Essay on The Deterrence Strategy For Nuclear Weapons

Custom Papers Help, Professional Academic Writing Services.

Essay on The Deterrence Strategy For Nuclear Weapons

Deterrence Strategy For Nuclear Weapons

Countries continue to argue over the pros and cons of implementing the deterrence strategy for nuclear weapons to prevent terrorism and to avoid the emergence of rogue states that are likely to pose a threat to maintaining worldwide peace.

Governments of the countries must possess the tactics and should take preemptive measures to make certain that rogue states would not be able to influence their decisions and use the weapons for political gains.

Those who favor a deterrence strategy for nuclear weapons as a way of abolishing nuclear weapons to prevent terrorism argue that countries that possess nuclear weapons, own them with the intention to harm civilians, and any government that does so should be restrained from possessing them, for the safety of humanity.

These weapons are used for the purpose of mass murder and would also have after-effects on the economy such as the Hiroshima incident, and ethically these consequences are to be considered unacceptable.

Nations that are equipped with nuclear weapons are seen as “undemocratic” since the decision to use these weapons is made by a few people who are at the top of the nation’s leadership, despite knowing that this action is keen to have adverse effects on the civilians and the civilization itself.

As mentioned earlier there are certain nations that have the capability and technology to build nuclear weapons but, have restrained from doing so, therefore nuclear states also need to take responsibility to reduce their stockpiles.

United States

The nature of the battle altered when the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Up until that point, winning wars had been the military’s primary goal. However, famous US strategist Bernard Brodie claimed in a 1978 article that “from now on its main objective must be to prevent them.”

Almost no other beneficial application is possible for it. As a result, the concept of nuclear deterrence emerged an apparently sensible plan under which the threat of mutually assured annihilation would lead to peace and stability.

With his trademark vigor, Winston Churchill put it this way in 1955: “Safety will be the strong offspring of horror, and survival the twin brother of devastation.”

Importantly, deterrence evolved into not only a claimed tactic but also the basis on which governments themselves justified the use of nuclear weapons. Every nation with nuclear weapons now maintains that the possibility of devastating retaliation deters assaults.

Cold War

The security priorities of Western governments abruptly changed after the conclusion of the Cold War. Academics disagreed on the usefulness of having nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era, with some claiming that there were still good reasons to have nuclear arsenals in place and others believing that this was a chance to create a world without nuclear weapons (NWF).

The discussion is still going on today, more than twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, certain signs point to the deterrence approach having fresh relevance in the twenty-first century.

Nuclear deterrence can still be effective in the modern world, but for that to happen, its parameters must drastically alter. The deterrence of today must be substantially different from the deterrence of the Cold War.

However, some of the ideas that were created at the time may still be applicable to today’s difficulties facing international security.  Prior to beginning the analysis, it is crucial to identify the major components of the problem.

In this context, the term “deterrence” refers to the capacity to foresee an enemy’s strike by arousing dread. Nuclear deterrence is used in this essay to refer to both of its traditional forms: deterrence by threat of punishment and deterrence by threat of denial.

Even though the two theories are frequently viewed as alternatives, a wide definition is the most helpful in addressing the topic of this article since the issue is not which deterrence method is the most successful but rather if deterrence is still effective in the modern world.

Since the effectiveness of a deterrence system may be judged by the rationality of its participants, we must carefully analyze how much non-state actors, who have just entered the international scene, can be discouraged.

The employment of nuclear weapons on the battlefield has been revived in the age of the war on terror, and this development has repercussions for the entire machinery of the traditional conceptions of deterrence.

Different Arguments

Different arguments have been presented both in favor and against of deterrence strategy acting as an effective tool to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation by rogue states and international terrorists.

Countries are concerned about maintaining peace and not providing nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists who are keen to use these mass destruction tools negatively in their favor and will ultimately use them as a threat to the nation and the world as a whole.

The likelihood of terrorists from non-nuclear states getting their hands over the weapons is rising rapidly. In today’s world nuclear weapons is the source of mass devastation. Mostly these terrorists are outside the boundaries of deterrent strategy and it is.

Therefore, difficult to get a hold of them, and thus it has now been leading to difficult challenges being placed on the security of nations. Steps need to be taken to ensure that peace is maintained globally and economies are free from the threat of terrorism.

Nuclear Deterrence Theory

In international affairs, the concept of nuclear deterrence is frequently mentioned. Regarding the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, this notion rose to popularity. Short for nuclear deterrence, this term refers to the act of discouraging a state from attacking another with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons might discourage more powerful opponents due to their immense destructive capability. Since the end of the Cold War, numerous governments have referenced the nuclear deterrence theory as a means of resolving international crises. Actually, it has evolved into a doctrine.

Even if the postulation of the reason was contested by some, the Cold War persisted. Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, the US and the USSR refrained from using direct military conflict, whether nuclear or conventional, as a tool of policy against one another.

Despite building sizable nuclear arsenals and occasionally threatening to use them, neither nation ever used nuclear weapons. It is difficult to believe that nuclear weapons did not matter, that is, that the threat of immediate and unacceptable nuclear retaliation had no deterrent effect.

Despite the fact that few have argued that nuclear weapons alone kept the Cold War from escalating. Other theories include balance-of-power considerations and the elimination of great power war.

Role of Nuclear Deterrence Today

In the context of current security concerns, nuclear strategy is still important, and the way it is approached now focuses mostly on the idea of deterrence. In spite of this, the initial plans, as seen by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not regard atomic bombs as anything more than more potent versions of their conventional equivalents.

However, the nuclear weapon quickly rose to the status of “the supreme weapon,” and deterrent tactics rapidly took the place of plans for using it in combat.

These days, both strategies are used. The actual use of tactical or theater nuclear weapons has returned to the security agenda since the end of the Cold War, but nuclear deterrence has not lost its prominent position: in fact, strategic deterrence and regional deterrence continue to be the fundamental components in the US Nuclear Posture Review Report, published in 2010.

Furthermore, while nuclear deterrence is a known fact, the chances of using low-yield tactical nuclear weapons have up to now just been a possibility.

It would be naive to think that the nuclear strategy that was agreed upon at the conclusion of the Cold War is still relevant in light of the present expenditure plans of the two Cold War giants.

In reality, both Russia and the US intend to invest in the next years in developing more advanced delivery systems for their long-range strategic nuclear weapons in addition to spending on maintaining the outdated equipment.

Key Factor in Shaping Policies

The risks provided by non-state actors have supplanted interstate warfare as the main cause of insecurity for the US since the US declared war on terror in 2001.

Traditional deterrence, as it was defined during the Cold War, was openly acknowledged in the United States of America’s 2002 National Security Strategy as being worthless when fighting this sort of foe.

However, the US’s new policy just suggested adapting it to the current security context, not abandoning the notion altogether. The solidification of the nuclear taboo is the main barrier to any theory of nuclear use.

The existence of international laws that severely limit the legality of using nuclear weapons first only serves to encourage this mentality among the international community.

Another element that contributes to the consolidation of this taboo is the amount of time that has passed since the single instance of nuclear weapons being used in actual combat. However, given that the nuclear taboo has been established, the sole purpose for nuclear weapons is deterrence.

This is because a state can still threaten nuclear reprisal in response to a serious attack on its national security, particularly if the attack poses a threat to the state’s survival.

This is a model paper to get assistance in similar essay login to Custom Papers Help.

 Get academic writing from Custom Paper Help on “Deterrence strategy for nuclear weapons ” at an affordable price.