Debate Essay
I wrote this as the final paper assignment for International Politics. I thought this was a really fun paper because it was very open-ended and we got to choose our stance. As an international business major, I do not usually get to write about my own stance on issues, so this was new. I crafted an argument in this essay using my own opinion, and supporting my opinion with research. For this assignment, we were to debate a question: “Are Nuclear Weapons a Blessing or a Curse to Society?”
Nuclear Weapons: Society’s Biggest Mistake
In sum, nuclear weapons have been a curse to society, for they cause mass destruction, loss of human life, and an unstable source of power for flawed individuals, organizations and states. As Ronald Regan put it when calling for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization”. Mikhail Gorbachev shared this perspective, which had also been expressed by many previous American presidents. Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers. According to Sagan, weapons are controlled by imperfect human residing in imperfect organizations, and knowing how organizations typically function, one could only assume for there to be a high degree of irrationality. The ultimate paradox comes about of nuclear deterrence: “The weapon that is supposed only to dissuade countries from going to war is turning into a, if not the, major reason for countries to go to war” (Weiss, 2003, p. 4).
The first concern with weapons of mass destruction is the problem of preventative war. Sagan explains how when a country begins building a nuclear force, its rivals could potentially launch an attack, possibly on the country’s nuclear facilities as a safeguard before they are attacked themselves. Sagan argues that military officers are particularly prone to this type of thinking; and this is dangerous especially in countries where the armed forces are not under firm civilian control. This would mean assured destruction to an area incurred just out of fear of attack. “The mere invocation of the threat of nuclear weapons, whether delivered by plane, by missile or by suitcase, tends to freeze the mind and cut off discussion. But because the preemptive war doctrine is couched in broad and vague terms it will spread like nuclear fallout to the four corners of the earth and be used in the future to justify so called defensive wars, whether based on an alleged nuclear threat or some other threat” (Weiss, 2003, p.1). Nuclear weapons have the potential to wipe out entire regions and can cause lasting effects on the land. This type of warfare is so detrimental not just because of the direct victims, but the everlasting effect of the radiation on the land, crops, animals, and humans.
Another concern is the possibility of a nuclear accident. Sagan defines this as being inclusive of unauthorized use, since such use is accidental from the perspective of central authorities. Two incidents: Chernobyl in 1986 and Kyshtym in 1957, are prime examples of how impactful a nuclear accident can harm societies and entire nations, and how accident-prone large organizations are likely to be. The explosion and subsequent meltdown at Chernobyl occurred on April 26th, 1986 when a bungled experiment at one of the facilities reactors triggered a sudden power surge which in turn led to a succession of explosions that blew the 1,000-ton steel top off the reactor (Cohen, 2011, p. 1). In the opening days of the crisis, 32 people died at Chernobyl and dozens more suffered from severe radiation burns. Additional radiation then escaped into the atmosphere, which amounted to several times that produced by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and collaterally contaminated millions of acres of forests and farmland. “Experts believe that thousands of people died and as many as 70,000 suffered severe poisoning. In addition, a large area of land may not be livable for as much as 150 years, including the 18-mile radius around Chernobyl–home to some 150,000 people who had to be permanently relocated” (Cohen, 2011, p. 1). The Kyshtym catastrophe occurred on September 29th, 1957. There was a major disaster when the cooling system in a waste storage tank failed in the Mayak nuclear fuel processing plant, causing the dried radioactive material within the plant to overheat and explode. Following this, a plume of deadly particles swelled around the region surrounding the plant reaching 300 square miles. Humans were reported to have their skin sloughing off from exposed body parts, and other additional mysterious ailments. The end toll estimated 200 people dying of cancer due to exposure to radiation and thousands more suffering from related illnesses. These examples of nuclear accidents and their vast destruction further support the argument that nuclear weapons have been a curse to humanity (Cohen, 2011, p. 1).
Sagan also emphasizes the problem of terrorism and explains how if unstable states, especially unstable Islamic states, acquire nuclear weapons, they could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists groups such as Al Qaeda. There is an increasing likelihood that non-state terrorists will be able to get access to nuclear weaponry. “In today’s war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons present difficult new security challenges” (Schultz, 2007, p. 1). When these groups use nuclear weapons, they do not need to fear backlash and retaliation, since there is no “return address” on the bombs. Therefore, the deterrence strategy does not work in dealing with these types of situations. Further, these non-state actors that could potentially be holding nuclear weapons increases the number of potential enemies world-wide. This creates distrust, fear, and instability that can be harmful to institutions globally.
Additionally, nuclear weapons are wildly expensive for something that is not necessary, and make up a large percentage of a country’s military spending. “Total U.S. nuclear weapons spending in 1997 will exceed $34 billion, about 13 percent of the defense budget. Of that amount, nearly $26 billion goes toward operating, maintaining, modernizing, and controlling our existing arsenal” (Schwartz, 1997, p.1). Nuclear spending costs in the United States make up a whopping ten percent of all military spending. “The United States plans to spend $1.7 trillion over the next three decades to replace its nuclear arsenal. This is a lot of money, more annually than the country spends on the entire State Department. Even so, if we thought this level of spending were required to ensure U.S. national security, we would support it. It is not. The nation can spend much less and still be safe” (Perry, 2017, p.1). This money could be spent more wisely. “A dollar spent on nuclear weapons is a dollar taken away from other military needs, such as sustaining conventional forces and countering terrorism and cyberattacks” (Perry, 2017, p.2). In this way, money is taken away from somewhere that could deal with security in a more peaceful fashion for a method that is irrational and unstable.
In conclusion, the creation of nuclear weapons has been a curse to mankind, and has only caused hurt and harm to the earth and its constituents. In the words of President John F. Kennedy, “The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution.” With the subject of preventative war, knowing the threat of nuclear power is out there creating mistrust and tension that will drive organizations to launch attacks prematurely due to fear of the latter: getting attacked. Secondly, the existence of this type of nuclear power leaves the possibility of accidents. There have been many accounts of accidents related to nuclear power that is truly detrimental and destructive. Mass amounts of beings and land are in danger as long as nuclear power exists. Furthermore, when nuclear weaponry falls into the hands of instable organizations such as terrorist groups, it creates complex security challenges, instability, general fear, and uncertainty. Lastly, the costs associated with nuclear warfare are extensive and can even be devastating to a country’s economy, when the money could be better spent elsewhere to benefit that state. “Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, ‘Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth’” (Schultz, 2007, p.4).
References
Cohen, Jennie. “History’s Worst Nuclear Disasters.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 18Mar. 2011, www.history.com/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters.
Perry, William J., and James E. Cartwright. “Spending Less on Nuclear Weapons Could Actually Make Us Safer.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 Nov. 2017, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/spending-less-on-nuclear-weapons-could-actually-make-us-safer/2017/11/16/396ef0c6-ca56-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c791df7e4f99.
Schwartz, Stephen I. “Maintaining Our Nuclear Arsenal Is Expensive.” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/maintaining-our-nuclear-arsenal-is-expensive/.
Shultz, George. “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons.” Media.nti.org, 2007, media.nti.org/pdfs/A-World-Free-of-Nuclear-Weapons.pdf.
Weiss, Peter. “Nuclear Weapons and Preventive War.” Nuclear Weapons and Preventive War, 2003, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/97/32124.html.
Laura's Writing Portfolio 