The Need to Abandon Nuclear Weapons by All Countries

Have you ever asked yourself why nuclear weapons exist? The immediate availability of nuclear weapons depicts that the world war 3 may be a step away from your door. Most of us are aware of the previous destructive world war consequences on a global level, but few of us have realized the immense pain it would cause us if it would happen again. Your guess is as good as mine, but if a new world conflict may occur, it won’t last for years, months, not even days, but just a few seconds. A few seconds will be enough for this mass destruction weapon to violate the international humanitarian law, which would indiscriminately kill civilians and cause long-term environmental harm on our planet. These useless mass destruction weapons, which have no legitimate military or strategic utility, throw caution to the wind by almost guarantying the awakening of absolute chaos globally. The radiation emitted from these vanishing explosions would consequently mean, that either it would take centuries for our planet to recover, or it would mean sacrificing our globe once and for all. Although, plenty of nuclear weapons have been discharged for further use since the second war, the remaining ones and the ones still being manufactured provoke an irrational state of global insecurity. Therefore, the disarmament of the unethical nuclear weapons in a deteriorated security environment should be strictly reconsidered by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as an urgent global matter, that jeopardizes our national and global security, rather than securing a harmonizing feeling for our existence.

To fully understand why the abrogation of nuclear weapons efforts is an essential issue, we have to dig deeper into their history. Reconsidering the atomic attack in 1945, dropped by the US government, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The population of these towns didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to survive this inhuman attack. The death toll included more than 275,000 people who died because of the explosion, the radiation and all the illnesses that followed up. (Amy Maguire, 2018). The reason for this may have been to ensure Japan’s surrender, but if you think about it, it just successfully was an operation that would to make matters worse in the future. And now here we are, having our governments think that atomic bombs can assure you that you can be the world leader. But that is just inhuman, unethical, a thought that could only possible be acceptable in another universe. If we take into consideration, the harmful consequences of these pointless mass destruction weapons, we can easily conclude that all of their disadvantages ensure a strong feeling of a global insecurity. Researcher’s estimations imply that currently, more than 40 countries have the knowledge of making these explosive devices, which subsequently means, that if they get their hands on the required fissile materials, we are just relying on their good-will intentions for making them, even using them. Clearly the margin of security this affords is thin and worrisome. ( Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, 2018). Doubtless of what the higher authorities may claim, the majority of people hold a strong perception that as nuclear weapon spread, the world becomes more dangerous. Let alone the fact, that in a world where most people don't have a saying in national security matters and their security relies on the existence of nuclear weapons, most of them tend to develop some second thoughts. Practically, most of whom are fostering their concern about the subsequence of what may happen if nuclear weapons are acquired by two states that are traditional and bitter rivals, who are willing to show their military power. So, after all, the chances of nuclear weapons being used vary with the character of the new nuclear states—their sense of responsibility, inclination toward devotion to the status quo, political and administrative competence. If the supply of states of good character is limited as is widely thought, then the larger the number of nuclear states, the greater the chances of nuclear war become. (Kenneth Waltz, 1981)

On the other side, one may argue about the nuclear proliferation and support the peaceful outcome of it. Some may argue that the presence of these weapons and their immense destructive capabilities is a major deterrent for starting a major conflict, thus it should be adopted as insurance of conflict prevention, stability and peace, because nuclear powers will be deterred from attacking each other by the threat of nuclear retaliation. In detail, if a strong conflict between to opposing countries arises, it is clear to both sides that both countries have the ability of turning their opponent to ashes with the push of a button, which makes the outcome obviously unacceptable. Furthermore, strong arguments that the ownership of these mass destruction weapons not only reinforce the national borders, but also enhance the power and status of a nation, as they generate an extensive image of political and military capabilities of the country, on a global stage. For instance, North Korea, has developed technologically advanced nuclear weapons, which aim to either show their readiness for any possibly upcoming threats or even as a self-defence, which supposedly keeps their enemies away from further devastating conflicts. In other words, it is believed that peace can be preserved, with the possession of these mass destruction weapons.