It has been 71 years since USA become the first and country to use a nuclear weapon on another country and not just once but twice. First on Hiroshima followed Nagasaki both in Japan. By today the fallout from that explosion may have died out but the effects of it are still visible in the form of cancer and as defects of genetic injury. With the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the cold war started the craze amongst nations for irrational stock piling of nuclear weapons. At that time there were just two nations possessing nuclear weapons, USA and USSR. Today there are 8 nations in total, USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, People’s Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is said to have Nuclear weapons, however the nation have never officially accepted nor denied such a claim. Still other nations such as Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands are nuclear weapons sharing states. South Africa was originally having nuclear weapons but since then has renounced them, thus making it the only country to have completely disarmed nuclear weapons setting an example for the rest of the world.
Amongst the 14 nations that possess nuclear weapons which includes Israel and North Korea (allegedly) there are a total of 16,000 nuclear weapons that have been deployed for immediate usage. A number large enough to destroy all nations more than once. These weapons are expensive to produce since they require radioactive materials which are not easy to come by that provide them the massive destructive power. They require very high level of security to ensure they don’t fall into the hands of a maniac who wants to destroy the world. All in all they are basically a huge nuisance to have and produce. So do we really need these laying around in our nations siloes? If you ask me that question I will say no.
Nuclear weapons are considered strategic weapons. Other weapons which are used regularly in the battlefield are known as conventional weapons. Strategic weapons are essentially only a deterrent in function. Hypothetically they are ever meant to be used even though they have essentially been deployed and are completely functionally at the push of a button, literally. Every nation knows the amount of destruction these weapons carry, the loss of civilian life and the effects of genetic damage that are carried for generations together makes this weapon too unworthy of usage on humanitarian grounds. (All weapons and forms of violence are to be condemned on moral and humanitarian grounds however nuclear weapons are by far the worst on the list if there is one such list.) No nation wants such blood on their hands. We all know what happened to the pilots from the American air force who dropped the bombs on Japan because they could not live with the shock of what they had done. America knows what it did was wrong on so many levels, though it may never officially apologize for it and nor will the UK. (Since they were both involved collectively in the bombings.) It’s clear why USA is probably one of the only nations that is very highly paranoid when it comes to development of nuclear weapons by other nations as compared to others. It’s because it derives this paranoia from own history. That and the fact that they wanted to be the only nation to have nuclear weapons. Now however there are others. When any nation has been developing nuclear weapons America has always been in the forefront to hinder such nation’s nuclear development program by the use of economic sanctions, making claims that that nation is up to no good. Sanctions that were issued against India and Pakistan were proof of the same. Currently as of 2016 sanctions have been issued against North Korea which makes no difference by the way to a nation that is happily sustaining in isolation since times immemorial. America has even gone to the extent of invading a free independent nation of Iraq on the claims that they had weapons of mass destruction. And now if you look the nation of Iraq, the amount of destruction that has been left behind by the US is equivalent to the aftermath of a detonation of a weapon of mass destruction would you not agree? Now they are carrying air raids against ISIS in the same region reducing the rubble remains into still smaller rubble.
Nagasaki before and after the bombing during WW2
To possess such weapons is a risk and too expensive. It’s a risk because there is possibility that they would always fall into the wrong hands. One may claim that this is unlikely to happen since they are in the hands of the military and under tight security. But look what happened with Iraq and ISIS. When the ISIS militants came marching on all the Iraqi military abandoned their positions and camps and fled for their lives leaving their weapons to fall into the hands of ISIS. ISIS thus acquired their tanks, armored vehicles, motors and other destructive instruments which they now use. This scenario is absolutely possible in other volatile countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. In another scenario it’s possible that some accident could occur causing the nuclear weapon to detonate in the location where it’s being stored or when being transported etc. Such accidents have also occurred in the past. On September 19 1980 in Damascus, Arkansas a maintenance man dropped a socket from a socket wrench down an 80-foot shaft, puncturing a fuel tank on a Titan missile resulting an explosion so powerful that it ejected the nuclear warhead from the site. In 1968 a US bomber carrying hydrogen bomb caught fire and crashed near Greenland that resulted in massive contamination of the area. A nation may argue that it’s essential to have nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent as I said earlier. If a nation has a weapon of mass destruction no other nation will attack it out of fear of the repercussions so it is claimed. An empty threat I would say. A nation that wants to attack another nation will do so even otherwise irrespective if either the aggressor or victim is a nuclear power or not. And if a nation that is a nuclear power does so as an aggressor or victim they won’t use nuclear weapons since like I said they all know the repercussions of using it. It’s basically suicide, for two reasons. One is that the possibility of ‘second strike’ where in the attacked nation will retaliate with nuclear weapons of their own. The second is that the fallout if the aggressor is geographically nearby there is a possibility that the nuclear fallout cloud and contamination could get diverted into the aggressors’ territory causing harm to its own population. If not them then some other nation possible. Thus nuclear weapons are useless. A deterrent that does not work. If they did Osama Bin laden would never have attacked America or the Mumbai 26/11 attacks would never have taken place. Don’t you think?
Given these reason what is the point of such weapons. It’s better to channel the nuclear resources used to make these weapons for some better use such as to generate electricity, since the nuclear fuel/resources is very expensive and not easily available. It should be used and not wasted by putting in a rocket that is just laying around in some silo which is never to be used. South Africa did it and no one is going around attacking them since did away with their deterrent is there? Even if a nation wants to retain their nuclear weapons what is the need to keep such a huge stock pile of them? As mentioned around 16,000 of them are laying around. A nation probably won’t need more than 10, maximum maybe 20 or so based on ballistic capacity. (This is a personal innocent assumption.) Hopefully our future is free of nuclear warfare and may we or our descendants never have to witness a nuclear holocaust. Hopefully no one will ever use these weapons on another nation. (Fingers crossed for Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea.)
----Raghuvir Keni
FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:
Comments
Post a Comment