Hypocrisy of Nuclear

Weapons

Evans 1

Hypocrisy of Nuclear Weapons

Tony Evans
Montgomery College

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 2

Hypocrisy of Nuclear Weapons

Since nuclear weapons were first introduced in World War II, they have been sought after
by several countries around the world as a means to obtain considerable military might and
international power. With this new invention, military strategy would be changed forever. Even
having one of these weapons available would make you a force that could not be ignored. Not
having access to nuclear weapons would make your country vulnerable, and at a disadvantage in
any military conflict that would arise. Several countries would then rush to develop their own
nuclear weapons to retain their military might. More and more of these weapons were
constructed and stockpiled to create the strategy of nuclear deterrence. With this deterrence
strategy nuclear weapons were kept as a means of retaliation against any country that would use
their own nuclear weapons to attack. This strategy was created with the plan that no nuclear
weapons would ever be used, and to ensure the safety of a nations people and lands. The problem
is that in modern times, the ethical principles of the pursuit of world peace and safety of a
countries citizens, are directly contradicted by the existence of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
These devastating weapons are labeled as the way we keep peace and stability with a show of
power, but this label does not change what these weapons have the possibility to do.
During World War II nuclear weapons first took the form of atomic bombs that had to be
flown by a plane and dropped over a target. Nuclear weapons were in their infancy during this
time, but still were the most powerful weapons the world had ever seen. The two bombs that
were dropped in Japan by the United States to end the war, caused the deaths of around 220,000
Japanese civilians and military. They also caused massive destruction to the cities that they were
dropped in and their environments. The thought of this destruction happening to ones own

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 3

country sparked a worldwide effort by world superpowers to develop their own nuclear weapons
to catch up with the United States. This development was sparked by the want to protect ones
own country, but also to retain military power. Since only one of these weapons could cause
massive destruction, only a few would be needed to stave off the threat of nuclear attack. Nuclear
weapons however would soon be developed on a mass scale. The United states and the USSR
would engage in a nuclear arms race to produce more nuclear weapons than the other.
In the Cold War the U.S. and USSR would see massive nuclear weapons development,
not only creating vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but incredibly improved nuclear weapons
technology as well. Nuclear weapons would now take the form of intercontinental missiles, with
incredibly increased nuclear payload. These two countries did not, under any circumstance, want
to be the underdog in the new nuclear era that was to come. Being behind in this nuclear era
meant risking your entire country and way of life. The county that had the most nuclear weapons
would have unmatched military might and international power. The nation that held this
overwhelming power could effectively bully and push their will on the rest of the world. Even
though these weapons stockpiles were created to dissuade any nukes from ever being used, the
sheer amount of these improved nuclear weapons created would mean complete destruction for
any countries that engaged in nuclear war. Although no nukes were used during the Cold War,
there were many close calls to complete nuclear war. Nuclear War would have been the only
outcome then if even a single nuke was used. The aftermath of this conflict has brought
unacceptable levels of nuclear weapons in the world today. The amount of these weapons that
were produced, far surpasses any realistic level of nukes needed to keep up the deterrence
strategy.

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 4

Deterrence might have barely worked back then, but in modern times having such
massive nuclear stockpiles is becoming a major threat to the peace that they were supposedly
made to uphold. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, deterrence will become an ineffective
and dangerous strategy to rely on. During the Cold War deterrence was mainly held between two
powerful and militarily experienced nations, the U.S. and USSR (now Russia). But with the huge
growth of nuclear weapons since then, and growing want for military power by smaller nations,
less experienced countries will get their hands on nuclear technology. This can be seen already
with North Korea, a highly irrational and unpredictable country, developing their own nuclear
weapons. An example of North Koreas irrational actions can be seen in a transcript from the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on The Persistent North Korea Denuclearization
and Human Rights Challenge (2015) And in recent years, U.S. officials have spoken
increasingly of the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea, including highlighting
North Korea's notorious prison camps. (p.1) Iran has also shown their interest in nuclear
technology by undergoing nuclear enrichment programs. Concern for this kind of proliferation is
shown in an article by Nunn, Shultz, Kissinger, and Perry (2009) North Korea's recent nuclear
test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uraniumpotentially to weapons grade
highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.
(p1) There are treaties in effect that attempt to stop proliferation, but they fail miserably. This can
be seen in an article by Mendelsohn (1999) First, India, Pakistan, and Israel all possess nuclear
weapons and are outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (p1) When inexperienced and
irrational countries get their hands on nuclear weapons, they could be more likely to use them in
a future conflict, than countries that have been proven to show restraint. Nuclear proliferation
like this will make deterrence ineffective in ensuring peace, and will instead put the entire world

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 5

at risk of nuclear damage. Nuclear proliferation would not happen if nuclear weapons were
aggressively pushed to be destroyed. Allowing nuclear weapons to stay stockpiles in vast
amounts shows the world that they will be no getting rid of them soon. This in turn spreads the
desire to acquire them, directly going against the ethical principal of only using them to unsure
peace and prevention of use.
Another way proliferation will make deterrence an ineffective and dangerous strategy to
rely on, is the possibility of a terrorist organization getting their hand on nuclear tech. By
allowing nuclear weapons to spread, the change of one of those weapons getting in the hands of a
terrorist organization increases. Lately terrorist organizations have been becoming more
organized and dangerous. These organizations have been, and are still searching for nuclear
weapons, as said in an article by U.S. Department of Defense (2014) Al Qaeda and their
extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons. (p.1) If one of these organizations acquired a
nuclear weapon and had the means to use it, deterrence would be completely ineffective at
stopping them from using it. One reason is because the terrorist organizations are hiding in
countries that do not support them. You could attack that country with nuclear force because you
would be nuking not just the terrorists, but the innocent nation as well. Secondly the organization
might not fear the threat of retaliation as long as they hit their target. They could be fine with
being destroyed as long as their mission was a success. This entire situation leaves the possibility
open for not just a nuclear attack on one nation, but the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict as
well. The continued reliance on stockpiling nuclear weapons leaves this possibility open, and the
chance of this happening only increases as nuclear proliferation is allowed to progress. Having
these nukes stockpiled puts the worlds future and safety at risk.

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 6

Even though nuclear weapons today are not being launched and used in any conflicts,
there mere existence is threatening in their design. Even though nuclear weapons are used as a
fear deterrence for peace, the fact should not be forgotten that they are first and foremost a
devastating weapons. Modern day nuclear weapons are hundreds of times stronger than the ones
seen in World War II. Imagining a scenario if the most powerful modern day nuke was used, the
Tsar Bomba, which has a 100 megaton payload. As a comparison the two bombs used in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both around 0.015 megatons. Thats a x6666 increase in payload.
One megaton is equal to one million tons of TNT. A video by Tested (2015) says that one of
these bombs could destroy an area the size of Connecticut. The physical destruction the initial
blast would cause around 20.5 miles of almost complete destruction. The initial fireball, inferno
like heat blast, radiation, and massive air blast would destroy almost any building and human life
immediately within. The thermal radiation blast would extend to about 48 miles. Anyone within
this thermal radius would receive third degree burns to their exposed skin and fires would start
on flammable objects. The people who got instantly annihilated in the initial fireball would be
considered the lucky ones. People further away would be set on fire by the thermal radiation
blast. The death toll would be and unfathomable loss to human life, as well as animals. The
entire ecosystem and terrain of the area would become a barren irradiated wasteland, unsafe to
get anywhere near it for hundreds of years.
Even after that the full effects of the explosion and fallout, irreversible damage would be
done causing the land to never be the same. Nuclear fallout from the irradiated zone would also
be carried off into the surrounding areas bringing radiation wherever it went. The nuclear
radiation emitted from this blast would also work towards poisoning the earth atmosphere,
damaging the entire world. This would be the effect of just one of these bombs. A terrible and

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 7

unimaginable scenario, but as long as these weapons are active and available, it remains a
possibility for the future. The thought cannot remain that these weapons are kept for our safety.
These weapons are something so dangerous that even the people who attack with them will be
affected by their own nuke. It is estimated that it would take only 10-100 of these large scale
nuclear explosions to poison the earths atmosphere with radiation to a deadly level. There are
around 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, with around 1,800 always ready to launch at
a moments notice.
There are different classifications of nuclear weapons with different designated purposes,
some that blatantly go against all basic human ethics. Obviously nuclear weapons are just that,
weapons, designed to destroy even though they are not used for that reason currently. With their
current use for keeping peace, these weapons can go forgotten what their direct function would
be if used in an act of war. There are two classifications of nuclear weapons, strategic and nonstrategic. Non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons, are meant to be used in a battle against
enemy forces. These weapons would be used in military situation to affect a battle, with
primarily military forces involved. Strategic nuclear weapons on the other hand, are nukes that
would be use against enemy cities, factorys, and other high population areas. In other words,
these weapons would be specifically used to kill civilians from the enemy country. These
weapons are direct contradictions to their spoken purpose of preserving peace. Non-strategic
nuclear weapons would be used to kill as many people as possible. According to Ulrich, Scouras,
and Frankel (2015) The United States has withdrawn from Europe the great majority of its
nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which now number several hundred, while Russia maintains
thousands in its current arsenal. (p.2) This extremely high amount of weapons with the sole
purpose to kill innocent citizens and cause irreversible destruction to their lands, goes against

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 8

any claim that the current state of nuclear weapons is not a threat and is helping to maintain
peace.
The only way to fix this threat and remove the possibility of nuclear war is to destroy all
nuclear weapons, and call for complete denuclearization of the worlds stockpiles. Nuclear
weapons cannot exist while having the ethics of preserving human life and security. True peace
cannot be with the fear of a future nuclear conflict. If nukes do not exist, then there will be no
fear of that possibility. This plan would have to be mutually agreed upon by all nations that hold
nuclear weapons, and carefully monitored with high transparency. This plan will need
completely new treaties, this solution can be supported by Gastelum (2012) However, reducing
numbers to very low levels will require a new level of international engagement and legal norms
that are yet to be seen. (p36) If high transparency were not implemented, nations could lie about
the true amount of nuclear weapons they had, and this would not only defeat the attempt to
denuclearize, but cause high instability with world relations. For this plan you cannot simply get
rid of all nukes overnight. There would be multiple planned phases of deconstructing nuclear
weapons until there would be none left. First world leaders would need to make new treaties
agreeing upon ceasing work to advance the efficiency and power of nuclear weapons. This would
mean not developing better ways of launching nukes, or developing more powerful or efficient
nukes. Next the leaders would need to create a secure lockdown of spreading nuclear weapons
tech. If proliferation continues while the rest of the world gets rid of their weapons it would
create a major security problem. This proliferation has already been seen with North Korea
constructing their own nuclear weapons, and cannot be allowed to happen with other countries.
Once the technology to create nuclear weapons is assured to not be acquired, then can the
nuclear nations start to dismantle their existing nukes. The dismantling will have to be carefully

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans 9

monitored and done at the same time as all other nations. The nukes will be dismantled in
increments, according to how many nukes a country already has. Russia has a far larger number
of nukes than say the U.S., so in one of the first increments of nuclear disarmament, Russia
would dismantle a larger number of nukes than the U.S. By doing this, in the time of the last
increment Russia will have caught up with the rest of the world, and the amount of nukes in all
nuclear nations would be the same. Lastly the final goal of denuclearization would be realized,
with all nuclear weapons being destroyed and the tech for making them either destroyed as well
of carefully kept hidden. With the possibility of nuclear annihilation gone, the ethical dilemma
will be solved.
There are a number of people however, that do not believe in this plan, and think that it
will be dangerous to attempt. For this counter idea, reducing ones own nuclear weapons
stockpile is seen as weakening the nations power. Nuclear weapons give a country undeniable
power, even if the countries conventional military forces are sub-par. Nuclear weapons also give
the nation that owns them international leverage with the great threat that they represent. This is
said by Marcus (2010) The fact is that nuclear weapons are extremely effective systems for
achieving political power. (p.1) It is also believed that the world is more experienced with these
weapons now in modern times, and that these weapons will never be used. Getting rid of nukes
could also be seen as too dangerous to do with the sheer amount that we have today. The effort
needed would be great and there would be large room for deception. Having lost of nukes can
also be seen as the main reason that none of them are used in warfare today. It is also hard to
ensure that countries will not lie about reducing their nuclear arsenals as shown by Hughes
(2014) Chinese tunnels concealing its nuclear weapons activities suggest that we might know
less than we imagine about China's actual nuclear capabilities. (p.2) If one nuked would be used

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans
10

in a conflict today, it would almost certainly spark a large scale nuclear war that would destroy
any country involved, and do extensive damage to the world. If only a handful of nukes were in
play, using them would not hold the same scale of consequences. Some people are already
unhappy with the fact that The Unites States relies on a superior conventional military, rather
than a superior nuclear force like Russia. This concern has merit as seen in Bradley (2015)
Russia places very high value on its nuclear arsenal. Without it, Russias leadership recognizes
that the nation is fundamentally weak. (p.5) This shows that Russias main power comes from
their nuclear arsenal, and they would not want to lost that power. This would not be a problem
however if the united states got rid of their stockpiles together with Russia. If Russia had the
same amount of nukes stockpiled as the U.S., they would be at a disadvantage still. If there were
no nukes in play though, a lot of pressure to have the strongest destructive force would be
calmed. Keeping nukes around instead of attempting to get rid of them also leaves a constant
chance for them being used. If they were destroyed than that chance would cease to exist and the
future would be more secure. If world peace is wanted, countries cannot rely on fear of
destruction to make it. Peace from fear is not true peace, that is a prison.
The consequences of nukes being used is far too great for them to be allowing to persist
in our future. Their existence goes against core human ethics of preserving human life and safety,
the pursuit of world peace. These ethics cannot be overshadowed by the want for power and
possibility of destruction. The effort needed to denuclearize is great but it will be a major payoff
in the end by securing the safety of mankind against a manmade weapon that could destroy it.

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans
11
References

Bradley, J. (2015). Increasing Uncertainty. Air & Space Power Journal, 29(4), 72.
Gastelum, Z. (2012). International Legal Framework for Denuclearization and Nuclear
Disarmament Present Situation and Prospects. doi:10.2172/1078020
Hughes, G. P. (2014). America Should Not Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal. In D. Haugen (Ed.),
Opposing Viewpoints. War. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from U.S. News &
World Report, 2012, April 23)
Kourkouvelas, L. (2012). Denuclearization on NATO's Southern Front: Allied Reactions to
Soviet Proposals, 1957-1963. Journal Of Cold War Studies, (4), 197.
Marcus, J., & Langewiesche, W. (2010). The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation Is Exaggerated. In
R. Espejo (Ed.), At Issue. What Is Humanity's Greatest Challenge? Detroit: Greenhaven
Mendelsohn[b], P. J. (1999). HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS IN THE COLD WAR[*]. Case Western Reserve Journal Of International
Law, 31(3), 609.
Nunn, S., Shultz, G. P., Kissinger, H. A., & Perry, W. J. (2009). The United States Should
Aggressively Promote Nuclear Disarmament. In L. I. Gerdes (Ed.), At Issue. Nuclear
Weapons. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from A World Free of Nuclear Weapons:
Ending the Threat of Nuclear Arms, Wall Street Journal, p. A15, 2007, January
Press. (Reprinted from Going Nuclear: William Langewiesche on The Atomic Bazaar,
NewsQuake, 2007)

Hypocrisy of Nuclear
Weapons

Evans
12

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on The Persistent North Korea Denuclearization
and Human Rights Challenge. (2015, October 20). Congressional Hearing Transcript
Database.
Tested. (2015). How Powerful Are Modern Nuclear Weapons? Retrieved April 22, 2016,
Ulrich, G. W., Scouras, J., & Frankel, M. J. (2015). Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. Air & Space
Power Journal, 29(4), 9.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). America Must Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal and Guarantee
Limits on the Use of Nuclear Force. In D. Haugen (Ed.), Opposing Viewpoints. War.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Nuclear Posture Review Report, 2010)