Mankind has never witness an era of revolutionary break through other than the 20th century in the field of science and technology. Although many of the discoveries and innovations are enhancing the lives of many, there are some that are threatening and have a direct impact on people’s live and society at large and it’s no other than the development and advancement of nuclear weapons.
In October 1939, two scientists by the name of Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard discovered a much more sophisticated weapon than conventional weapons with unprecedented power could be made by trapping the forces of nuclear fission. With the help of the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt they started the project with the sole intention of over powering Hitler who was trying to take control of Europe and more so the world. After four and a half years with an employment of over 200,000 workers and several thousand scientists the secret struggle was completed under the code name Manhattan Project. On July 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in the Alamogordo desert of New Mexico. By that time Hitler and his Nazism concept no longer exist. In 1945, the Japanese was raging war in the Pacific, trying to invade and conquer as many countries as possible. The United States was threaten and they fear been invaded by the Japanese who showed no mercy to their enemies. After the Japanese surprised attack on Pearl Harbor, United States President Harry S. Truman decided to launch the first nuclear attack in order to force the Japanese to surrender. On August 6, 1945 the first bomb was dropped in the Japanese City of Hiroshima, and on August 9th a second bomb was dropped in Nagasaki. Both devastating bombs claimed the lives of over 340,000 Japanese. The Japanese leaders surrender and not long after there was a call to ban nuclear weapon in order to prevent future catastrophes like that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Non-proliferation treaty was made under the United Nation and today eight countries possessed nuclear weapon. Five nuclear weapon state, namely United State, France, United Kingdom, Russia and China. However, India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapon but didn’t sign the treaty and Israel remain unclear as to whether they have nuclear weapon or not.
Nuclear weapons are the most cataclysmic weapons ever developed. The right to possess these weapons is a current issue in the world. Non-proliferation treaties do exist but there are some countries that didn’t sign, some rejected it like Cuba, some like Israel didn’t denied nor admit that they have and some like North Korea is currently developing. We know for a fact that the nuclear states have a right to possess nuclear weapons, but while we are arguing other countries are investing to develop nuclear weapons. So the question of concern is whether other countries should have the right to possess nuclear weapons,
I think other countries should have a right to possess nuclear weapons. Had it not been for nuclear weapons, Japan would be ruling the world. United States used it wisely to get Japan to surrender. It was a very apocalyptic and annihilating incident, but the decision to use this weapon ended the war. Since then nuclear weapons was not used. Every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapon because they will have a right to defend themselves, nuclear weapons means power and international recognition, and it helps to reduce conflicts as a treat.
Nuclear weapons makes your defense stronger even if you lack conventional weapons and manpower.
Currently, many countries are been invaded and many more fear been invaded. Every country have a right to defend itself against external forces. We often see some countries been invaded by some nuclear states. Often these invaded countries lack the capability to defend itself and push the foreign forces out with conventional weapons. These are particular poorer or less developed countries. Even wealthy but particular small states are vulnerable to foreign attacks because they lack manpower. But, with nuclear weapons we have equality, all states becomes equal in terms of the ability to inflict danger to each other. If however, a much more powerful and developed states attempted to attack a smaller and/or poorer state, it will be incapable to effectively overpower it because the smaller state will have similar power and can cause similar destruction.
A scenario of this is when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. This would less likely to happen had Georgia possessed nuclear weapons. Russia would have thought twice and take into consideration all the damages Georgia could have done to them. Clearly, nuclear weapons allows states to effectively defend themselves which serve as a means of equalizing states irrespective of size and development. In addition, nuclear weapons will only be used in the event of an external treat. The fact of just owning nuclear weapons will prevent these treats. For example, North Korea have nuclear weapons but didn’t used it against South Korea because the need is not there. Likewise, all other countries will have it as means of survival and prevent treats because using nuclear weapons will create aggressive destruction.
Powerful countries will become more reluctant to invade other countries and will be more rational with regards to the use of nuclear weapons. There is a fear as to whether the weapons will be in the wrong hands but weapons in the hands of more people will not result in its usage.
Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage/ Negotiation tool.
Nuclear weapon means power, I am not talking about the weapon itself, I am talking about political power. A country that owns nuclear weapon is feared and respected. Nobody thinks of getting into conflicts with these countries whether political, cultural, social or economic. It is also an international negotiation tool. With nuclear weapons you make any decision and nobody will opposed without been fearful of the consequences. The five permanent members of the United Nations owns nuclear weapons. These countries are the decision maker of most if not all international issues. This is so because after World War II, the United Nation was formed and composes of mainly nuclear weapons own nations. However, they are non-permanent members as well but they changed every two years. If other countries had nuclear weapons, they would have been permanent members of the United Nation as well. Moreover, the current decisions made by the United Nation under the nuclear weapons countries seems completely unfair for some countries. If these countries had nuclear weapons, then they would be part of the council as well.
After World War II, nuclear powers, wanted to retain power so as to dominate the world in term of military, economy, resources, etc. so they strengthen their position by overpowering and convincing poorer and smaller nations to sign the non-proliferation treaty, trying to keep the nuclear club limited and exclusive. It is not right that states that have nuclear weapons denying the rights to other states. By doing so they deny states especially those that are incompetent of building conventional weapons in large scale to defend it selves. Thus, they become inferior and are open to invasion if an attack was to be made. All states must have the rights to develop nuclear weapons so as to allow and promote equal rights and treatment in the congress of nation.
Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise/ End wars.
Generally, weapons are used for war and destruction, but nuclear weapon serves a contrary purpose. Wars can be ended with such weapons. It is one of the biggest reason why nations don’t go to war. Instead, they find solution through negotiation. Nuclear weapons creates stability as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons are afraid to engage in an open military combat with another country that has nuclear weapons, because they all recognize the destruction they will suffer if they choose war. If countries that have nuclear weapons was to go at war it will become too costly. This may reduce the likelihood of that to happen.
One scenario of this is the conflicts that causes India and Pakistan war. They fought three wars claiming the lives of millions. The war ended because both countries acquired nuclear weapons. The two countries may not share a good relationship until now but they will never go in an open war with each other. This reduce the tension of war and people feels safe and secure. We have seem numerous scenarios like this in the past. Countries with conventional weapons goes to war with other countries that has conventional weapons, and nuclear weapon states goes to war with conventional weapon states. But, have you ever see or hear that two nuclear weapon states going to war? In fact, they don’t even think about simply because of the danger they will encounter. Hence, making the world a much more peaceful place to live.
Public acknowledgement on the rights to have nuclear weapons will benefit all nations.
When the world recognized the importance of having many nuclear weapon states, countries will collaborate with each other creating a union, assisting each other to develop nuclear weapons. There will be less concealing of military technology and science since countries acknowledge that the need for war no longer exist because such wars like a nuclear outbreak may be the curse that ends humanity on earth. When multiple states combine they will create and allow a greater regulation, monitoring, and cooperation in nuclear development programs. Nuclear states and non-nuclear states will benefit from this nuclear umbrella. Developed countries will play a major role in this formation. Protocol can be set whereby developed countries will assist to other countries construct and maintain such weapons. This will reduce the likelihood of these weapons falling into the wrong hands such as terrorist and rebels. Thus, the freedom to develop and have nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpile.
Clearly, nuclear weapons are the sole thing in this world that can ensure peace. No leader in the world will want things to escalate to the point where nuclear weapons are used. Another benefit is that we can protect our country very well. No one want to attack a nation that has nuclear weapons in their arsenal. For that reason, nuclear weapons also secure the safety and security of our country in the near and far future. In addition, the nuclear power plant in the United States has an employment of over 700 full time workers. This doesn’t include the construction needed to build the plant. Also, nuclear weapons are much more powerful than using troops with conventional weapons to invade an enemy. Finally, if more countries have nuclear weapons, then the possibility to use it wouldn’t exist because nations will fear the danger that can it inflicted on both side, hence creating world’s peace.
 Robert, J. (2001)
 Coffey, L. (May 5th, 2012)
 Juliet, J. (September 5th, 2011)
 Juliet, J. (September 5th, 2011)
 Kenneth, W. (1981)
 The Economist. (2011).
 Kenneth, W. (1981)
Juliet, J. (September 5th, 2011). Benefits of nuclear weapons. Retrieved on December 20, 2013, from http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-nuclear-weapons/
Robert, J. (2001). Weapons without purpose? Nuclear strategy in the post-cold war era. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved on December 20th, 2013, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57069/robert-jervis/weapons-without-purpose-nuclear-%20strategy-in-the-post-cold-war-era
Coffey, L. (May 5th, 2012). Georgia and Russia: The occupation too many have forgotten. The Foundry. Retrieved on December 20th, 2013, from http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/31/georgia-and-russia-the-occupation-too-many-have-forgotten/
Kenneth, W. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: More may better. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. Retrieved on December 21st, 2013, from https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
The Economist. (2011). The World’s Most Dangerous Border: The Economist. Retrieved on December 21st, 2013, from http://www.economist.com/node/18712525