Following the second world war, tensions between the United States and the U.S.S.R erupted after different interests led to mutual suspicion and hostility, in an escalating rivalry rooted in suspicion, rooted in ideology. The dangers inherent in the precarious US- Soviet relationship gave rise to ‘the arms race’. The development and deployment of weapons and technology, most significantly nuclear weapons and other mass destruction saw the US and Russia to compete in acquiring a greater nuclear arsenal. Considering the mass hostility that was escalating between the two nations, direct military conflict did not occur, mainly because of mutual fear.
It is clear to perceive now how one can be party to supporting this statement: a nuclear war is far too absurd to be considered in modern warfare. However the statement also says that ‘nuclear weapons protect our country’. There is to a degree (taking into account the above evidence) an element of truth in this. Nuclear weapons do, in effect protect us (more precisely NATO), not because of their power, but the status it allows us to have; an alliance with the capabilities to destroy an enemy nation swiftly and destructively I believe it is this status which may have prevented a third world wide conflict as, consequently, it would have lead to the probable end to man kind.
In contrast to those who support this argument on the above basis, are those who condemn it. We automatically find cause to accept this side to the argument; not only does owning a nuclear weapon endow obvious dangers, but also we have to think whether it is moral to use something such as a nuclear weapon for status symbol. What is the point of developing a weapon if you never use it? It takes you back to the beginning again, you build one, why? To use it, if no, then why build it? Status? What is the point in that? Already, in this view, I have ridiculed the supporting argument. Counter arguments become a great more profound in1945, at the end of the war, when nuclear warfare was made very real.
On August 6 1945,following Japan’s refusal to withdraw from the war, a combined British-American developed atomic bomb was released on the city of Hiroshima. The supreme allied headquarters reported that 129, 558 people were killed, injured or missing and a further 176,987 made homeless by the bombing. This was the first indication that this could be grim new face of modern warfare. Provoking a mass global hysteria, the world drew a deep breath as it began living on a knife-edge. A second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, and Japan promptly withdrew from the war. Supposing Japan hadn’t had withdrew from the war, would America of carried on bombing? And what if Japan had the technology to reply to the bombing, would we still be here to discuss it now?
With matters still unsettled between the Soviets and America, Russia were now aiming to compete with America in developing a nuclear arsenal, and, in 1949 they too developed the atom bomb. Could a conflict be possible now when both nations had the capability to destroy each other? As this competition continued, the arms race became more and more sinister. Could the slightest argument have sparked a nuclear war? Was this the beginning of the end? These were the questions people on both sides of the dispute were asking, and eventually, in 1991, when communist Russia collapsed, the world finally let out a huge sigh of relief which it had held for last half century.
To conclude this account, I can only clarify my points to more of a personal extent. Each example of evidence, whether it supports or contradicts the statement can be, in turn, used in visa-versa, depending on which angle you perceive it. For example, the arms race may have had an effect global safety; nations had the potential to destroy each other in an instant. However, maybe the status purposes were all their owners intended to develop them for. Maybe the hostility and fear was the furthest the competition was going to go, as neither country bombed each other in the cold war. Both nations cowarded from nuclear attacks as it would have provoked global bombing between communists and capitalists worldwide. There was potential for nuclear war, but it all simply came down to a status struggle in the end; maybe the hostility and ownership of these weapons prevented any wars that would have occurred if the weapons hadn’t had been invented.
In fairness, I have to state clearly that I cannot be of party to those who agree with nuclear weapons. However, I firmly believe that they have prevent many smaller scale wars, so are these weapons good as peacekeepers? It can never be known, however, what we do know is that nuclear weapons do destroy thousands of people, but are we past that now? We might only know when it’s too late.
