The Persistence of Nuclear Weapons in a Changing World

The inception of the first nuclear bomb occurred in the early 1940s, and there have been a few instances where these weapons were employed. In those few cases, the devastation caused by these weapons led to their global outlaw. So, if they are universally banned, then why do countries still maintain substantial stockpiles of these arms? The most infamous event involving nuclear weapons was undoubtedly World War II. In the final stage of the war, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction inflicted upon those cities was devastating at the time and continues to have lasting effects on the people living there. The combined death toll from the two bombs reached approximately 140,000 by the end of 1945. Pregnant women at that time suffered incredibly high miscarriage rates, and there was a significant mortality rate among the newly born infants.

The repercussions felt in the present day are equally horrifying. The expected lifespan of those residing within the affected areas has significantly decreased, and there is an unusually high incidence of thyroid and lung cancer. Clearly, the impact of these weapons on people is devastating, and that is only considering the chemical aspect of these arms. Without the weapons' use of uranium, their explosive power alone rivals approximately 15,000 tons of TNT. To put it in perspective, a modern-day missile like a Tomahawk carries 1000 pounds of explosives (roughly 0.5 tons), and yet its destructive capacity is only a fraction of an atom bomb's. Thus, it is fair to say that solely based on explosive power, these weapons are incredibly devastating to the areas they target.

The Cold War provides another instance where nuclear weapons played a significant role, but fortunately, they were not utilized. The Cold War primarily unfolded between Russia (the USSR at the time) and the United States. It wasn't a conventional war of conflict but rather a war of wits and intelligence. Both countries were massive military powers, and their possession of nuclear arsenals created a constant stalemate. However, neither country deployed these weapons, fearful of the consequences it would inflict on their own people, having witnessed the devastation in Japan. Moreover, using a missile would likely lead to retaliation from the opposing side and its allies. This deterrence factor discouraged countries from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, some countries, like Iran, still harbor an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. In the past, Iran faced numerous sanctions, primarily imposed by the EU and the United States, resulting in widespread poverty and severe restrictions on importing and exporting goods. However, in recent years, many of these sanctions have been lifted, allowing Iran to rebuild its economic strength. There are concerns that Iran might be considering the development of its own nuclear arsenal, which may motivate other countries to retain their own nuclear weapons. Alternatively, it's plausible that Iran is leveraging the idea of nuclear armament to enhance its political standing in the region, using it as a tool of influence.

From a moral perspective, we must question the rationality of nuclear weapons, especially when leaders of certain countries seem willing to employ such extreme measures to threaten their enemies. During the beginning of the atomic age, atomic bombs were initially designed to end the war and save lives. It could be argued that countless lives were indeed saved in the long run because, after the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese promptly surrendered. Had they not surrendered then, the war might have continued for a considerable time. However, in contrast to their original purpose, nuclear weapons today are maintained with the potential and perhaps the intention of causing unnecessary mass destruction. Nowadays, most of the world's military powers possess their own nuclear arsenals, but as during the Cold War, they are seldom used, primarily for the same reasons.

Additionally, there exists the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, an international agreement aiming to limit the spread and distribution of nuclear arms and promote cooperative uses of nuclear energy for beneficial purposes. Although almost every country has signed the treaty, around 14 nations still retain small stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

The question arises: why do countries still possess these weapons? Despite witnessing their adverse effects on the environment, infrastructure, and human life, there seem to be no compelling reasons for their continued existence. It is often speculated that these stockpiles serve as displays of strength to deter potential aggressors. However, this argument becomes redundant when considering that all of the world's largest military powers possess nuclear arsenals. It is unlikely that a non-nuclear country would provoke a conflict with such formidable adversaries. Therefore, the necessity of these weapons remains unclear, and we may have to accept the reality that the world's major military powers will retain their nuclear stockpiles for the foreseeable future.