At the time when fascism governments rise, security was not only just a threat, it was a one step to death. Concurrently, discoveries in the field of nuclear science were on the rise. From these political and scientific developments, nuclear weapons came to existence. According to Asia Society (n.d.), New Mexico witnessed the world’s “first nuclear explosion” in July 16, 1945. Three weeks later, the United States also bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan - killing and injuring a total of 279,000 people in both cities. As expected, the area was greatly devastated. We should prevent these powers from ruling us. Thus we, all the states, should unite as one into bringing a world of peace and security not only for our world, but also for the
…show more content…
This boils down from the belief that with the possession of these weapons, they can easily avert an attack against them. The Cold War heavily demonstrates this kind of nuclear deterrence technique. In one case, the United States of America (US) and Russia, both involved in the Cold War, were having a nuclear arms race as an attempt to maintain parity with each other’s stockpiles. No country was stronger than the other that would be able to take the other down (The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, n.d.). Both recognized that if one makes a wrong move against another, annihilation would most probably occur. This military strategy and national security policy is called as mutually assured destruction. (Britannica, …show more content…
This is dubbed as the principle of singularity of nuclear weapons by Cohen (1986). As nuclear weapons continue to proliferate, the threat to use them becomes more incredible. The threat of a nuclear retaliation against a nuclear retaliation could result to an all-out nuclear response. If the other side aims for complete destruction then the threat of retaliation would likely to fail. In the end, such retaliation only leads to self destruction. Another reason of nuclear retaliation is to prevent an all-out first attack. But what if the first attack has already been launched? Are there still reasons that would prevent a second attack from being launched? According to Jonathan Schell, “the logic of deterrence strategy is dissolved by the very event-the first strike-that is meant to prevent. Once the action begins, the whole doctrine is
This boils down from the belief that with the possession of these weapons, they can easily avert an attack against them. The Cold War heavily demonstrates this kind of nuclear deterrence technique. In one case, the United States of America (US) and Russia, both involved in the Cold War, were having a nuclear arms race as an attempt to maintain parity with each other’s stockpiles. No country was stronger than the other that would be able to take the other down (The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, n.d.). Both recognized that if one makes a wrong move against another, annihilation would most probably occur. This military strategy and national security policy is called as mutually assured destruction. (Britannica, …show more content…
This is dubbed as the principle of singularity of nuclear weapons by Cohen (1986). As nuclear weapons continue to proliferate, the threat to use them becomes more incredible. The threat of a nuclear retaliation against a nuclear retaliation could result to an all-out nuclear response. If the other side aims for complete destruction then the threat of retaliation would likely to fail. In the end, such retaliation only leads to self destruction. Another reason of nuclear retaliation is to prevent an all-out first attack. But what if the first attack has already been launched? Are there still reasons that would prevent a second attack from being launched? According to Jonathan Schell, “the logic of deterrence strategy is dissolved by the very event-the first strike-that is meant to prevent. Once the action begins, the whole doctrine is