NEW YORK (Washington Insider Magazine)- Nuclear war is a topic that evokes strong emotion and opinions. Some people believe that it is a necessary evil that can lead to peace, while others see it as an indiscriminate tool of destruction. Each side has valid points, but ultimately the decision of whether or not nuclear war is justified rests on a weighing of the potential benefits and risks.
On the one hand, nuclear war could lead to the reduction or even elimination of armed conflict between nations. The specter of mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for decades, and it could continue to do so. Nuclear war would also have the potential to end the lives of millions of people, which some believe is a justifiable price to pay for peace.
On the other hand, nuclear war could lead to the complete annihilation of human civilization. It would cause unimaginable levels of devastation and death, and the long-term effects would be catastrophic. There is also no guarantee that nuclear war would actually lead to peace; it could just as easily lead to further escalation and more war.
How Does the Theory of Nuclear Deterrence Justify Nuclear War?
The theory of nuclear deterrence has been used to justify nuclear war on multiple occasions. The basis for this justification is that nuclear weapons prevent major conventional wars and preserve peace. The theory goes that if two countries have nuclear weapons, they will be deterred from attacking each other because doing so would risk retaliation with nuclear weapons. This theory was first developed during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. The theory was later applied to justify the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
Criticism on Theory of Nuclear Deterrence
The theory of nuclear deterrence has been criticized on multiple grounds.
First, it is not clear that nuclear weapons actually deter war. There is no clear evidence that nuclear weapons have prevented major conventional wars.
Second, even if nuclear weapons do deter war, they may do so at an unacceptable cost. The use of nuclear weapons would cause massive destruction and loss of life, and should only be considered a last resort.
Third, the theory of nuclear deterrence is based on a number of assumptions that may not be valid. For example, it assumes that decision-makers are rational and that they can accurately assess the risk of nuclear retaliation.
Now let’s discuss more arguments people offer to justify and unjustify nuclear war.
Read More: USA Tanks Brigades & Number Of Tanks US Military Has (2022)
Reasons why nuclear war is justified
There are a number of reasons people put forth to justify nuclear war:
- First, nuclear weapons are the most effective means of deterring war. They are the most powerful weapons in the world, and their use would ensure that any conflict would be short and would not escalate into a full-scale war.
- Second, nuclear weapons are a necessary component of our national security. They provide us with the means to deter our enemies and ensure our safety.
- Third, nuclear weapons are a detergent against aggression. Their use would send a clear message to our enemies that we are not to be messed with.
- Fourth, nuclear weapons can be used to achieve objectives without causing widespread destruction. They can be used to target specific military targets and to destroy them without harming civilians.
- Fifth, nuclear weapons are a last resort. They should only be used when all other options have been exhausted.
Read More: Can Nuclear War Be Considered A Desirable Way To Mitigate Global Warming?
Reasons why nuclear war is Not Justified
There are a number of reasons why nuclear war is not justified.
- First, nuclear war would cause widespread destruction and death. The use of nuclear weapons would kill millions of people and would cause extensive damage to the environment.
- Second, nuclear war would lead to an arms race. The use of nuclear weapons would trigger an arms race, as other countries would seek to acquire their own nuclear weapons. This would turn the world into a more dangerous place to live.
- Third, nuclear war would be a humanitarian disaster. The use of nuclear weapons would cause suffering on a scale that is difficult to imagine.
- Fourth, nuclear war would be a political disaster. The use of nuclear weapons would damage our relations with other countries and would make it harder to solve international problems.
- Fifth, nuclear war would be a moral disaster. The use of nuclear weapons would be an act of mass murder, and would be a violation of the most basic principles of morality.
Final Verdict
In conclusion, nuclear war is not justified in any circumstances. The use of nuclear weapons would cause widespread destruction and loss of innocent life, would have a devastating impact on the environment, and would lead to an escalation of the conflict. Nuclear war is not an acceptable way to resolve conflict, and it is clear that the use of nuclear weapons is not justified.
