Nuclear disarmament as a way to keep peace and provide human security

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Nuclear weaponry & associated ramifications
Ramifications to human security
Implication to environment
Associated dangers to human civilization
The perceived significance of nuclear weapons
Why nuclear disarmament is the irrefutable solution
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

As the world struggles with the different challenges that are suppressing socioeconomic development in the contemporary days, human security is mainly at stake. Initially, social security was perhaps a mere threat as the involvement of global politics touching on the United States and the United Kingdom among other powerful states in the nuclear arsenal proliferation made the issue of atomic weaponry unclear especially to laypersons.

Contemporary debates underlying the Syrian crisis is an outstanding example of the realities surrounding the augmenting concerns on weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as the campaigns on global elimination of nuclear armaments intensify.

The events of WWI and WWII are deeply envisaged in the memories of many who experienced them, and none would wish the reoccurrence of the same. Peace and reconciliation campaigns on countries experiencing stalemate have failed to provide a resolution to the constant conflicts that are threatening further nuclear exposure. This essay examines atomic disarmament as a way to keep peace and ensure human security.

Nuclear weaponry & associated ramifications

Nuclear arsenals form the most significant part of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) despite the consequences, which are currently undermined and underestimated. Macfarlane (2005) notes, “The emergence of a new, hostile military coalition against the United States or its allies in which one or more members possesses WMD and the means of delivery is a potential contingency that could have major consequences for the U.S” (p.3).

Nonetheless, the war against nuclear proliferation is not merely a national quandary associated with powerful states like the United States; on the contrary, it is rather an international security concern. Instead of considering their destruction capacity, some nations are thinking nuclear weapons more constructive than conformist weapons.

Countries in the Middle East, North Korea, Syria, and even Iran are the nations where an actual proliferation of nuclear armaments has taken place. As postulated by Berry (2010), nuclear weapons are the most dangerous artillery ever discovered on earth, and if loosely exposed, the ramifications cut across almost every integral part of human life.

Ramifications to human security

A considerably debated issue over the threats of nuclear weaponry is the notion of social security that first appeared in the Human Development Report of 1994, but it is either misunderstood or misinterpreted. From the conviction developed in recent studies, there exist numerous ambiguities regarding what human security entails.

The actual security issues are unclear whether protection against nuclear weaponry aims humanity or political power and state stability. Jolly and Emmerij (2009) posit, “Human security shifts security concerns away from an exclusive preoccupation with military protection of states towards the safety and empowerment of individuals” (p.1).

The initial idea of human security rested upon offering protection to individuals especially innocent civilians, but the new sense of social security is controversial, as states have shifted attention with the primary purpose of security hinged upon increased ethnic and identity divisions, a proliferation of arms, and individual state power (Berry 2010).

Human security in the context of nuclear weaponry effects would better refer to threats to human populations.

Human security is universal, multidimensional, people-oriented, and interconnected, and it represents efforts aimed at ensuring individuals or civilians’ safety by mitigating threats to insecurity (Jolly & Ray 2006).

The proponents of nuclear generation and countries, which have shown extensive support to the underway atomic development in the name of acquiring global power and challenging the powerful nations, should be deficient of proper knowledge concerning nuclear ramifications.

‘Mass destruction’ is probably the first term commonly used to demonstrate the possible effects of nuclear weaponry on human life with mass deaths expected during its use.

As Macfarlane (2005) notes, the use of WMD as confrontational tools should involve mass casualties, especially deaths, just as witnessed during the Second World War when allied troops used firebombing. Nuclear weaponry, coupled with the use of chemical and biological armaments, can cause mass destruction.

Nowadays, almost anything and everything little to human beings is a potential risk to social security, and when broadened, climate change, health, and other factors form substantial threats to human safety (Jolly & Ray 2006). Apart from killing massive numbers of civilians through nuclear attacks and bombing, nuclear production itself and explosions released poses a potential risk to human health.

According to Berry (2010), pacts like the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty emerged from the efforts of governmental organizations that wanted to create awareness following the growing fears concerning the repercussions of nuclear arms and how the testing of the weapons within environment affected people’s health and devastated communities.

The effects of radiological pollution coming from radioactive emissions on human health and the environment are broad and devastating. As Cimbala (2012) observes, the threat coming from nuclear wars and emissions can destabilize human societies severely as social structures fragment following fear of conflict and tension.

Implication to environment

While fear augments over the pace of nuclear proliferation and the renewed nuclear arms race, with specifical examples like Libya, Iran, Iraq, and contemporary Syria as perpetrators are trying to assemble nuclear to attack others, the power of destruction is unprecedented (Jacobs & Nagan 2012).

Nuclear weaponry has unique destruction power, which can cause disgusting human suffering and pose a significant threat to the environment, the existence of future generations, and undeniably the survival of humanity as human existence largely depend on the natural surrounding.

Concerning nuclear hostility to the atmosphere, the vast destruction involved in nuclear proliferation and its use in the global spectrum, which subsequently exposes it to the environment, significantly causes environmental degradation, affects water resources and catchment areas and results in adverse climate change that consequently affects other human affairs (Berry 2010).

All these aspects form a more significant part of human security and nuclear emissions and weaponry attacks subsequently affect the entire survival of humanity.

Nuclear radioactive emissions significantly cause climate change that potentially endangers social systems and ecosystems as the degradation of natural resources and declines in food and water supply substantially affects human populations (Cimbala 2012).

Nuclear weapons constitute weapons of mass destruction, as they are explosive and contain radioactive waste materials that generally lead to fluctuations in climatic conditions, weather changes characterized by extremely high temperatures, and poisonous rainwater coming from the altered ozone layer.

As Cimbala (2012) affirms, nuclear power production significantly contributes and inextricably links to nuclear arsenal development.

Apart from radioactive fallout, emissions coming from the utilization of nuclear armaments in conflicts or production of nuclear energy (atomic renaissance) including uranium mining, reactor operations, fuel rod manufacture, and other disposals of nuclear waste affect both water and air components.

According to Berry (2010), uranium chemicals, diffusion of other harmful gases, and percolation of nuclear waste materials, including atomic fuel into water bodies affects the entire ecological unit.

When essential aspects of humanity, including a safe environment, food security, and weather harshness, are altered, the social structure of human life encounters considerable challenges (Jacobs & Nagan 2012).

Environmental disturbance potentially leads to a collateral threat to humanity as the physical environment determines social structures and human populations.

Regarding gas emissions and other forms of nuclear waste released into the air and water or even on land, all types of ecosystems that support the survival of humanity are affected, and also though human populations would respond to such changes through migration and immigration, further environmental harm would triumph (Berry 2010).

The dispersed population due to harsh weather, unproductive soils, and poisoned water sources would probably invade preserved areas such as forests, wild habitats, and other zones. Nuclear attacks enhance insurgency and terrorism as they are potent weapons and destructive, they demolish infrastructure, human abodes, and even different natural habitats, thus causing massive displacement of populations.

Associated dangers to human civilization

The battle of global supremacy involving some growing nations and powerful developed nations in the name of acquiring weapons of mass destruction to challenge one another has hampered efforts towards human civilization (Jolly & Ray 2006).

Human progress or evolution is characterized by social, political, cultural, and economic developments, which are also essential aspects of modern human civilization. As nuclear weaponry proliferation, nuclear arms race, and its mitigation initiatives intensify across the world, the entire human civilization is heavily hampered.

The central aspect that significantly amplifies human civilization is economic stability and development, something that nuclear production and deterrence are currently affecting and continues to influence.

As Macfarlane (2005) notes, the United States alone is currently spending approximately $2 billion annually to prevent nuclear attacks and related wars while Syria, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, on the other hand, are incurring high economic costs in production of atomic power and nuclear artillery, thus affecting the financial constancy of the involved economies.

Countries are living in fear of terrorist attacks, as insurgents have discovered enormous power bestowed in nuclear weaponry proliferation, hence forcing nations to overspend in equipping and supporting military and strengthening security systems (Jolly & Emmerij 2009). Following the high costs of nuclear production and deterrence, countries are experiencing economic crunches while providing human security.

Wars and fear triggered by nuclear weaponry attacks cause significant destabilization of political structures and national governance, which forms an integral part of modern human civilization. According to Jacobs and Nagan (2012), “the reliance on nuclear energy must take into account the full range of political, social, medical, economic, and ecological issues” (p.178).

States fuelling nuclear proliferation continue to set odd examples on the acquisition of nuclear power and weaponry technology, which seems to destabilize global politics. Cimbala (2012) notes that the constant global rivalry involving powerful political states including the US, USSR, China, Russia, Japan, and North Korea where nuclear development and utilization is highly debatable, is creating global geopolitical tensions.

Human civilization involved several social aspects, including human health, employment, and crucial education components of life that contribute to modern culture. Jolly and Ray (2006) identify core elements of underlying social security as “economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security” (p.4).

The proliferation of nuclear artillery substantially influences the behavior of the civil society, and as it potentially frustrates social structure and development following fear of nuclear attacks, human civilization is hampered. Atomic bombings and nuclear poisoning to the environment normally destabilizes communal organization and arrangement as civilians would be displaced during such disturbances (Berry 2010).

Violent threats coming from terrorist attacks and other forms of crime related to an abundance of illegal arms within societies disintegrate social structures that form an integral part of modern human civilization. Major social threats due to nuclear weapon aggression, such as hostile wars include miserable poverty, death, and conflict.

The perceived significance of nuclear weapons

From a shrewd perspective, development, proliferation, and utilization of atomic arsenal as military components lack holistic worth as long as humanity faces substantial depressing social, environmental, economic, and political impacts (Jolly & Ray 2006).

However, the standpoint of proponents of such armaments, especially the nuclear-weapon states, might have found something valuable in the nuclear weaponry production. Many countries across the world, especially those against the American global reclamation of political and economic power, have discovered enough evidence of possessing a stronger opposition against renowned global superpowers.

Macfarlane (2005) notes, “As suggested by the recent behavior of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya, nuclear weapons appear to be the most desirable weapons to protectionist states” (p.4).

The claims of protectionism against internal affairs by developed economies are the main flimsy reasons produced by nuclear-weapon states. The protectionist measures that the majority of Muslim countries including Syria, Pakistan, Russia, and Iraq, which form the bulk of global conflicts, have contributed immensely to the creation and development of nuclear armories citing national democratization.

A significant discernment of nuclear weapon states is that atomic weaponry is strong and powerful artillery that armies across the world can use to provide substantial security to respective nations.

The United States and other powerful nations that dominate global politics and influence policies governing human rights, economical development, and prevalence of justice among human societies have fallen under intense criticism overexploitation of individual state democracy (Macfarlane 2005).

While upheaval against the dominance and influence of the American global political power may prove significant in enhancing individual national development, the degree of legitimacy to possess harmful weapons that frustrate humanity is a critical matter.

From Americans’ perspective, the conviction is that the United States itself should possess nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attacks, and this stand is creating even further controversies (Macfarlane 2005). Nuclear weapon states and other proponents of a similar conviction against the United States’ global influence strongly believe that possession of nuclear weaponry would make the US understand what their sentiments entail.

Why nuclear disarmament is the irrefutable solution

Despite recording a considerable decrease in the number of the nuclear arsenal across the world, more than 20,000 nuclear weapons are still available, with enough immense potency to destroy the entire planet multiple times over (Cimbala 2012). The question that continues to linger across global political minds is how to impede nuclear development and proliferation to avoid further human insecurity.

Perhaps nuclear disarmament is the most practical approach to deter nuclear expansion and proliferation. Berry (2010) asserts that Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and South Africa are some of the countries that deserve acknowledgement following their ability to dismantle and abandon handling and utilization of nuclear weapons after 1989.

However, Kazakhstan can best explain the reasons why nuclear disarmament can form the best solution in nuclear prevention. According to Jacobs and Nagan (2012), during the Cold War confrontation, Kazakhstan suffered destructive effects of approximately 500 Soviet atomic tests that resulted in augmented cancer rates of 50%, thus leading to 1.5 million victims of diseases, birth deformities, and early deaths.

Following such devastating repercussions, Kazakhstan recently launched an international initiative dubbed The Atom Project aimed at elimination of nuclear weapons (Jacobs & Nagan 2012).

For the past two decades, Kazakhstan has eradicated and renounced all its nuclear armaments, and this global program would aim at creating public education awareness about consequences of atomic weapons through an international referendum that would garner intercontinental support against atomic arms (Jacobs & Nagan 2012).

Since the advent of the global battle against nuclear weapons, the war against such armaments is hampered by prevailing implications of domestic and foreign policies within geopolitical boundaries. Each nuclear-weapon state is holding to its constitutional power and mandate in the legitimacy to continue possessing nuclear weapons.

From Kazakhstan’s experience, the use of mass destruction weapons as protectionist motive shall never restore global peace (Berry 2010). The conviction hinged upon disbarment is that dismissal of the use or production of any form of a nuclear weapon will destroy their proliferation.

Disarmament is a crucial way of destroying the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons since global campaign pressure and related anti-nuclear weapons policies will significantly convince atomic weapon states to forego nuclear weapons (Macfarlane 2005).

A multilayered approach aimed at nuclear disarmament and negotiation nuclear disarmament convection as recommended by Berry (2010) is the best and a good faith approach towards the elimination of atomic weapons. Disarmament, as an approach, probably involves public engagement, which is an essential factor in decriminalizing nuclear weapons.

A long-term sustainable commitment from societal to international levels that involve the inclusion of the international community and political support and enhancing the understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons and significance of disarmaments would greatly assist in this exercise (Berry 2010).

The campaign that is aimed at garnering civil support in disarmament is an effective solution as creating public awareness through referendums against nuclear weapons would generate a global single-aimed project towards the deterrence of nuclear proliferation.

Inhibiting attacks and proliferation of nuclear weapons through using billions of dollars to acquire the same weapons of mass destruction would significantly encourage other states to buy them in plenty for their national power defense.

Macfarlane (2005) establishes that the strongest solution to dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons is doubtlessly through setting policies that undervalue nuclear weapons rather than using them as protectionist measures against our potential enemies.

A major conception that makes disarmament a potential strategy to restrain utilization of nuclear weapons is that as eradication against such weapons intensifies, nuclear-weapon states would gradually reduce reliance on these weapons and proffer other less destructive weapons (Jolly & Ray 2006).

Possessing nuclear weapons as an initiative to demolish other holders of the same artillery creates a controversial perception against the US and other powerful states, and this exaggeration would probably encourage terrorists and other non-state actors to acquire them as protectionist strategies. Disarmament would generate different defense approaches far from the current aggressive militia strategies.

Militarism and war might not provide a peaceful and prosperous world, but increase international tension and constant confrontation. Disarmament would create better international relations through acknowledging international diplomacy as characterized by a common approach towards affairs of human and national security (Cimbala 2012).

When powerful nations withdraw from deploying nuclear weaponry, the last target would be achieving a harmonious world that collectively engages in addressing terrorism, environmental uncertainties, and criminal threats to international securities.

Courts of justice across the world should be legally mandated through the formation of policies and regulations to take stiff lawful actions against countries and political leaders aspiring development and utilization of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weaponry.

According to reports documented by Jolly and Ray (2006), respecting the role of the UN in nuclear disarmament is essential as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), and Anti-Ballistic-Missiles Treaty (1972) would significantly reduce the proliferation of atomic weapons.

Conclusion

Humanity and its civilization will continue intensifying socio-economic and political developments, and a violent world will remain unsustainable and unjust. The contemporary behavior of Syria has awakened the realities surrounding the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was slowly becoming a historical issue.

While approximately nine states have retained their nuclear weapons, there is a conviction that the US, the UK, and Israel are intending to use these weapons in dominating global power.

In deterring these weapons, the US itself believes that it should possess nuclear weapons to have the power to dissuade others from using the same weapons. However, inhibiting attacks and proliferation of such weapons through this approach is creating a further international rivalry, especially to non-state actors.

The first practical approach, as recommended by Kazakhstan from its experience with devastating nuclear confrontation, is averting the development and proliferation of these weapons through disarmament.

Reference List

Berry, K 2010, Delegitimising nuclear weapons examining the validity of nuclear deterrence, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA.

Cimbala, S 2012, Nuclear Weapons in the Information Age, Continuum International Publishing, London.

Jacobs, G & Nagan, W 2012, ‘Nuclear Threats and Security’, Cadmus, vol. 1 no. 5, pp. 174-179.

Jolly, R & Emmerij, L 2009, UN intellectual History Project: Peace and Human Security. Web.

Jolly, R & Ray, D 2006, The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports: A Review of Experiences and Current Debates. Web.

Macfarlane, A 2005, All Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Not Equal. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!