Should We Develop Atomic Bombs?

Though national and regional conflicts and international terrorism remain rife, since 1945 the world has not been subjected to truly pan-regional or trans-continental war.There are some experts that debate the role nuclear arsenals may have played in curbing large-scale conflict.

We all now that atomic bombs are really dangerous because its uncontrollable in most cases. Benoît Pelopidas, founding director of the “Nuclear Knowledges” program says that: A critical moment commonly cited in this regard was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and that was not fully controllable: the caution of Soviet premier Khrushchev and US president Kennedy alone cannot explain its peaceful outcome, given the limits of their control over their nuclear arsenals, the limits of safety of the weapons, and other factors. The evidence shows we have been lucky. Though the scholarly and policy worlds pay lip service to this finding, they still do not act and plan as if they take it seriously. Secrecy means that we know very little about cases of near use of nuclear weapons. It’s very likely we overestimate how safe we have been.By his words we can understand that these weapons are used without caution. There are a number of other examples of times when this has happened. For example, during the first year of the Korean War (1950–53), President Harry Truman’s bluster and outbursts from General Douglas MacArthur provoked international fears about perceived American willingness to use atomic weapons.

Nuclear explosion, vector illustration. Nuclear war, atom bomb falling on Earth


Perhaps the most interesting example was the November 1983 Able Archer incident , in which a Nato communications exercise was perceived by some in Moscow as preparation for an actual offensive. In this case, nuclear weapons, paranoia and faulty intelligence-gathering could have led to nuclear war.But today some countries think that small atomic bomb with narrower effects should be developed in order to maintain world peace.How is this possible when atomic bombs caused this much mess in the past? Deterrence theory claims that the destructive capability of nuclear weapons triggers fear, which in turn makes leaders cautious. However, recent scholarship shows that this relationship is far from automatic; classic works have also shown that threats intended to deter may have adverse effects, as can any other public policy. If one needs to constantly establish the credibility of a deterrent threat based on nuclear weapons, this will obviously lead to more risk-taking.These security issues are not the only effect,let’s talk about the other ones as well like:How do nuclear weapons programmes affect the governments and states that build them? The best means of ensuring peace has been for both sides of a conflict to have a nuclear capability. There is certainly some credence to this: just consider two big nuclear-tipped conflicts or confrontations – the Cold War and India-Pakistan tensions. Arguably, the fear of either a nuclear pre-emptive strike, or the guarantee of Mutually Assured Destruction, has been enough to ensure that in those scenariospeace has been preserved.In conclusion,if both side has power it can maintain world peace.But if everyone is not equal,I don’t think it will create world peace the oposite probably,it can cause a nuclear war.

(Visited 6 times, 1 visits today)