North Korea feels the need to make more nuclear weapons because of ours. The United States should retain their nuclear arsenal because they help keep our nation safe, If we go to war we can use them to scare off other nations or worst case scenario, use the weapons, and nuclear weapons are more cost efficient than some may…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There is no real need for nuclear missiles, contrary to many people’s beliefs. People think they protect us, but really just put us at more risk of attack. All they really do, besides level whole metropolitan areas in a few seconds, is harbor a false sense of security for the politicians to hide behind. They state that they will protect our country with these weapons of mass destruction, but it’s all just an elaborate ploy to get innocent voters to put them in power of these armageddon machines. Many people think that nuclear weapons protect them, but in reality they put them at more risk of nuclear attack.…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He argues that it is not possible credibly deter another country from engaging in a conventional attack. As Thomas Schelling put it, a country could threaten to stumble into a war even if it cannot credibly threaten to invite one. So here, the logic was that the Soviet Union might attack NATO thinking that the United States would not respond. And so NATO in response put tactical nuclear weapons along the border, in part because they might be used even if the president did not want to use them. As Schelling also wrote, “If brinkmanship means anything, it means manipulating the shared risk of war.…

    • 2839 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Conventional bombing was not chosen as the primary method of ending the war because of the importance of the atomic bomb. Due to all countries involved in the war, allies and axis powers, attempting to build a nuclear bomb first, the desire to create a monopoly appeared. Although conventional bombing had proved how destructive and effective it could be, policy makers did not strongly consider the option because demonstrating their atomic bomb before other countries was far more important and clearly was a way to end the…

    • 1475 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    10,000 warheads are in military service, while the rest is awaiting dismantlement. A nuclear arms state is less likely to be attacked by another nation even when it is equipped with nuclear weapons of their own. this comes from the fact that a good defense allows a nation to protect themselves well and to retaliate just as well. This results in more peacetime and any conflict would have to be resolved first diplomatic talks instead of an all out war. Negotiation becomes the first weapon of choice As previously mentioned, other nations would think twice before launching an attack on a nuclear-armed country.…

    • 1025 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Human Extinction Essay

    • 1281 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Mass Extinction of the Human Species The future is not guaranteed for individuals, and the same is true for all of humanity. Of the millions of species that exist on this planet humans are known as the most intelligent, but maybe this is a misconception. While mankind carries on its activities, the chance of a mass extinction grows with every misuse of the earth. It is more likely that humans will cause their own extinction than it is that they would be wiped out by a natural catastrophe. Humans are also known as a violent species so it is not unreasonable for one to analyze the threat of a mass extinction due to a nuclear war.…

    • 1281 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Pros And Cons Of Nukes

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Nukes give the US all of its power in the modern era. Nuclear disarmament will lead to the deterioration of the United States. Since the non-nuclear age, there have been less casualties in conflict and no major global-impacting wars. Some might believe that nuclear weapons will lead to the undoing of the United States, but I strongly believe that with them, we will continue to be the world’s leading superpower. If you care about our country’s well-being then you should care about how nuclear weapons will keep America safe from the…

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays