You are on page 1of 7

Title: Nuclear Weapons, War and Peace

Name: BAO Kai (Kent) Student Number: 502633

Class: EAP 3.01


Date Due: 4th/04/2011 Teachers: Fergus Somerville / Rich Tolosi

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

Since the Little Boy, the first nuclear bomb, devastated the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, the world has slid to the nuclear age (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.14). Nuclear weapons, not like the conventional weapons, are the most powerful weapons that have ever appeared, which can terminate life on this planet fairly easily (Evans, 2010). During the Cold War age, which was the period of the hidden arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were centralised controlled by an elite group of nations; and nuclear deterrence has been used to accomplish the balance between super powers and maintain the world peace (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.137). There are still over 23,000 nuclear warheads existing, which have a destructive capability of 150,000 Little Boy bombs (Evans, 2010). On one hand, some influential experts stated that nuclear deterrence achieved zero in the past due to the fact that there were still wars and conflicts taking place during the nuclear age; furthermore, nuclear weapons are too dangerous to have proper control. However, opponents defend nuclear deterrence suppressed unlimited war, especially nuclear war, and the possession of a nuclear arsenal is the prerequisite for safety. It has to be proved that the threat of nuclear weapons cannot maintain world peace, no matter who have accessed to them, and the only way to achieve a peaceful world is to abolish them. First, it can be learned from history that nuclear deterrence cannot maintain world peace when nuclear weapons have only been accessed by an elite group of nations. During the first twenty years of the Cold War, although there were only the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China had access to nuclear weapons (Rotblat et al. 1993, p.37-38), wars and conflicts such as the Indo-Pakistani War in 1947, the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and the Suez Crisis in 1956 continued to take place many times around the world (Moran, 2001, p.10-13). In addition, wars also

2/7

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

broke out between nuclear nations and non-nuclear countries, for example, the Korean War involved Korea, China and America in 1950, the Vietnamese War involved Vietnam, the United States, the Soviet Union and China in 1955 (Moran, 2001, p.1013). It has been clearly indicated from the factors above that the belief of nuclear deterrence can preserve world peace is a myth (Hanson, 2009) since humans are really willing to have wars and fight for their freedom, independence and religions (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.56-82). However, it has been alleged that although those wars and conflicts are factors, the statement of world without peace is a false dilemma. The international situation during the Cold War period was peaceful overall that with sporadic local warfare (Perkovich & Acton, 2009, p.217). In addition, nuclear deterrence did deter direct wars between nuclear nations during the Cold War epoch (Kumar, n.d.). The super powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, behaved calmly and were restrained in order to avoid nuclear war as much as possible (Perkovich & Acton, 2009, p.151) because the number of nuclear warheads had reached more than 70,000 by that time, which could devastate the earth thousands of times (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.35). Furthermore, there was a nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran, for example, who were trying to get access to nuclear weapons, which might stimulate their neighbouring nations to seek the requisition entrance of nuclear weapons and potentially result in nuclear war. Therefore, to restrict the access of nuclear weapons to an elite group of nations, and in so doing to prevent humans from potential nuclear raids is significant and necessary to maintain world peace. (Kaufman, 2010) Nevertheless, others criticised the idea of overall peaceful world and that the threat of nuclear weapons can deter war between super powers as a questionable analogy. Throughout the history of last 65 years, there were too many wars and conflicts to
3/7

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

declare peace (Moran, 2001, p.10-13). As a result, the only peace between super powers was limited. It is irresponsible to state world is peaceful when battle, poverty and homelessness taken place in firing line. (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.52-100) In addition, nuclear deterrence that maintained the mild interactions between major nations are subjective assumed. There are various reasons for super powers to cooperate with each other instead of resorting to war. With the development of international society, the globalisation, the connection between nations is closer, and the controversial issues can be solved by using international law, education, negotiations and reconciliation such instruments, which are milder and more acceptable, other than nuclear deterrence (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.125-210). Therefore, the threat of nuclear weapons from the nuclear club cannot preserve the world in peace. In the second place, activists exhorted that the precondition of world peace is the complete abolition of nuclear weapons rather than centralised control of them (Perkovich & Acton, 2009, p.13). According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report of America (NPR), the President Obama declared that the new nuclear strategy of America is to disarm the nuclear arsenal slowly but firmly to reach the final goal of ultimate abolishing all nuclear weapons (Kaufman, 2010). Although it can be learned from history that the reason for no nuclear war during the Cold War period might be nuclear deterrence, it cannot be put forward the inference that the nuclear war will not break out in the future because it did not take place in the past, especially to gamble humans future on this inference (Hanson, 2009). In addition, while nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous, they are more useful when they are not used (Freeman, 2003, p.355-358). Furthermore, the current international situation is that there are more than an elite group of nations who can access nuclear weapons. Other nations such as

4/7

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

Israel, India, and Pakistan also possess nuclear weapons, and even may North Korea (Evans, 2010). It is suggested that the nuclear club is no longer exclusive, and abolishing nuclear weapons is the right path to achieve peace (Perkovich & Acton, 2009, p.13-14). On the other hand, the American government has stressed that it is necessary for the United States or its allies and partners, including Russia and China, to possess nuclear weapons and use them in extreme circumstances in order to preserve their vital interests (Kaufman, 2010). The government of the United States also declared that although nuclear disarmament is the inevitable process, sustaining a minimally effective nuclear arsenal is more important at present (USDD, 2010). Moreover, through human history of the last thousand years before nuclear weapons was invented, numerous wars took place and occupied over 90% of the time (Novikov, cited Kumar, 1987). While the actual cause of war is the aggressive human nature (Hinde & Rotblat, 2003, p.101), nuclear deterrence is the very key element to restraint the aggression (Kumar, n.d.). Furthermore, it is necessary for super powers to use nuclear deterrence to response to terrorism (USDD, 2010), especially nuclear terrorism such as Al-Qaida, which is seeking nuclear weapons (Kaufman, 2010). As a consequence, the possession of nuclear weapons is more necessary than abolition at present. However, it has been queried that the necessity of possessing nuclear weapons is genetic fallacy, which can only be accepted by its source, the American government, due to the fact that this statement is the announcement of American government who played an indispensable role in nuclear race (Drell & Goodby, 2007). Japan, as the only country which was devastated by nuclear weapons, strongly requested that the and elimination of nuclear weapons should be processed as soon as possible in order
5/7

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

to avoid the repeated happening of nuclear atrocities in Japan or any other countries (Perkovich & Acton, 2009, p.213-214). Another significant factor is that the super powers have also got high level of technology to design and develop powerful conventional weapons, which will not destroy the earth and are effective enough to deter the local conflicts. Furthermore, considering the September 11 attacks in the United States, it is clear that the possession of nuclear arsenals and the nuclear deterrence were fruitless and achieved zero in protecting the United States from terrorism (Hanson, 2009). Even worth, the possession of nuclear weapons may provide the path for terrorists seeking nuclear weapons, which is easier than producing one (Kaufman, 2010). It can be seen clearly from above that abolishing the nuclear weapons and transferring nations concentration from wars to peace are the realistic stages to accomplish. In conclusion, nuclear deterrence tends to be just a symbol of super nations due to the uselessness in preserving peace and the high risk of irreversible nuclear war. While nuclear deterrence can be applied to deter warfare in certain status and may preserve nuclear nations in peace, it has been overweighed by other diplomatic solutions of disputes and the appeals of complete abolition of nuclear weapons from those countries and individuals which were or are suffering from wars. Therefore, it is obvious that nuclear deterrence cannot influence world peace positively, and the genuine peace is without nuclear weapons.

(1501 words, in text references included)

6/7

BAO Kai (Kent)

502633

EAP 3.01

References
Drell, S & Goodby, J 2007, 'An Arms Control Association Report: What are nuclear weapons for?', Arms Control Association, October 2007, accessed 18 March 2011, <http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20071104_Drell_Goodby_07_new.pdf>. Evans, G updated 11 November 2010, Nuclear weapons as a threat to global peace, Gareth Evans, accessed 18 March 2011, <http://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech430.html>. Freedman, L 2003, The evolution of nuclear strategy, 3rd edn, St. Martin's Press, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Hanson, M updated 20 September 2009, Challenging the myth that we need nuclear weapons, Nautilus Institute, accessed 18 March 2011, <http://gc.nautilus.org/Nautilus/australia/A-J-disarm/public-forum/marianne-hanson>. Hinde, R & Rotblat, J 2003, War no more: eliminating conflict in the nuclear age, Pluto Press, London. Kaufman, S updated 07 April 2010, Analysis: U.S. Nuclear Strategy Redefines Deterrence, America.gov, accessed 18 March 2011, <http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/April/20100407142649esnamfuak 0.521084.html>. Kumar, P n.d., Nuclear weapons deterrence, survival, or peace?, TRIVENI, accessed 18 March 2011, <http://yabaluri.org/TRIVENI/CDWEB/nuclearweaponsjan87.htm>. Moran, D 2001, Wars of national liberation, Cassell & Co, London. Perkovich, G & Acton, J 2009, Abolishing nuclear weapons: a debate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC. Rotblat, J, Steinberger, J & Udgaonkar, B 1993, A nuclear-weapon-free world: desirable?, feasible?, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. United States Department of Defence (USDD), 2010, 2010 nuclear posture review report, USDD, Washington, DC.

7/7

You might also like