Does The World Really Need Nuclear Weapons?

|By- Komal Yadav|

Nuclear weapons are a big threat to society. Nobody has forgotten the impact of US nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki till date. It took 2 lakh and more causalities in total as per estimations. Inventory of new bombs has only taken precious lives of innocent people brutally. Countries haven’t learnt from the lessons yet. Why?

Before we hop into the conclusions, let us take a flash from the past so that you are informed with some basic information.

WHY ARE NUCLEAR WEAPONS DANGEROUS?

Nuclear weapons cause destruction to human civilization as well as to the climate and environment on a large scale. Red Cross estimates it could also cause starvation to billions of people across the globe. One nuclear weapon has the capability of destroying an entire City. One mistake, miscalculation or irrational Presidential act could result in mass vandalism piling up the graveyards with no winks.

During the blast, people who shelter inside the building or otherwise protected will die indirectly by the blast and heat effects. Those with underground shelters would die as all the oxygen will be sucked out of the atmosphere. Other than them, who were not near to that areas would be intermediate survivors which might suffer from blinding, fatal burns, internal injuries, bleeding etc. Twenty years later, you might get affected by radiation-induced cancers as well.

Nuclear weapons are highly dangerous. They are immoral and costly too. Money which could be invested in diplomacy, renewal energy, health care, poverty reduction, infrastructure and education programs have been used to create such disastrous weapons. Constituency needs to be careful not to be penny-wise, pound foolish.

Does the “victory” or “defeat” mean anything in a war? Will it add to the prosperity of the nation? Will it guarantee that there would be no vengeance taken? The aftermath of a war, all I can see is the nation with running bloodstreams, hues and cries. The radiations which will long last for several months or years. There’s no single person untouched with its radioactive chemical effect. Approximately 85% of the explosive energy produces air blast and thermal radiation. Remaining 15% is initial radiation and residual radiation which is local fallout. In one line, it’s a combination of blast, fire and radiations. Thus, war’s can never bring peace even if you won.

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY (NPT)?

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was made into force in 1970 whereas in 1995 it was extended indefinitely. The treaty was designed with the objective to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, absolute disarmament of nuclear weapons, and to promote nuclear energy in peaceful cooperation. It is reviewed after every five years. The conference was to be held during April 2020 but due to pandemic situation, it is postponed to next year.

NPT was signed by 190 countries which are classified into two categories i.e Nuclear weapon states (NWS) and Non-nuclear weapon states (NNWP). According to this treaty, the countries coming under the banner of NWS- US, Russia, China, France and UK are bound to refrain from any use of nuclear weapons while NNWS are subjected to forgo any establishment or procuring of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, remaining five countries- India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan haven't signed the treaty yet whereas the status of North Korea remains in a dilemma as it left the membership on 2003 still there is no concrete opinion on it.

Main key points of the treaty are as follows:

Officially recognised as the nuclear-weapon states by the NPT are the five countries- China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. Being legitimized by the treaty as nuclear arsenals, no nuclear weapons must be built and sustain furthermore. NWS should not help to formulate or acquire any nuclear weapons to NNWS. To fulfill this mission, IAEA was established to act as a watchdog.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) main functions are to encourage, development, assist research, practical application of atomic energy for peaceful motive and not military purposes. It also does the inspection of any suspicious movements carried out by any non-nuclear weapon states. NWS has inviolable rights to research, enrich and utilize nuclear energy for “atoms for peace” intend only. At the same time, supporting NNWS by sharing the information for research and development programs with the resolution of harmony entirely.

Even if there are explosions done on the basis of peaceful means, it is debatable on the ground of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which was meant for a complete ban on nuclear weapons explosions and even to prohibit the nuclear weapons test anywhere in the world. Thus, making it hard to solve the objective of the CTBT.

WHAT COUNTRIES HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

At the present time, there are nine major governments that possess nuclear weapons. With the total amount of warheads, here’s the list of those countries that will give you a clear idea of which neighborhood had the most and the least nuclear weapons.

· Russia, 6,850 nuclear warheads

· The United States of America, 6,185 nuclear warheads

· France, 300 nuclear warheads

· China, 280 nuclear warheads

· The United Kingdom, 215 nuclear warheads

· Pakistan, 145 nuclear warheads

· India, 135 nuclear warheads

· Israel, 80 nuclear warheads

· North Korea, 15 nuclear warheads

REASONS WHY WE NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

5 Myths that have been promoted so as to why we need nuclear weapons and I found it argumentative are listed below. Let us decide what is satisfactory and adequate in sequence.

1. To deter war-like situations.

2. To deter from nuclear countries.

3. To keep them as a security blanket.

4. To defend from any terrorist attack or biological weapons or chemical weapons, etc.

5. To respond to the breakouts.

Let’s begin with the first misconception. Nuclear deterrence was born with a stigma of menace called Mutually Assured Destruction which is popularly known as MAD. It was a nuclear strategy doctrine emerged in the mid 1960's which gave the tactics of “tit for tat”. The nations were piling up their nukes to such an extent that if in case, a country strikes they are prepared to bombard their opponent too with the same intensity and lethal scale of nuclear weapons.

Advocates of this doctrine say that nuclear deterrence was one of the major reasons why the third world war didn’t take place. Some supporters even say that it has played a crucial role to set the stage of falling the tensions between the US and USSR during the cold war. However, I see it as a backstage role rather than being the main lead as there many disagreements significantly suggesting that the two superpower nations themselves did not want to establish a world war. Adding on to it, US and Russia have never been in a cut-throat situation prior to nuclear age which gives logical reasoning of not emphasizing any urge of war that would have signaled to drastic pulling down.

There are a range of economic and political reasons why in today’s time regions would hardly see nukes as an option for deteriorating any nation. Moreover supporting the myth of obtaining peace through atomic warhead is highly irrational.

Next talking about the second justification, it is merely connected with the first one. So no matter how much nuclear arsenals a country possess, if it’s in existence it will make use of it no matter how much time it takes to happen. The more pragmatic way which I see is better to give birth to zero weapons rather than taking cover of it. In short, don’t take his balls just because he took yours- two wrongs don’t make a right.

In a report of 1996, the Canberra Commission concluded that if we see nuclear weapons in and around us, there are high chances of utilising it and inhibiting its utility along with the mindset of deterring from other countries is just another excuse. However, if we eliminate it from the core, i.e zero nuclear weapons, it makes the state a fearless place to inhabit with no risk of any unfortunate or dangerous event that might occur in future.

Then we need nuclear weapons as the security blanket, do we? Just tell me what are the major hazards in the current system, is it the nuclear missiles? I hardly think it is. I see climatic conditions, environmental degradation, economic meltdown, hunger and poverty are the peril in these times. Most importantly, the cherry on the cake, “unemployment” a prime.

Credits- Maria Oswalt | Source- Unsplash Media

After that arriving at the fourth opinion, we will be safe from terrorist attack or biological attack or anything as such. Travelling down the memory lane, do you remember the nation which is inferred to be the most dominant territory in the world was attacked by the terrorist in 2001 and even after owning the nuclear weapons they couldn’t do anything but to sit back and ponder the next move.

The Federation of American Scientists, in a report, fairly noted that even if a small size bunker nuclear bombs were to be used, for e.g to cease or penetrate the terrorist cell be it anywhere in the world, it would have taken the life of terrorist but at the cost of handsome amount of civilians too. Now, this is something we are not prepared to accept neither we would let any government take our lives for the sake of justice. Certainly means we don’t need any nuclear ordnance to end terrorism as there exist many other directions to deal with them in the best feasible ways.

In recent times, the world is drowned into COVID-19 pandemic which means the theory supporting we need them to safe from such biological weapons isn’t valid being a live example. There are many people dying across the world irrespective of countries being a NWS or NNWS. How can nuclear strike save the lives of humanity while being already attacked through biological weapon? On the contrast, it is taking life rather than fetching them one. Have nuclear weapons stopped the spread of it? Obviously no! Therefore, I do not support of hogging it.

Finally, the last assertion is totally absurd. Just because some sort of nation is suspected to cheat or breakout with nuclear weapons so in quarrel to this, maintaining it for the purpose of not breaking out or being fooled is to become childish. We have conventional ways to respond on such situations and no country would prefer to show vim and vigour by losing their own citizens by embarking stain for the rest of their life.

I would suggest that instead of building a country where there are major chances of getting citizens life on risk, it is better to design a country which is rich in terms of tech-obsessed. Why? Not because it’s just the need of the hour but also the new warfare which would be the bigger hurdle to compete with in the near future. We need to clearly read up from Japan. It has emerged to be an economically powerful nation even after facing traumatic and calamitous injury. It has built infrastructure to attract foreign direct investment. It has proved to be a good supply of micro and macro policies. We need to think about our citizens rather than competing with other countries. We need to think of ourselves. We need to think as a nation first and not the competitor. We need to think of the world as a whole. The world without nuclear weapons would be such a better place to live in. Peaceful. Fearless. Happiness.

Don’t you think the world would be in peace if the nuclear weapons are ceased?

Although there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle, we could at least try not to open it!