Overview
ntroduction
Nuclear weapons have remained a controversial topic since they were first deployed in Combat in 1945. One argument in favor of nuclear weapons is the peace hypothesis, which assumes that the presence of nuclear weapons is enough deterrent against aggression due to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (Taylor, 2021).
Thesis. This paper argues that “Nuclear weapons do not make the world more peaceful considering their inability to prevent thousands of global conflicts since 1945. Due to their destructive potential, these weapons increase the risk of nuclear accidents and the possibility of both nuclear and non-nuclear conflicts taking place.
Nuclear weapons do not guarantee world peace and have been unable to stop hundreds of conflicts from taking place.
Nuclear weapons increase the risk of indirect conflicts between nuclear powers (Futter & Zala, 2021).
Nuclear weapons encourage nations to be aggressive. g- Nuclear-armed North Korea maintains an aggressive posture due to the presence of Nuclear weapons.
Nuclear accidents increase the risk of nuclear accidents, which poses a threat to world peace and security.
- The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine claimed over 30 lives and led to contamination (Torrens & Castellano, 2019).
Three-mile nuclear accident in the United States led to radioactive contamination.
- The Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 illustrated the destructive nature of military or civilian nuclear reactors.
- A common argument is that Nuclear weapons bring peace through mutually assured destruction MAD).
- The doctrine of MAD only shifts war from nuclear powers to other nations.
MAD does not reduce the risks associated with the accidental use of nuclear weapons (Taylor, 2021).
- MAD does not remove the risk of non-nuclear conflicts e.g Korea war, Vietnam war, etc.
- Nuclear weapons do not guarantee world peace. Rather, they include the risks of the nuclear and non-nuclear conflicts, while giving nuclear-armed nations the deterrence they need to act irresponsibly.