Will The World Be Better Off Without Nuclear Weapons?

[zeeshan809]

Many people argue that nuclear weapons are actually a deterrent against initiation of wars. The philosophy behind this thought is that countries that have adverse relations and possess nuclear weapons will not go to war against each other as both know such a scenario would result in total devastation. This, in their view is the same reason why India and Pakistan have not been involved in a full-scale war for the past many many years.

Read the rest of the article at:
Wars of the World

 

[gambit]

The writer does not have a very strong argument and here is why...

If nuclear weapons were a deterrent to war, then what would happen when some countries possess them while others don't. Well, the answer is simple: in case war does break out between two such countries, the one having the nuclear bomb will not hesitate in dropping it on the other poor country that does not posses it. This happened in World War II when United States dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan.

Prior to the US delivery of two nuclear bombs on Imperial Japan, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were collaborating on their own nuclear weapons and suspected the US was doing similar research, although neither had any ideas on how far the US really was on developing a functional nuclear warhead.

U-234 carries Uranium for Japan.

U-235 . One of the eight large mine-laying submarines built by Germany, a type XB or type VIIC, the largest class of German U-boat ever constructed at 1,650 tons and 294 feet; only U-234 and U-219 survived. U-234 was damaged by bombing in construction, her forward end was rebuilt, and commissioned 3Mar44. She exercised as a mine-layer until refit as a transport.

Cargo . Cargo containers were built to fit in the original mine shafts forward, midships and astern. Four cargo containers were carried topside. 240 tons of cargo were loaded for departure 25March1945. Cargo included three crated Messershmitt aircraft (two Me-262 jet fighters, ME-163 rocket-propelled fighter), Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines, 10 canisters of uranium oxide, a ton of diplomatic mail, and over 3 tons of technical drawings, plus other technology (torpedo, fuses, armor piercing shells, etc.) Passengers were 9 high technical officers (one general) and civilian scientists. Destination: Japan. Two returning Japanese Navy Lt. Commanders, one air and one submarine, were returning, having observed Nazi technology and techniques.

No one (outside of the Manhattan Project) had any ideas on what a nuclear explosion even look like, let alone the post detonation effects from radiation.

If Imperial Japan knew of the devastation nuclear weapons can bring, and keep in mind that we today have that knowledge, would Japan surrender or even started WW II? As far as surrender goes, many people believe that had the US dropped a demonstration bomb that would have been sufficient to compel a surrender, or at least a temporary cessation of conflict. Many people, like myself, do not believe that Japan would surrender and historical evidences do support their arguments. But assume for now that Imperial Japan would at least stop fighting once the leadership were properly frightened by a demonstration drop. This alone is credible argument that once the level destructiveness of just one bomb and the terrible lingering effects of that bomb are known, the side that does not have any nuclear weapon, or does have nuclear weapons but not at parity with its enemy, the desire for continuing the war will decrease, or the hesitancy to start a war, will develop. In other words, nuclear weapons preserved the global peace. The US did not use nuclear weapons in neither Korea nor Viet Nam. During The Cold War, both the US and the Soviets had nuclear forces parity. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept an uneasy peace between the two nuclear superpowers.

Now let us review the other scenario where both hostile countries possess such weapons. In my opinion, such a possession can delay a war but it cannot eliminate it. Remember that India and Pakistan did get entangled in Kargil war even after both had exploded nuclear devices. If the world, specially the United States, had not intervened there could have been the first exchange of nuclear weapons between two nations in the history of humanity.

Not likely. Keep in mind that the goal of war is to win, not fight to a stalemate. Neither India nor Pakistan had decisive nuclear superiority over the other and the same for conventional forces. A nuclear exchange would have exhaust both sides of their nuclear weapons in the first salvo. What follow would be a prolong and probably even bloodier conventional war. Not a very attractive future for both sides. War is more a state of mind or attitude than of action. War is an attitude of hostility towards another. The actual fighting is the more technically precise term 'armed conflict' but we have grown casual with using the word 'war' to mean actually fighting. So between India and Pakistan, their 'war' were already fought to a stalemate because neither side had a clear nuclear advantage over the other. With a stalemate, you regroup, hold your current line and think up new strategies and tactics and this is what both countries have been doing.

The world would be better off without nuclear weapons -- is a debatable idea. It is 'debatable' because wars did not stop when there are five nuclear weapons states capable of annihilating any less capable opponent. The reality is that isolated and conventional wars continued with mankind as if nuclear weapons never existed, often it was the nuclear weapons states that encouraged these small and conventional wars. They would have acted the same without nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the firebombing campaigns over Imperial Japan killed more Japanese than both nuclear weapons did. Same for the bombing campaigns over Nazi Germany. The conventional forces of the US and the (once) USSR were overwhelming to lesser opponents and deterrent to each other. MAD through either nuclear or non-nuclear means is still MAD.