Did the Creation of Nuclear Weapons Make the World More Violent – Case Study Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Did the Creation of Nuclear Weapons Make the World More Violent" is a great example of a Military Case Study. Nuclear weapons are explosive devices that obtain their damaging forces from nuclear reactions, either by fusion or by fission or a combination of both. The two reactions release large amounts of energy from relatively less amount of matter. Thermonuclear nuclear bombs are fusion weapons while atomic bombs are fission weapons. Modern societies believe that nuclear weapons possess unbelievable destructive powers, which makes it a hard topic for discussion. The usefulness of nuclear today has both practical and theoretical importance.

However, one cannot understand its role in the contemporary world as of some issues surrounding nuclear weapons. With the invention of such weapons, nations can now have the ability to extinguish or wipe out an entire country or city from several miles away in a short time span. The event of such wars may result in the loss of human lives as well as destroying the natural environment. The use of nuclear weapons has long-term catastrophic effects on future generations’ lives.

Nuclear emissions may have damaging effects on their health. In order to conclusively analyze the topic; this essay will offer detailed explanations about nuclear weapons. Additionally, it will precisely argue about the fiercest aspects of nuclear weapons such as the Use-by Accidental war, which cause humanitarian crises and the environmental pollution impact. Moreover, it will argue about the less violent aspects such as suppression of war by strong armies, the development of science and the increase in diplomacy within countries. Ways That Nuclear Weapons Make the World More Violent Use by Accidental war Most societies trust that the world will convert to a more dangerous place as the fear of the spread of nuclear weapons increases (Pinker, 2011).

The probability that nuclear weapons will explode accidentally in a way that encourages nuclear exchanges between countries is finite (Pinker, 2011). In addition, a good number of people consider that the likelihood of use of nuclear weapons by new nuclear countries depends on their sense of responsibility, administrative competence and their devoutness to the status quo. If the number of real character states is limited, then the higher the number of nuclear states (Wilson, 2013).

With such a phenomenon, there are excellent chances of accidental wars occurring. A nuclear weapon is the utmost piece of technology; however, it is the worst part of destruction ever created. In the new century, it is unavoidable to have accidental wars seeing that numerous states have generated nuclear arsenals, which they purport to be for deterrence of a crisis (Pinker, 2011). Nuclear weapons detonation on several occasions is by accident or design during the nuclear age (Wilson 2013).

On several occasions, Russia, and U. S.A usually retaliate to the deceitful warnings of new nuclear attacks. Even though, the danger of nuclear war reduced, the risk of more nuclear attacks has gone up (Bracken, 2012). Nevertheless, Rauchhaus (2009) displays that many states continue to develop nuclear weapons but test them underground. Nuclear production remains crucial not just because it may land in the hands of the terrorist organization, but because the proliferation of arms necessarily means a proliferation of nuclear constraints (Wilson, 2013). One can observe that nuclear weapons have in a long period used as a force multiplier.

As a force multiplier, such weapons can make up for disparities in conventional military power. Ironically, the indisputable leader of the United States in innovations, technology, and military power may lead to the invitation or the encouragement of other countries to acquire nuclear bombs to discourage or inspire foreign policy initiatives. Additionally, Pinker, (2011) suggests that from the first Gulf War, an Indian militant suggested that a country could never go to warfare with the United States minus the nuclear bomb. Furthermore, the 2003 Iraq inversion serves as another lustrous ad of the defensive power of a nuclear arsenal.

References

Ahn, J., & Apted, M.J. (2010). The Geological Repositories for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Materials: Advanced Technologies. CRC Pr I Llc.

Beardsley, K., & Asal, V. (2009). Winning with the Bomb. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (2), 278-301.

Bracken, P. (2012). The Second Nuclear Age: Plan, Danger, and the New Power Politics. NY: Times Books.

Chakma, B. (2011). The politics of nuclear arms in South Asia. Farnham, England: Ashgate Pub. Co. Basrur, R. M. (2009). Minimum deterrence and India's are nuclear security. Singapore: NUS Press.

Cooper, Randle, K., & Sokhi, R. S. (2003). Radioactive releases in the environment: Influence and assessment. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons.

Development Assistance Research Associates. (2009). Humanitarian reaction index 2008: Donor accountability in humanitarian acts. Basingstoke [England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ebrary, Inc. (2003). End Points for spent nuclear energy and high-level radioactive leftover in Russia and the United States. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

El, B. M. (2011). The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in deceitful times. London: Thompson, B. N. (2012). North Korea: Nuclear weapons and the diplomacy debate. Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science Publishers. Bloomsbury.

Elgazzar, A. H. (2011). A concise guide to the nuclear medicine. Berlin: Springer.

El-Hinnawi, E. E. (2013). Nuclear Energy plus the Environment: Environmental Sciences and Applications. Burlington: Elsevier Science.

Garrity, P. J., & Maaranen, S. A. (1992). Nuclear weapons in the moving world: Perspectives from Europe, Asia, and North America. New York: Plenum Press.

Gartzke, E., & Jo, D.-J. (2009). Bargaining, Nuclear Proliferation, and Interstate Disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (2), 209-233.

Geller, D. S. (1990). Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (2), 291-310.

Glasstone, S., & Sesonske, A. (1994). Nuclear Reactor Engineering: Reactor Systems Engineering. Boston, MA: Springer US.

Gupta, U. N. (2007). International nuclear diplomacy and India. New Delhi: Atlantic.

In Fiske, S. T., In Gilbert, D. T., In Lindzey, G., & Jongsma, A. E. (2010). Handbook of Social Psychology. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Irrera, D., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2013). NGOs, disaster management, and conflict resolution: Measuring the impact of NGOs on intergovernmental organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd.

Izraėlʹ, I. U. A. (2002). Radioactive fallout after nuclear explosions and accidents. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Katoh, Y., & Cozzi, A. (2010). Ceramics in Nuclear Uses: Silicon Carbide and Carbon-Based Constituents for Nuclear Energy Applications. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Krieger, D. (2009). The challenge of abolishing nuclear weapons. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.

Murray, R. L., & Holbert, K. E. (2015). Nuclear energy: An introduction to the concepts, methods, and applications of nuclear processes.

Nichols, T. M. (2014). No use: Nuclear arms and U.S. national security. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Norris, R. S. (2014). Nuclear weapon. Retrieved March 9, 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421827/nuclear-weapon

Paul, T. V. (2009). The tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Security Studies.

Paul, T. V., Morgan, P. M., & Wirtz, J. J. (2009). Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the global age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pinker, S. (2011). The improved angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. London: Penguin Books.

Rauchhaus, R. (2009). Assessing the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis: A Quantitative Approach. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (2), 258-277.

Robock, A., & Toon, O. B. (2012). Self-assured destruction: The climate effects of nuclear war. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 6 (8).

Rozman, G. (2011). Strategic Thinking on the Korean Nuclear Crisis: Four Parties Caught Between North Korea and the United States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sheinkin, S. (2014). Bomb.

Simon, Bouville, A., & Land, C. E. (2006). The fallout from nuclear trial and cancer risks. American Scientist, 94 (1), 48-57.

Wilson, W. (2013). Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us