Future of Nuclear Security and Disarmament

Mohammad Alshumais, 932704150

Abstract

Nuclear security is a major concern for everyone living on earth, everyone deserves to

live in peace and not in fear. Throughout the decades after the cold war. There have been

positive hopes and dreams to reduce the total nuclear arsenal and its facilities around the world.

With new goals and proper policy commitment ad regulations. The impossible can be achieved,

near or total disarmament or nuclear weapons would make the world a better place. Helps world

leaders tackle new challenges the world is facing such as hunger and climate change. Can

humans be able to rid the earth of the monstrous weapons that they have created? If not, what

can be done to ensure they stay grounded?

Introduction

On August 6th 1945, warfare as the world knew it got changed forever. With a single

press of a button, entire civilizations, societies, and nations could be erased. It started with a

plane carrying the atomic weapon and it had to fly over the target to drop it, destroying miles of

life and infrastructure. Leaving the place radiated and unsustainable for humans to inhabit it for

hundreds of years. However, with the rise of technological advancements, all it takes now is a

few minutes for a nuclear weapon fired from a submarine or a military base to hit a target across

the world thanks to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS). Being almost two decades into

the 21st century. What’s the future holds for the world filled with nuclear weaponry? How can

we ensure that nations avoid another cold war or an actual nuclear war?
Discussion and Analysis

During the cold war when tensions were high, nuclear nations between the NATO

alliance with the United States and the Soviet Union. There was an ideology called mutually

assured destruction (MAD) which basically was the idea that if a nation were to fire a nuclear

weapon at the other. The other state would fire back, resulting in total devastation across the

world which no one being victorious. However, according to McCartney, a nuclear technology

Professor, MAD isn’t an enough deterrent for nuclear war. “It depends on a rational assessment

of the terrible risks for the world of the use of nuclear weapons. This assessment should then lead

to diplomacy, behaviors, and decisions calculated to avoid a catastrophic event. Such rational

assessment currently seems lacking, which is deeply worrying for all of us.” This reality seems

to be very terrifying when news of border disputes and airstrikes being conducted between two

nuclear nations such as India and Pakistan get more hostile. What if their respective leaders have

a major fallout, or their nuclear arsenal get taken over by a coup de ’tat.

There needs to be a stronger enforcement of policies to ensure the possibility of nuclear

war to be almost impossible. The only way to achievement that impossibility is striving towards

nuclear disarmament. Something that world nations acknowledge that would require effective

and productive treaties and negotiations to reach that. “The United States and Russian

Federation— which have more than 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons— concluded a

new bilateral treaty on April 8, 2010, to replace the expired START treaty. The new treaty sets a

ceiling for each side of 1550 deployed strategic offensive nuclear warheads and limits their

respective number of deployed delivery vehicles for such warheads at 700” (Kelleher, 29).

Greatly illustrated in Figure 1 showing he different the types of missiles and their respective

stockpile.
 Looking at Figure 2, there is a noticeable decrease in nuclear arsenal stockpiles between

the United States and Russia. Figure 3 shows how both nations dominate the arsenal inventory.

This rose many questions in regards of who should be leading the nuclear disarmament. All

nuclear nations should be having in the mindset of supporting disarmament. There is still a long

way to go to reach that ultimate goal, however so far there have been steps taken in the right

direction. “The French government has announced a significant cut in its arsenal, after having

already shut down its nuclear test site along with its plants to produce fissile material for

weapons. The British government has proposed a conference of experts from the nuclear weapon

states to examine the challenge of verifying nuclear disarmament.” (Kelleher, 29). As long as

there is progress towards the goals of nuclear disarmament. Then there should be no reason

nations wouldn’t be able to overcome the challenges or decreasing the stockpiles.

Conclusion

Mutually assured destruction can’t be the only deterrent. There should be strong

enforcement towards nuclear disarmament, or having a world government or the joint United

Nation Committees support each other to face the challenges of actually verifying the

dismantling of these weapons. Even if total disarmament is not an option, there should be

research, studies, and actions taken towards different methods and policies of ensuring nuclear

arsenal safety and not have it fall into the wrong hands if economic hardships were to happen to

any of these nuclear states. The world has many issues to face in following generations, when it

comes to nuclear deterrence. There is a strong belief that through determination and the quest to

peace. The world would be where it was a century ago, Nuclear free.
Bibliography

1) Gillies, John C M. "Time to Re-assess Mutually Assured Destruction." BMJ 359

(2017): J4917.

2) WKARP, REGINA. “Nuclear Disarmament: Should America Lead?” Political

Science Quarterly, vol. 127, no. 1, 2012, pp. 47–71.,

www.jstor.org/stable/41502507.eb.

3) Kelleher, Catherine Mc Ardle, and Judith Reppy. Getting to Zero : The Path to

Nuclear Disarmament, Stanford University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/osu/detail.action?docID=744857.

4) Acton, JamesM. “Nuclear Power, Disarmament and Technological

Restraint.” Survival (00396338), vol. 51, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 101–

126. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00396330903168881.

5) Whitfield, SC. “The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk

Perception.” Risk Analysis., vol. 29, no. 3, 2009, pp. 425–437.

Figure References

1) https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ldva2/what_is_happening_at_the_fuk

ushima_site/

2) https://content.openclass.com/eps/pearson-reader/api/item/61da69d1-62fb-4f39-b38c-

756194446d00/1/file/9780328871865_hswh16split_se_na_pxe_oxy_pxe_basic/OPS/xhtml/filen

gss-f68058a2-5298-4a69-8269-de4288d88b81.xhtml

3) https://www.sipri.org/media
Appendices

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3