In 2011, the Fukushima dai-ichi prefecture in Japan was impacted by a tsunami that severely damaged the nuclear power plant that was situated near the coast. Almost immediately there were fears of a potential nuclear explosion, with many residents fearing for their lives (Schwantes et al., 2012). While it may be true that there was a release of radioactive energy, in what is now known as the greatest industrial accident since Chernobyl, the fact remains that the rate of energy release and the means by which it affected the surrounding region is drastically different as compared to what normally occurs during the detonation of a nuclear bomb (Schwantes et al., 2012). The fact is that a nuclear reactor is not designed in the same way as an atomic bomb, as such, despite the abundance of material that could cause a nuclear explosion, the means by which this possible is simply not present.
Understanding How Atomic Bombs Detonate
Nuclear Fission
Nuclear fission is the basic principle behind an atomic explosion wherein vast amounts of energy are released all at once as a direct result of free neutrons impacting the nucleus of an atom (Stankunas, 2012). This creates a process known as “fission” (i.e. the nucleus of an atom splitting into two smaller atoms) which then subsequently releases another neutron which impacts another atom which then starts the process all over again (Stankunas, 2012). This occurs in a relatively short span of time until the fission process reaches a critical mass point (i.e. the point where there is a runaway cascade of enumerable nuclear fissions) resulting in a subsequent release of energy in the form of an atomic explosion.
Nuclear Material Needed
While nuclear reactors do contain “fissable” material (i.e. radioactive material that is decomposing into another type of matter), the fact remains that a certain degree of stability is required in the radioactive material needed in order to achieve a sufficient enough explosion (Gharpure, 2013). This often comes in the form of Uranium-235 which is enriched via centrifugal processes in order to have the necessary atomic density to create a large explosion (Gharpure, 2013).
Detonating a Nuclear Bomb
In order to get the radioactive material to release all its stored energy at once, it is necessary to setup a series of explosives around a nuclear core of radioactive material. Through the use of a timer, it is the job of the explosives to detonate in such a way that they compress the radioactive material together which causes the process of fission to begin (Salvatores, 2012). Without a means of sudden compression, it would be nearly impossible to cause even the most highly enriched uranium to detonate. You could use a hammer and hit it all you want without even causing anything even remotely resembling an explosion.
Design of Nuclear Reactors
Nuclear reactors are designed in such a way that they utilize the controlled release of energy from nuclear fuel rods in the form of heat energy to convert water into steam which is then expelled via high pressure valves through turbines which convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy (Nuclear fission, 2013). While it is possible for nuclear reactors to malfunction and produce excessive amounts of heat due to unstable reactions within the core, the resulting explosion is usually the result of heated steam escaping from the reactor. Energy is also released during such a process, however, it is not explosive nuclear energy instead it is merely the ambient heat energy released from the continuing nuclear fission process in the fuel rods. Background radiation is also released as a direct result of exposure of the fuel rods to the outside atmosphere (Jammes et al., 2010).
Conclusion
Based on what has been presented it can be seen that a nuclear reactor is simply not designed in the same way as an atomic bomb which prevents it from releasing energy in the same manner.
Reference List
Gharpure, Y. H. (2013). Nuclear Fission. Chemical Business, 27(6), 34.
Jammes, C. C., Filliatre, P. P., Geslot, B. B., Oriol, L. L., Berhouet, F. F., Villard, J. F., & Vermeeren, L. L. (2010). Research Activities in Fission Chamber Modeling in Support of the Nuclear Energy Industry. IEEE Transactions On Nuclear Science, 57(6), 3678-3682.
Nuclear fission. (2013). Chemical Business, 27(6), 40.
Salvatores, M. (2012). Neutronics for critical fission reactors and subcritical fission in hybrids. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1442(1), 79-92.
Schwantes, J. M., Orton, C. R., & Clark, R. A. (2012). Analysis of a Nuclear Accident: Fission and Activation Product Releases from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Facility as Remote Indicators of Source Identification, Extent of Release, and State of Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(16), 8621-8627.
Stankunas, G. (2012). Fractal model of fission product release in nuclear fuel. International Journal Of Modern Physics C: Computational Physics & Physical Computation, 23(9), -1.
The essay is a critical examination of the major factors that contributed to the non-use of nuclear weapons after they were first used back in 1945 in Japan’s two major cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The attacks were made by the United States of America in trying to make the Japanese surrender.
It is worth noting that the two attacks are the only ones where nuclear weapons were used in war upto date. Prior to this close to 70 cities in Japan were bombed by the U.S. All these attacks were due to failure of the Japan to surrender in Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945. ‘Little Boy’ and ‘Fat Man’ were dropped to Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively under the direction of the then American President Harry Truman (Hogan, 1996).
It is worth noting that the effects were far beyond human imagination as within the first 2 to 4 months between 90,000 and 166,000 individuals in Hiroshima and between 60,000 and 80,000 in Nagasaki lost their lives. It has been estimated that 50% of these deaths occurred on the first day.
The deaths were attributed to flash and flames, falling debris/objects and other causes. The update of the bombing causalities as at august 2010 reveals that close to 450,000 individuals have so far lost their lives close to 270,000 in Hiroshima and 153,000 in Nagasaki (Pellegrino, 2010).
Despite the fact that the number of those who died is manipulated for political reasons, it is no doubt that the serious negative consequences of the nuclear use are evident. Harry is quoted as saying “It is terrible to order the use of something that …is so terribly destructive beyond anything we have ever had.
You got to understand that this is not a military weapon… it is used to wipe out women and children…” (Paul, 2009: 52). From this statements rest the foundation of nuclear weapon non use tradition.
It is worth noting that since 1945 the concept of non use of nuclear weapons have occupied the minds of scholars, the general public and have remain the most and single important issues in the age of nuclear. The tradition of non use of nuclear weapon begun during the times of Truman and Eisenhower thanks to the reluctance of using such weapons during times of crisis (Paul, 2009).
Factors contributed to the non use of nuclear weapons
Before engaging in addressing the factors that fostered the tradition of non use of nuclear weapons it will be rational to bring to light major characteristics of nuclear detonation. In the strictest sense nuclear bombs usually produce energy that is heavier in millions times as compared to conventional explosions, similarly it produces instantaneously a huge and very hot fireballs, produces electromagnetic pulse which interferes completely with electronic equipment, it also transmits very huge forms of energy (heat and light) within a shorter time resulting to burns as well as causing fires and it produces within the first few seconds a penetrating radiation which are harmful to human health (Pellegrino, 2010).
According to Paul, 2009 nuclear detonations can interfere with communication signals for a longer period of time, produces residual nuclear radiation over a long period of time, produces busts that can destroy underground structures as a result of shock waves and finally it creates air blasts wave that can lead to death especially when this occurs in lower atmosphere. Broadly speaking there are three categories of reasons that prompted the non use of nuclear weapon tradition since 1945. These include strategic/tactical, reputational and moral.
Moral factors
A closer examination of the then president statements is a clear indication that it stems from a moral background probably the Kant’s point of view. The philosopher held that we opt to do good things to the majority and there is no way a bad thing can be justifiable. He called for all human races to engage in activities that will help form a universal law. Moral call us not to do bad things (Tannenwald, 2007).
It is evident that Truman realized this only after giving a go ahead attack. He says that nuclear weapons are not military weapons but a tool to destroy women, children and the innocent civilians. In terms of international law, the use of nuclear weapon results indiscriminate mass murder leaving serious consequences for a very long time.
On the same note the descendants of the survivors of the attack did show genetic abnormalities and opt to be closely monitored. This made them to leave in anxiety for decade. Similarly, the notion that the weapon has no distinction between combatants and civilians, women and children its use is a clear infraction of human right based on international law (Pellegrino, 2010).
It is also worth noting that the need to conserve the environment played another role in contributing to reluctant use of nuclear weapons. As a super power to be by then, U.S had the obligation of showing the world that it deeply cared about the world’s environmental conditions. As held by Paul, 2009 the only way to do this in the most rational way was to stop using such weapons. On top of this majority of countries with such weapons constantly lived in a nuclear security dilemma. This in the views of the two presidents was to be done away with.
Strategic/tactical factors
Although scholars have convincingly argued that this factor was not as strong as the other two, it played some role in bringing about the non use tradition of nuclear weapons. After seeing the consequences of nuclear bombing America was worried of the same with the assumptions that other powerful countries can in the future use to attack her (Sherwin, 2003). For instance the Soviet Union with her foreign policies was restrained with America. The later saw the former through their potential natural aggressive impulses. This can be further seen when Kennedy rejected the approach of massive retaliation towards American enemy and in its place he brought in flexible response strategy (Paul, 2009).
Reputational factors
Another sound factor that contributed to the non use tradition of nuclear weapon is attributed to the country desire to have a good reputation in the eye of the public both locally and internationally. According to the then an official in the Department of Bureau of Far East Affairs Emerson John nuclear weapon is a monster that when used in whatever circumstance will be used to tarnish the country’s reputation.
He was referring to the period where U.S was contemplating to using such a weapon in Korea. He added that it will result to a disastrous loss of confidence from her European counterparts as well as a permanent damage to the moral position of the country (Paul, 2009).
In 1950 the Asian led by the then Indian prime minister were of the view that the west use of nuclear as well as atomic bombing was a clear indication of how the later despised the lives of Asians. This prompted Truman to rethink about coming up with strategies that will later help develop non use of nuclear weapons.
However in the reign of Eisenhower he threatened to use nuclear weapons but in most of the instance, he withdrew in the lasts minutes for instance Taiwan Straits crisis as well as the crisis in Indochina. Dulles who worked under the reign of Eisenhower pointed out that the views and opinions of the public was in full opposition of using nuclear weapons in conflicts seen to be local (Tannenwald, 2007). He added that if the country could continue using the weapon, then it will be seen in the eyes of the public to be a ruthless military power just like Germany was.
Conclusion
From the review of the non use of nuclear weapon since the first and the only such attack back in 1945 in Japan, there are three major categories of factors attributed to the same. These include moral factors, strategic/tactical factors and reputational factors. It is worth noting that both reputational and moral factors were the major contributory factors to the tradition of non use of such weapons.
References
Hogan, M. (1996). Hiroshima in History and Memory. Cambridge University: Cambridge University Press.
Paul, T. (2009). The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pellegrino, C. (2010). The Last Train from Hiroshima: The Survivors Look Back. Henry Holt and Co.
Sherwin, M. (2003). A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and its Legacies. London: Stanford University Press.
Tannenwald, N. (2007). “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945” Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 1(87): 2-17.
Even those people who do not know the details of the “Manhattan Project” have strong negative associations while focusing on the notion. The explanation to this phenomenon is in the fact that the “Manhattan Project” is the assignment developed by a group of the US scientists who worked out the atomic bomb to prevent the Nazi attacks during World War II.
However, the history of using the first American atomic bombs is associated with Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki the population of which suffered significantly from the dangerous effects of atom (Bernstein). The group of scientists who created the weapon of mass destruction tried to prevent the usage of atomic bombs with the help of providing the petition to the President.
Although the petition was developed by the head of the project Leo Szilard and signed by the scientists who participated in creating the bomb, the argument presented by Szilard cannot be discussed as effective to persuade the audience to change the decision.
In “A Petition to the President of the United States”, Szilard follows the definite structure, accentuating the introductory part and concluding statements. However, the main part of the petition does not include the factual information to support the claims presented in the introductory part.
Thus, the author uses the effective hook to draw the audience’s attention to the petition and appeal to the readers’ emotions. Szilard states, “Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future” (Szilard).
This statement makes people continue the reading of the petition. The audience of the petition is the President of the USA. That is why, the direct appeal to the President is presented in the further sentence, “It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan” (Szilard).
The next paragraphs are expected to provide the arguments for the President to make the right decision and not to use the atomic bombs in the war against Japan. However, the body paragraphs include only vague considerations which are not supported by any evidences or data and developed only to evoke the definite emotions (Gest).
The tone of the petition can be discussed as emotional rather than convincing. The author uses general sentences in which there are a lot of words with different connotative meanings, but there is the lack of factual arguments to support the main ideas presented by Szilard. For instance, stating “We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances”, Szilard does not present any reasons why the attack on Japan cannot be justified (Szilard).
In spite of the fact the author appeals to the morality and ethical principles, there are no arguments associated with morality in the petition’s text in order to state strictly that the usage of atomic bombs is impossible or to accentuate the impossibility of the annihilation of cities and people with references to moral laws. That is why, it is necessary to note that the author uses the convincing tone ineffectively because it is based only on the emotional aspect.
To support the view on the effectiveness of Szilard’s usage of the tone which is rather unconvincing in the context of the petition and the problem discussed, it is important to pay attention to the modes of persuasion used by the author. The petition is developed by the scientists who created the atomic bombs.
That is why, it is possible to speak about the authors’ authority. Szilard uses the ethos, stating “We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power for a number of years” (Szilard). From this point, the participation of the author in creating the atomic bomb can be discussed as the reason to take Szilard’s arguments into consideration and pay much attention to their discussion. Nevertheless, the author does not provide the necessary arguments to support his authoritative position in discussing the question.
However, the author concentrates on using the pathos in his text. The petition can be considered as rather emotional. Szilard is inclined to use emotionally vivid comparisons to present the idea, for instance, “a nation … may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale” (Szilard). The focus on appealing to the audience’s emotions cannot be used as the effective method to organize the petition.
The next fallacy of the argument is the lack of the factual information and data which can be used to support the author’s ideas. Szilard presents ambiguous sentences which can be interpreted not in favor of the author and contribute to developing contradictions in understanding the vision.
Moreover, providing the key ideas, Szilard does not concentrate on their support with evidences and facts to build the logical argument. For instance, the statement “atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities” has no any supporting facts after it (Szilard).
To conclude, Leo Szilard’s argument cannot be discussed as successful because it has weaknesses in structure, and the tone of the author is not convincing. Furthermore, the modes of persuasion are not used effectively to make the audience change the view. The text lacks the logical arguments and factual information to make the petition credible and persuasive.
Works Cited
Bernstein, Barton. “An Analysis of “Two Cultures”: Writing about the Making and the Using of the Atomic Bombs”. The Public Historian 12.1 (1990): 83-107. Print.
Gest, Howard. The July 1945 Szilard Petition on the Atomic Bomb. n.d. Web.
Many people have claimed that the most destructive war in the history of mankind is almost ready (Macdonald 1). Further, it is claimed that the war will not be confined to one region or small sets of countries, but rather, it will have an effect on all everyone. There several events happening today that point towards this direction and the power that is behind them is vastly gaining nuclear weapons. This power is none other than Iran, which has declared its ambition to wipe the Israel nation out of the world map.
In one of his many meetings on the Middle East peace process, the former United States President George Bush is quoted as saying that Iran was a threat, and there was, therefore, a need for the international community to act swiftly, and prevent the country from developing the abilities to build a nuclear weapon.
5 years down the line, the international community, seems to have a lacklustre approach when dealing with Iran. However, whether world leaders take action or not, Iran is about to get the nukes, and the first target will be Israel followed by American and the rest of the world.
In the recent past, Iran has shown that it can start and sustain a war. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. Indeed, it is clear that both the U.S. and Israel are at war with Iran at the moment. This is something that most people do not see. Iran is the sponsor of terrorist activities across the world, while America and Israel lead in the fight against terrorism. The only way that the country can be stopped is through confrontation and not by negotiations.
In spite of condemnation by world leaders, the nuclear program of Iran continues without much opposition. In October 2010, Iran revealed that already had the capability to produce between 100 and 200 kilograms of enriched uranium, which is enough to build three to five nuclear war heads. Yet, the U.S has not taken any decisive action to tame Iran’s nuclear ambitions (Macdonald 2).
This is exactly the same situation that confronted world leaders prior to the Second World War. Hitler and his battalion of religious cronies rose to pre-eminence under the watchful eye of powerful leaders who took no notice of his ambitions in the early 1930s.
Hitler told everyone what he was going to do in Mein Kampf; however, only Winston Churchill believed him. Winston Churchill saw the impending danger and sounded an alarm for years. Many called Hitler a warmonger, while others did not take him seriously. They said that it was not Hitler till Churchill’s prophecy came to pass and there was the Second World War started by Hitler (Macdonald 5).
Iran has enormous resources especially from oil, and the leaders believe that they can accelerate the return of the 12th Imam by bringing chaos on the world.
The twelfth Imam, Mohammad al Mahdi, disappeared at the age of five and is expected to return supernaturally before the Day of Judgement according to a section of Muslims who subscribe to Shiite interpretation of the Holy Koran. However, it is believed that, for him to come back on the Earth, the world must be in chaotic conditions. The leaders in Iran aim at creating chaos so that their own version of Messiah could return and bring in eternal peace.
This is the illusion that is guiding Iranian leaders. To them, nukes are the only way to bring chaos and achieve their aims. To stop Iran from bringing catastrophe America and Israel must target and destroy Iranian nuclear sites. In addition, the UN Security council should impose an embargo on countries that sell technology to Iran. If these actions are not taken, their nuclear disaster is inevitable.
Military progress is the aim of at least every country in the world. Many nations have invested a lot of money in research and development of various weapons that will enhance the security of the country as a whole. In the effort to come up with the perfect weapons, it becomes necessary for any country to test whether their weapons are of the right quality.
Nevertheless, weapons have various effects when tested and they have to be tested where they would cause minimum effects to human beings. In the period between 1946 and1958, the United States of America used the Marshall Islands to test for its nuclear weapons. However, this caused a lot of negative effects to the natives who had to change their ways of life besides looking for other ways of coping with the situation.
It is important to point out that the United States of America did not reveal to Marshallese the exact effects that nuclear weapons would have on their lives. Nonetheless, the gravity of the testing soon downed on the people of Marshall Islands. To begin with, the blasts completely destroyed some islands which were hitherto residential areas for the Marshallese.
Instead, huge craters were formed especially in the lagoons. This meant that the people would no longer have their land though they had been promised that their land was to be given back to them (Barker 20). Moreover, several coral Islands were completely broken up as a result of the nuclear testing that was carried out. Similarly, radioactive fallout resulted after the crushed corals and water mixed with the radioactive particles that were released.
The other effects that the Marshallese people suffered as a result of nuclear weapon testing had to do with the high levels of radiations that were released. Firstly, the radiations were freely released into the atmosphere. Consequently, people inhaled these radiations into their bodies (Barker 24). Secondly, the radiations stuck on various plants including the coconut plants where the Marshallese got the oil they applied on their skin and hair.
Additionally, radiations were ingested by young children who thought it was snow. Furthermore, the food and water that people were using also got contaminated with the radiations. These radiations have been associated with several health problems that have affected the Marshallese people including cancer, typhoid and reproductive health problems (Barker 28). It is worth noting that these effects have gone beyond the first generation.
Additionally, before any testing was commenced, people were relocated to other areas. These compelled the people to change not only their economic activities given that they were taken to areas where agriculture was not possible, but also their way of life. Moreover, these people had to depend on subsidy food from the U.S. government thus compelling them to change their diet (Barker 25).
Besides, the food issued by the U.S. government contained a lot of fats and sodium which exposed the Marshallese people to various health hazards. Similarly, the displaced people were forced to change their cultural and political activities. As a matter of fact, the Marshallese people had to change their cultural songs, their traditional diet as well as other rituals after they were displaced (Barker 27).
Despite the effects that the Marshallese people suffered due to the nuclear weapon testing, they have found ways of dealing with the situation. Firstly, the Marshall Islands tried to petition the United Nations in the year 1954 and 1957 in a move that was aimed at seeking address to the effects that the natives were suffering.
On the same note, the Marshallese people have learnt on how to lobby the congress and work with the executive branch so as to influence the U.S. government policy on radiological issues in the Marshall Islands. This is aimed at getting the U.S. government to support the people who were affected. On the same note, the Republic of Marshall Island and the U.S. government agreed in the 177 Agreement that the United States will compensate the people who got affected by the nuclear testing.
In addition, the U.S. government agreed to run medical programs in aid of the victims though there are some restrictions imposed (Barker 28). Due to the unproductive nature of the land after the testing, the Marshallese people have learnt to change their diet. They depend on subsidized food that is provided by the government of America.
Moreover, some areas have had soil and plants stripped off prompting the return of the Marshallese. However, they have had to start their lives from scratch and use intensive agricultural methods to try and restore the soil and plants (Barker 27). The formation of the nuclear claims tribunal was also an important strategy to lobby for compensation.
The nuclear testing is a clear case of intercultural conflicts where the United States wanted to enhance its weapons while the Marshallese simply wanted to maintain their peaceful livelihood. Using its influence, the United States got its way and tested the weapons knowing pretty well that the same had dire consequences on the natives. Notably, U.S. took advantage of the fact that Marshallese people were not well educated and thus did not reveal the exact effects of their intended exercise.
However, we should ask ourselves whether it is okay for a cultural group to advance its egocentric objectives at the expense of others. Culture is very essential for the lives of people in the world. Various cultures define various things differently and place differing weights on everything. Consequently, there is bound to be intercultural conflict whenever people from different cultural backgrounds interact.
People will always have different perspectives regarding given ideas. Moreover, each cultural group will always have diverse priorities. Nevertheless, it is important to know that there is no superior culture. All cultures are equal and people should be free to practice their culture. People should learn to appreciate the diversity in culture and respect other people’s believes.
In advancing their interests, people and by extension countries should take care so as not to interfere with other people’s ways of life. While we should be ready to defend our culture, we should not do it in an ethnocentric way that jeopardizes other people’s way of doing things. The United States of America was not ready to displace its own citizens to create testing fields.
However, they took advantage of the remoteness of Marshall Islands to test their nuclear weapons displacing people in the process and disregarding the imminent negative effects (Barker 27). When we learn that all people are equal human beings regardless of their cultural background, then we will be able to throw intercultural conflicts in the dustbin of oblivion.
Work Cited
Barker, Holly M. Bravo for the Marshallese: regaining Control in a Post-Nuclear, Post-Colonial World. Stanford: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
One of the main dangers associated with the use and spread of nuclear weapons is its availability to terrorist groups. Terrorist attacks happen more and more frequently, but if these groups possess nuclear weapons, the consequences of such attacks will be much more severe compared to the biggest assaults during the previous years. Thus, the main concerns for states become not terrorist acts per se but those where actors can move from conventional to nuclear explosives (Doyle, 2013).
No Effective Restraining Strategies
Whereas during the Cold War only two major nuclear powers were competing, the current situation is, from a particular perspective, much more dangerous, since approximately ten countries are currently in possession of nuclear powers (declared or undeclared). However, former and current deterrence strategies are not as effective as states and other interested actors would want them to be (Nuclear Tipping Point 2011). As Doyle (2013) points out, declassified documents from the Cold War-era indicate that nuclear catastrophe was avoided not by strategic actions but rather luck or a set of random events. The current form of deterrence, where the acquisition of nuclear warheads is explained as a tool for restraining other nuclear states from using the weapon, does not decrease the chance of an accidental or intentional launch. Furthermore, economic sanctions also do not help in deterrence, as they have not stopped North Korea from acquiring (as it states) nuclear weapons.
Materials Scattered Around the World
Materials for weapon creation are not stored in one place and one state; instead, these are scattered around the world and can be purchased or stolen by interested actors. It does not mean that it is easy to create a nuclear warhead, but the availability of materials significantly increases the chance of terrorist groups acquiring a nuclear warhead.
Destruction of Infrastructure, Social and Economic Structure
As pointed out in the video, the launch of nuclear weapons will lead to severe consequences: the destruction of houses, hospitals, roads, bridges, entire infrastructures of cities (Nuclear Tipping Point 2011). Social and economic structures of the impacted country will also be difficult to restore due to massive destruction; furthermore, nuclear fallout will also make the attacked city/country uninhabitable.
Massive Casualties
The launch of a nuclear weapon will not only destroy the infrastructure but also lead to severe casualties that will be greater than those during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. If some citizens do not die from the impact, they might develop radiation syndrome. The destruction of infrastructure will not allow saving and treating the majority of survivors.
Overcoming the Threats
Nuclear Tipping Point (2011) suggests the following steps as a means of overcoming the threats of nuclear weapons:
Reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
Secure all nuclear weapons globally to the highest standards.
Discard Cold War practices to avoid accidental launch.
Reducing the number of nuclear weapons and securing access to them will ensure that no accidental launch is possible. If all states agree to reduce the number of warheads in their possession, the strive of non-nuclear-weapon states to the acquisition of this type of weapons will also decrease (Baum, 2015). Decreased production of uranium and plutonium and improved security of those places where these resources are available (e.g., current or former nuclear power plants) can potentially address the danger of weapon acquisition by terrorist groups (Doyle, 2013). States’ ability to resolve regional conflicts can facilitate further nuclear weapon deterrence, especially in those non-nuclear states that planned to use it.
Review
Despite the suggested actions that could potentially resolve the problem, it appears that the elimination of nuclear weapons will not be possible in the future. First, all of the states that possess nuclear weapons, including the USA, Russia, and China, have made slow progress toward the reduction of their nuclear arsenal (Ifft, 2017). Furthermore, despite the existing rules and procedures on nuclear deterrence, no nuclear weapon was yet dismantled under such rules (Ifft, 2017). While it is possible to increase the security of nuclear weapons and avoid accidental launch by using modern technology that will not rely on individuals only (i.e., with the help of drones, security systems, etc.), it will be less possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons because they remain to be means of deterrence (Baum, 2015).
The nuclear deterrence doctrines, used by nuclear-weapon states, have been developed for several decades, and it is unreasonable to expect that they will readily disarm and disregard all the procedures used for deterrence. Additionally, no current regulations for global disarmament exist, and an agreement between states in possession of nuclear weapons might be developed for years if ever completed at all. At the same time, the lack of nuclear weapons (Ukraine’s disarmament in the 1990s) has directly or indirectly (along with other factors) led to the current crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. Thus, future conflicts can also negatively influence the elimination of nuclear weapons and their dismantlement. Ifft (2017) suggests that a trusted international body (e.g., the UN) should be viewed as a central mediator of security and stability in this issue. The problem of available uranium and plutonium remains tied to local wars and terrorist groups’ actions; with no control over territories occupied by various terrorist groups, it is impossible to halt or even somehow control the use of these resources.
UAE’s Role
The UAE’s nuclear program, which is to be used for the country’s projected national energy consumption needs, is directly related to the problem of nuclear weapons and their spread. As Blanchard and Kerr (2010) point out, Congress expressed concerns with regard to export control. It indicated that some UAE-based entities were involved in “Iranian weapons procurement, nuclear, and ballistic missile program activities” (Blanchard & Kerr, 2010, p. 11). Therefore, the UAE can address the problem by strengthening its national export control system to ensure that no illicit proliferation activities are possible.
Due to possible suspicious transfers to Iran emphasized by the USA and Iranian nuclear program, the UAE adopted a stronger national export control law in 2007 (Blanchard & Kerr, 2010). Furthermore, the UAE is a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and its actions are monitored by IAEA safeguards. In order to ensure that the UAE’s nuclear program cannot fuel proliferation activities, it uses light-water reactors in its program, which are among the most proliferation-resistant reactors in the world. It should also be noted that the production of nuclear weapons never relied on commercial reactors (Blanchard & Kerr, 2010). Thus, the UAE can reduce the potential danger of proliferation by strengthening its export laws, regulating its nuclear program, and securing reactors used in it.
References
Baum, S. D. (2015). Winter-safe deterrence: The risk of nuclear winter and its challenge to deterrence. Contemporary Security Policy, 36(1), 123-148.
The United Nations advocates for the concept of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as the best strategy for enhancing security. Incidentally, most of the developed countries are busy trying to modernize their arsenals as part of their security planning and foreign policies. Such aims create a complex situation for the international society and continue to threaten human existence. This paper describes Israel’s Begin Doctrine and explains why it is not easy for the Middle East to have a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ). The discussion goes further to explain why the possession of such resources continues to deter large-scale wars. The insights gained from the paper show that countries without such weapons are still at risk of attack from those that possess them. A new model for discouraging governments from developing these arms can promote peace and protect the lives of the greatest number of people.
Begin Doctrine
Many countries today have unique foreign policies that are informed by the concept of realism. For instance, the Israeli government has a powerful model commonly known as the Begin Doctrine that is an integral part of its security planning. Freilich defines it as a guiding principle that instructs Israel to destroy states that develop or have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that might be used against the Israelis (18). Under this policy, the government is always ready to defend its citizens with all its military, economic, and financial resources. The main target in accordance with this model is that of nuclear weapons since they have the potential to claim lives.
There are several examples of this policy or doctrine in action. The outstanding one is that of 1981 when Israel successfully attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactors and plants in Osirak in a mission called Operation Opera (Liebner and Press 31). The Israeli prime minister praised such a move and justified it since presented the best defense against any form of threat from its enemies. According to him, such an operation had also been ongoing for several years and it had consumed numerous national resources. After the attack, the government stated that its foreign policy would continue to remain essential for every future Israeli leader.
The leaders of this country pursue it in such a way that it protects and defends the people of Israel against any kind of racism or anti-Semitism. This happens to be the case since the Holocaust resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews from the late 1930s. The outstanding message is that Israel will always act in a similar manner when its enemies decide to develop nuclear arsenals and other weapons that can be utilized to kill the citizens of Israel (Hamel-Green 449). However, different foreign governments and the United Nations (UN) were opposed to the 1981 attacks. Such actions could encourage leaders to attack other countries, thereby exposing the world to a potential threat of insecurity (Liebner and Press 37). From this analysis, it is evident that Israel is not going to stop relent in its effort to protect and fight for all Jews in different parts of the world and ensure that they lead a free life. This happens to be the case despite the fact that many countries and different members of the UN have always been opposed to the validity and applicability of this foreign doctrine or policy.
NWFZ in the Middle East
Is the creation of a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East ever possible? No. Although the countries forming the Middle East support the establishment of the NWFZ, chances of achieving this goal remain grim due to a number of reasons. Firstly, some governments in the region have identified this idea as a strategy implemented by the Israeli government to prevent them from pursuing nuclear capabilities or arms. This means that most of the countries in the Middle East remain reluctant or unwilling to be part of this idea (Debs and Monteiro 29). Secondly, the Middle East is characterized by diverse groups and terrorists that have continued to promote unrest and conflict, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaeda (Debs and Monteiro 29). Many experts acknowledge that it might take time to institute the anticipated NWFZ in this troubled region.
Thirdly, different countries in this region have been pursuing their nuclear weapons abilities in secret. For example, the Iranian government has continuously claimed that its present program mainly focuses on the best ways to address the increasing demand for energy (Debs and Monteiro 35). Fourthly, several countries have remained noncompliant with the established guidelines under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Some of these nations in the region include Syria, Iraq, and Iran. For the NWFZ goal to become a reality, the involvement and support of all governments in the Middle East is something critical (Leavitt 98). Leaders in every country should, therefore, be involved and motivated to support this NWFZ idea and be on the right path towards protecting lives and achieving their respective economic objectives.
Fifthly, Israel is a major threat in the Middle East since it has failed to sign the existing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The current situation is that this country has been keen to implement its Begin Doctrine to prevent other governments from developing nuclear weapons in the region (Hiim 84). This remains the case while many security experts believe that it has an active nuclear arsenal (Leavitt 103). These issues or situations reveal that the Middle East might be unable to achieve its NWFZ objectives in the near future. All countries should be committed to this aspiration and embrace the concepts of openness and transparency than ever before. This initiative will promote compliance and encourage all member states to focus on the same agenda that has the potential to meet the demands of all citizens.
Nuclear Weapons and Conventional War
Does having nuclear weapons prevent conventional war or international interventions? Yes. After the end of the Second World War, very few conflicts involving countries with nuclear capabilities have been recorded. Haass indicates that most of the upheavals between developed nations have failed to reach the level of international conflict (42). For example, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union never fruited to a physical conflict since these two enemies had nuclear weapons and capabilities. This happened to be the case despite the fact that these two nations possessed advanced weapons and equipment capable of supporting and sustaining a large-scale war (Leavitt 109). This outcome is in accordance with the nuclear revolution theory that asserts that the frequency of upheavals between governments with such supplies will always remain minimal.
Past historical experiences continue to determine or dictate the way many nations approach the utilization of WMD during war. This fact explains why some politicians and analysts acknowledge that the lessons gained after the events at Nagasaki and Hiroshima caution leaders and discourage them from relying on the use of such WMD (Sechser and Fuhrmann 39). The use of such weapons during the Second World War resulted in millions of deaths and affected the experiences and health outcomes of majority of the survivors. This means that countries with powerful nuclear arsenal will always remain pessimistic regarding the potential effects associated with them.
Similarly, many states with nuclear weapons formulate appropriate initiatives to resolve their disagreements whenever they emerge. A good example is the Cuban Missile crisis that took place a few years after the end of the Second World War (Debs and Monteiro 41). The US and the Soviet Union were aware of the potential aftermath of physical conflict and its impacts on the global population. This kind of knowledge persuades them to resolve their differences without the need for international involvement (Sechser and Fuhrmann 39). The case of India and Pakistan remains the only example of a conflict that reached the level of physical upheaval between states with potential nuclear powers. Despite the promising nature of these findings and observations, there is a need for all developed nations to consider superior measures for minimizing or preventing conflicts instead of increasing their WMD (Sechser and Fuhrmann 44). This move will ensure that more people in every part of the world are able to pursue their goals in life without fear since it will have become a safe place for them.
NPT Members
Would parties to the NPT without nuclear weapons capabilities be less likely to become a target of a nuclear attack? No. The signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was a move aimed at promoting new measures that would make it possible for many countries in different parts of the world to minimize their nuclear weapons and focus on the concept of peace. Unfortunately, several governments continue to allocate huge financial resources to support the modernization of their arsenals (Sechser and Fuhrmann 76). This is something that is in accordance with their respective defense planning programs or foreign policies. According to the leaders of such states, the possession of nuclear weapons is a critical element of worldwide and national security Sechser and Fuhrmann 92). This idea has continued to become an essential aspect of their respective foreign policies and missions.
The notion that countries that are parties to the NPT but lack such weapons will have reduced chances of becoming targets of nuclear attacks or invasions is erroneous. This is the case since governments with WMD acknowledge that such arms can be utilized to protect their resources, critical infrastructures, and citizens (Sechser and Fuhrmann 43). Many countries will, therefore, be ready to utilize their weapons against any form of threat or attack. Sechser and Fuhrmann reveal that foreign disagreements will always occur between nations with nuclear weapons and those without them (78). This fact reveals that governments that do not have WMD will be venerable when tensions emerge.
During times of conflict, chances of using such arsenals remain high as one of the best approaches for securing immediate victory. The best example is that of the atomic bombs released on Japanese soil towards the end of the infamous Second World War (Cohen 49). The detonation of such weapons led to unprecedented deaths and destructions that many scholars and experts continue to analyze as case studies. This fact or reality should become a learning point for countries that fail to develop nuclear weapons with the hope that they will become unlikely targets of such attacks. The outstanding lesson is that all countries should avoid the development of such WMD in an attempt to promote harmony and protect the lives of all citizens (Sechser and Fuhrmann 79). This argument explains why it would be appropriate for all nations to sign the NPT treaty and support it with their resources. Such a move will address the major predicaments many states and citizens continue to face in different parts of the world today.
Conclusion
The pursuit of foreign policy is an agenda that has continued to influence relations and the advancement of military capabilities. The above discussion questions have addressed the issue of nuclear weapons and why they remain controversial in different parts of the world. The outstanding observation is that the possession of such WMD is something that threatens tranquility. Such weapons also make it impossible for underdeveloped countries in every part of the world to sustain any form of conflict. The Middle East is a region that might not realize the goal of developing a NWFZ due to the existing complexities and diverse aims. Additionally, governments that lack such weapons are as prone to attacks as those who possess them. These issues should become powerful lessons or insights for the international community if it is to overcome the challenges and threats WMD present.
Works Cited
Cohen, Michael D. When Proliferation Causes Peace: The Psychology of Nuclear Crises. Georgetown University Press, 2017.
Debs, Alexandre, and Nuno P. Monteiro. Nuclear Politics: The Strategic Causes of Proliferation. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Freilich, Charles D. Israeli National Security: A New Strategy for an Era of Change. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Haass, Richard. A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. Penguin Publishing Group, 2017.
Hamel-Green, Michael. “The Nuclear Ban Treaty and 2018 Disarmament Forums: An Initial Impact Assessment.” Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 1, no. 2, 2018, pp. 436-463.
Hiim, Henrik S. China and International Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Strategic Assistance. Taylor & Francis, 2018.
Leavitt, Neal. The Foreign Policy of John Rawls and Amartya Sen. Lexington Books, 2015.
Liebner, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. “The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence.” International Security, vol. 41, no. 4, 2017, pp. 9-49.
Sechser, Todd S., and Matthew Fuhrmann. Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
It is fair to assume that President Truman’s action was justified and that the dropping of an atomic bomb was essential. There is no sign of when, if ever, the Japanese will surrender. The operations planned for late 1945 and early 1946 were to be on mainland Japan, and the military fatalities on both sides, as well as civilian deaths, would have very certainly outweighed the losses caused by the bombing (Keegan 1996). The battle was costing lives as well as money to keep fighting. Japan faced the potential of an Allied landing on their nation, a Soviet Union onslaught, and the reality that by the time all of this happened (Keegan 1996). They would be receiving no assistance from defeated Germany, yet despite all of this, Japan would fight on. Who knows what might have occurred if the Pacific Theater battles had persisted? The Japanese were already using their pilots as weapons, and it’s impossible to say what would have occurred if the Japanese had landed in America. There was no sign that they were any closer to surrendering than when they destroyed Pearl Harbor.
Japanese persistence during World War II was unprecedented. A rational government would have conceded defeat. The country was on the verge of famine. It was staring down the barrel of disaster. In the Japanese concept, however, “face” prohibited it from embracing reality (Keegan 1996). The emperor and his military government were then handed a way out by two fresh crises in August. On August 6, 1945, an American plane exploded an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Manchuria was invaded by the Red Army on August 8 (Keegan 1996). On August 17, eight days after the second atomic bomb was detonated on Nagasaki and two days after the Japanese surrendered to the US, the Manchurian campaign was declared won (Keegan 1996).
Reference
Keegan, John. 1996. The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War II. Toronto: Vintage books.