Nuclear Weapons Maintains World Peace

By:Abdelrazzaq A.AbuShahout

Supervised by:John Stenchion

The hidden arms race has been in progress for decades between the super powers of the world, and fear has played a major role to prevent conflicts. Nuclear energy is not merely a weapon, but also a science, knowledge and technology with varied purposes including purely peaceful and military purposes. The world has experienced the benefits of nuclear weapons many times as a deterrent to keep world peace, since historical events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons keep the world safer as long as it used with wisdom and to accept the reality that the elite nations can provide the maximum security on their nuclear facilities.

The hidden arms race between many countries began in 1945, when USA used nuclear bombs to end the war in Japan. The two Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destroyed, after that the Japanese declared the surrender to the United States, now Japan is more likely than any other country to need nuclear weapons (Clark, 1995). Since that time the world noticed the consequences of nuclear weapons and how it affects world peace. For a long time many countries are trying to conduct researches to develop their nuclear arsenal to engage in the arms race and protect themselves. However, nuclear weapons possessed by some countries in the last 65 years has played a big role to keep the world safer and prevented many conflicts around the world. Using those weapons as a deterrent means preventing war by fear and strength. An example is what happened during the cold war between USA and the Soviet Union, “where some 95 per cent of the world’s stock pile of nuclear weapons possessed by USA and Soviet Union” (Cunningham, 2010, p.1). Each of them was scared of nuclear attack from the other side. Here we can see how the nuclear arsenal for each country acts as a deterrent to prevent starting a new world war, and keep the war by destroying infrastructure. The Soviet Union economically and politicly collapsed without using the heavy weapons. The former chairman of atomic energy commission Anil kakodkar said “Nukes are weapons of peace” (Indian express report, 2010, p.1). That means the country with nuclear weapons is not going to attack another country with or without nuclear weapons avoiding retaliation from that country or their allies or friends (Wellington, 1986), and causing what is called mutually assured destruction (MAD). So there is no country mad enough to press the button and lose everything as a result of a wrong decision or misconception.

These days, however, only the superpowers can possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and control the world, while the other countries are unable to have a peaceful nuclear reactor to generate electricity, under nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So, for example, Iran and North Korea want to possess nuclear weapons to protect themselves, but the United State and the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) denied these activities and imposed sanctions on them. Thus, there is inbalance of the capabilities between the superpowers and the third world countries to develop nuclear programs. Furthermore, Madeline Albright said “there is much competitive effort to engage in nuclear competition and that may have bad impact on the international peace” (Albright et al, 2007, p.4). Now there are 9 countries possess nuclear weapons

that puts the world at a risk of destruction either from terrorist attack or technical or human fault.

The big issue now is the Middle East conflict between the Arabs and Israelis since 1948. Now each side has the allies and friends who possess nuclear weapons, so there is no need for every country to have nuclear weapons. As what happened during the Gulf war in 1991, when Saddam Hussein attacked Israel with seven scud missiles on Tel Aviv and Haifa the main seaport of Israel, but not with chemical weapons. After the attack Israel threaten nuclear retaliation. Then Russia started to transport nuclear missiles to their military bases in the Black Sea to support the Arabs in case of nuclear retaliation on Iraq. “The threat of Israeli retaliation was not the only reasons played as deterrent to Saddam's use of chemical weapons” (Pike, 1998, p.1). The American president Gorge W. Bush who supported Israel convinced the Israeli government to hold back from retaliation, preventing start the world war III. After this incident the inspectors from the international atomic energy agency, found that Iraq had the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons but not before the attack (Lewis, 2004). So the reason of the Russian support was that the Arabs did not have nuclear weapons and they are friends with them. Here you can see that the nuclear weapons again played as a deterrent to another country to attack massively and there is no need for every country to have them.

Meanwhile, our responsibility now is to control the nuclear weapons by giving access to the elite nations, such as USA, Russia, UK, India and France et al. They signed on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and they have the right to possess nuclear weapons. The NPT opened for signature in 1st July 1968 and entered into force in the 1970s, to apply more regulations to possess nuclear weapons, and reducing the amounts of the nuclear stockpiles possessed by the superpowers. Currently there are 189 countries party to the treaty and every five years they meet at the United Nation to discuss the progress of the reduction the nuclear weapons (Krieger, 2010). Before applying this treaty the amount of nuclear warheads possessed by the two superpowers USA and Soviet Union were more than 70 thousand. Now after applying the new strategy for reducing nuclear threats and imposed UN sanctions, there are less than 30 thousand warheads in the world now. The new strategy of NPT from United States called for reduction nuclear threats. After the Sept 11 attack on the world trade towers many governments opened their eyes widely on terrorism and how they could prevent such kind of attacks. The new policy of the United State addressed in highest priority to preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons and using them against USA or their allies, roll back North Korean nuclear weapons and head off Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Also, to reduce the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used by USA, Russia or any other nuclear power as a result of accident or misperception (Albright et al, 2007).

We know that there are nuclear weapons and materials are vulnerable to theft or seize by terrorist group and threaten world peace. “Those nuclear weapons which are still possessed by the superpowers are able to destroy the world several times” (Krieger,

2010, p.1). In addition, the cold war left the Soviet Union collapsed economically and politically. At that time the Soviet Union possessed over than 40 thousands nuclear weapons deployed at bases in Russia and allies countries. Governor Bill Richardson said “We know that parts of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal are still not secured and that there are poorly-secured nuclear materials around the world” (Richardson, 2007, p.1). We know that terrorist group such as AlQaeda is trying to obtain nuclear weapons in different ways, when the leader of AlQaeda Osama Bin Laden said that “they wish to kill 4 million Americans including 2 million children” (Richardson, 2007, p.1). This is a sign that he is trying to attack using nuclear bombs to achieve his goal. So these unsecured facilities and dumped bombs since the cold war in many countries, make an opportunity for the terrorist or any militia group to steal or seize one of these less secured weapons. That means we cannot maintain the world peace under threaten of these nuclear weapons.

The new U.S. strategy for anti-terrorism and reducing the threat of nuclear weapons includes most of the weak points in the developing nuclear programs in many countries. The first goal of the strategy is securing all the nuclear facilities and materials worldwide, by supporting these countries financially or physically to acquire more layers of protection on their nuclear facilities. The U.S. government is working with the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) involving all countries to promote best practices to secure the nuclear materials. Also, every country should be prepared for any kind of terrorist attack. Also they are trying to find a solution for the issue of North Korea and Iran, the U.S and other commissions are trying to impede those countries to continue their developing nuclear programs (Albright et al, 2007). These goals are not difficult to be achieving if the superpowers insisted to maintain world peace.

Conclusion

These historical events during the last 65 years should convince us now, that nuclear weapons make the world safer as long as it used with wisdom and to accept the reality that the elite nations can provide the maximum security on their nuclear facilities. It is the elite nations responsibility now to maintain the world peace as a right for future generations to live in peace as we have lived in peace in the past. Therefore, we should promote the best security practices to other countries, which possess nuclear weapons for aggressive purposes like North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel which threaten world peace.

References list:

Albright, M. et al. (2007). “Reducing nuclear threats and preventing nuclear terrorism report”, (pp.4-9). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Reducing%20Nuclear%20Threats-FINAL.pdf

Clark, G. (1995). “No, We Need These Weapons to Keep the Peace” Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/18/opinion/18iht-edclark.html

Cunningham, F. (2010). “Who is a Threat to World Peace? The Declared Nuclear Powers, America, Britain and France Defeated by the Power of Reason”, (p.1). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18975

Indian Express Report. (2010). “Nukes are 'weapons of peace': Kakodkar”, (p.1). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nukes-are-weapons-of-peace-kakodkar/592992/

Krieger, D. (2010). “Ten Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons “, (p.1). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-weapons/10-reasons-abolish-nw.htm

Lewis, P. (2004). ” The new urgency of effective cooperation”, Retrieved June 15, 2010 fromwww.Emeraldinsight.com/1463-6689.htm

Pike, J. (1998). “Nuclear threats during the gulf war”, (p.1). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/ds-threats.htm

Richardson, B. (2007). “Council on foreign relations: Governor Speech on Preventing a Nuclear 9-11”, (p.1). Retrieved June 15, 2010 from

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15198/richardsons_speech_on_nuclear_weapons march_2007.html

Wellington, J. (1986). “The Nuclear Issue”, Published by Basil Blackwell