Nuclear Warfare: Stockpiling Destruction
Ever since their creation in the 1940’s, nuclear weapons have been proven to have the capacity to deliver massive damage and death in seconds. The world can attest to their awful power firsthand through the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War. Over the years, nuclear technology in weaponry has evolved as scientists continue to push chaos’s boundaries. Today, nuclear bombs can wreak havoc on entire countries, entire continents, not just cities. The potential for a devastating event the likes the world has never seen could occur with the slightest push. Even then, world leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill were pushing to ensure that the destruction unleashed upon Japan would never again come to fruition at any time in the future and despite close calls, it has not. Nuclear weapons must be exterminated throughout the globe in order to achieve true peace and to ensure that the horror the world experienced in the past is never repeated.
Many are still those opposed however, to eliminating such dangerous and harmful weapons. Why would anyone want to see continued nuclear weapon proliferation and creation, knowing the danger they possess? David G. Gompert, vice president of the Rand Foundation in Santa Monica, California and director of the National Security Research Division brings up interesting points surrounding nuclear weaponry and its tremendous influence on the world. Gompert argues that, in the United States security system, the country’s large nuclear stockpile does not pose a threat to national and worldwide security, but in fact deters violence. While he agrees that the US should attempt to diminish the importance and attractiveness in nuclear weaponry, he believes that the weapons must remain for possible retaliation purposes and to elicit fear in other nations that would seek to deploy weapons of mass destruction. He states that the most prevalent threat to any nation that could warrant a retaliatory nuclear strike results from the release of biochemicals, such as anthrax, on a large scale. In addition, Gompert stresses the importance on deterrence for situations regarding chemical warfare and insists that through intimidation, nations could halt chemical warfare in its entirety. Nuclear weapons would serve as the intimidating factor.
Now while nuclear weapons may serve as a consequence for unleashing weapons of mass destruction in society today, their presence alone is causing an arms race that will cycle onwards, raising tension between nations. Even today, nations like North Korea and Iran, who have ignored the nuclear treaties set forward by the world, have the means, the technology, and the resources to not only construct nuclear weapons, but to use them. By enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and increasing vigilance on stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction and taking an active role in eliminating already created nuclear weapons, dangerous situations, like in Iran and North Korea, would be stopped and inter-country tensions would lessen, bringing about global peace and trust. Throughout history, presidents and world leaders worldwide have opposed nuclear weapon development, dating back to Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” address in 1953. Even military leaders like Eisenhower, crucial in the decision to bomb Japan, recognized and regretted nuclear power and its effect on the war. Both Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev opposed nuclear weapons entirely, citing them as good for nothing weapons that could bring about human extinction.
Perhaps the single most important contribution to nuclear weapon elimination, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was implemented in 1970 after being proposed by Ireland and Finland, and has stood as the benchmark for nuclear arms control to this day. In its three pillars, the treaty states that the nations practice the non-proliferation and disarmament of nuclear weapons while still possessing the right to research and use nuclear technology regarding other societal aspects. Today, the NPT houses 189 nations worldwide, five of which possess nuclear weaponry, including the United States, France, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom. North Korea, India, Israel, and Pakistan have either withdrawn from the treaty or did not sign, respectively. Just the fact that 189 nations worldwide are committed to nuclear weapon disposal justifies the danger that nuclear weapons emit. By abiding by the treaty, nations are agreeing to stop nuclear weapon construction, not spread or share nuclear weapons with others countries, and destroy dormant weapons created in the past. In addition, uranium and other nuclear energy sources that were used to power once active warheads have, in many cases, been used to instead in nuclear energy research and use. So, through the elimination of warheads, nuclear technology could increase, allowing society to use another energy resource. Overall, nuclear disarmament would reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, whether accidental or intentional and would aim to prevent the possible deaths of thousands or millions that could come about from a nuclear war.
In popular culture and many other life aspects, a possible nuclear war occurrence frightens most. Nuclear weapons possess the power to destroy countless lives, countries, and even the Earth’s very biosphere and without continued efforts to stem its spread and creation, society will be reminded of the dangers it possesses. By eliminating weapons, society would never have to fear annihilation from nuclear war and would benefit scientifically and technologically from the implementation of nuclear energy to more prudent and necessary fields. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated for the dangers they pose to the society’s safety and the possible ramifications of their use.
Works Cited
"The United States Should Aggressively Promote Nuclear Disarmament." Nuclear Weapons. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 29 Oct. 2010.
Gompert, David G. "Nuclear Deterrence Can Prevent Biological Warfare." Biological Warfare. Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 29 Oct.
"Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) | Arms Control Association." Arms Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. <http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/npt>.
No comments:
Post a Comment