The potential of nuclear weapons to wipe out humanity has attracted debate on whether they should still be possessed by different countries or in existence at all. Since the atomic bombing in Japan during the Second World War, a number of movements have emerged calling for the disarmament or destructions of nuclear weapons in countries possessing them. Such calls have been so loud even inside of the United States, one of the countries with large stockpiles of the weapons if the 1961 women strike for peace against nuclear weapons in the US is anything to go by. For those supporting their destruction, they are of the view that such a move will prevent environmental degradation, avoid nuclear terrorism, prevent nuclear accidents and completely do away with threats to humanity. On the other hand, those against the destruction are of the view that such a move will not provide an alternative to maintaining security to the world as it has been provided for by nuclear weapons, thus, making the world more dangerous.
It is the position of this essay that all nuclear weapons should be destroyed for they pose a threat to humankind among many other disadvantages relating to their existence.
Arguments against the Destruction of the Weapons
Despite the push for the destruction of nuclear weapons, those opposing the move argue that there are no alternatives to play the role that nuclear weapons have been playing in regards to maintaining peace and security. Before the discovery and subsequent mass production of nuclear weapons, the world experienced two large-scale wars, that is, the first and second world wars. However, the presence of nuclear weapons have created a sense of deterrence, as most countries are aware of their potential, making it highly unlikely for any country to be willing to engage in such a war (Ulgen). Therefore, their destruction will tend to remove the deterrence aspect that some people argue has been critical in ensuring peace and stability post the Second World War. Therefore, destroying the weapons makes the world more dangerous. Another negative aspect in regards to destroying nuclear weapons is that such a process will likely give room for arms race. The countries with nuclear weapons will feel unsafe against external military intervention or attacks (Ulgen). Moreover, nuclear weapons have reduced the cost on military spending. The fact that nuclear weapons are in place, therefore, seems to promote peace, stability and a form of security among different nations, although it may seem paradoxical. Thus, it would not be a good idea to destroy the weapons.
Also, there is also the challenge of transitioning to a nuclear free-state planet. There are a number of reasons that have made some countries, especially; those in the Middle East, such as Israel to embrace nuclear armament (Ulgen). For these countries, the threats they face must first be removed to make them feel safe. However, this is not an easier undertaking considering the mistrust existing among neighboring countries. The world needs to create an organization able to not only solve regional and global conflicts, but also assure all countries of the world, such as Israel, peace and stability to make them feel safe in the middle of the Arab world (Ulgen). The presence of such a body and complete assurance of peace and stability in the world will make the weapons irrelevant, which will therefore see countries possessing the weapons more willing to not only destroy them, but be more engaging in the disarmament process as far as nuclear weapons are concerned (Rauchhaus). In the absence of such assurance, most countries possessing nuclear weapons see the need to have them as well as opposing their destruction.
Arguments for the Destruction of the Weapons
On the other hand, destroying nuclear weapons is important and beneficial to the world for a number of reasons. To start with, nuclear weapons being a threat to human beings and the environment, they have the potential to destroy all the people of the world and other life forms within a short time (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombing illustrate the extent to which bombs of high potential can do, for they not only destroyed more than ninety percent of the population in those cities but also had far-reaching side effects to successive generations due to exposure to radiation. Concerning environmental threats, the weapons will take a short time to bring about widespread famine and agricultural collapse should they be launched. Environmentalists and other scholars have also noted that nuclear explosions have the potential to cause a drop in both rainfall and global temperatures (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). The weapons thus pose serious concerns to the human survival of both present and future generations which makes it a good idea to advocate for their destruction or existence. There is also the possibility of them being used in future as far as they exist, which may signal the end of humanity. For these two reasons explained above, it is worth for the weapons to be destroyed to save the world.
Moreover, destruction of nuclear weapons will likely limit the possibility of nuclear terrorism and use the money spent annually to maintain the weapons for other important activities (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). It is probable that nuclear weapons may be accessible to terrorists as far as there are countries which continue to possess or maintain the weapons. In addition to terrorists, radical groups, who in one way or another have for a long time tried to access powerful weapons, could use to achieve their anterior motives. Thus, it is important for countries to destroy nuclear stations to avoid such a scenario. The continuing storing the weapons puts the lives of people at risk. In regards to economic benefits, countries possessing the weapon spend a lot of money yearly either maintaining or modernizing the weapons (Rauchhaus). The funds go up to billions of dollars. Destroying the weapons will see these funds allocated to other vital services such as disaster management, health care and education. The two aspects qualify to be other reasons that encourage proponent of the destruction of the weapons to push for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Destruction of nuclear weapons is important to prevent nuclear accidents and the risk associated with such arsenals. It is not at all crazy to imagine that in case of a war, miscommunication, malfunction or miscalculation may lead to a wrong decision of launching a nuclear weapon (JustScience). This process often takes a short time to take effect suggesting it may not be possible to reverse it. In regards to the risk involved, the construction of nuclear arsenals has some risks associated with it, the main one being the exposure to radiations. Although this is limited to the people that are on the construction site and does not involve a large number of people like bombing, it is still not a good idea to have such risks exposed to people no matter how small the number could be. Chernobyl disaster is a good example of the risk associated with establishing nuclear arsenals (JustScience). The two factors explained above make it clear that it is far more important to have all nuclear weapons destroyed so that the risks and dangers they pose to the people of the world will no longer be there.
Conclusion
The discussion above has illustrated why there is the need to destroy nuclear weapons. Although countries or proponents opposed to the destruction have raised serious concerns, the benefits of destroying the weapons outweigh those of retaining them. For those arguing against their destruction, they are of the view that there is no alternative in place to either maintain global peace or transition to a nuclear-free world. On the other hand, destroying the weapons will see the end to threats to the survival of human and other life forms. Also, it will save the world against nuclear terrorism or accidental use of the weapons. These reasons paint a good picture in regards to the destruction of the weapons. Therefore, countries must work towards the destruction of the nuclear weapons and put in place measures that will make the world safer in the absence of the weapons and not create conducive environment for another arms race to fill the void created.
Works Cited
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. "Arguments for Nuclear Abolition | ICAN." ICAN | International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, www.icanw.org/why-a-ban/arguments-for-a-ban/.
JustScience. "Should We Destroy Our Nuclear Weapons?" JustScience, 30 Jan. 2018, www.justscience.in/articles/destroy-nuclear-weapons/2018/01/30.
Rauchhaus, Robert. "Evaluating the nuclear peace hypothesis: A quantitative approach." Journal of Conflict Resolution 53.2 (2009): 258-277.
Ulgen, Sinan. "The Case Against Total Nuclear Disarmament." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25 Aug. 2014, thebulletin.org/zero-correct-goal/case-against-total-nuclear-disarmament.
