Nuclear Weapons Are Not an Effective Deterrent Against Foreign Attack

     

     In 1945 and with a single release of a technological ‘advancement’, the world was face-to-face with a threat like never before- one that promised to put all daunting human challenges to ridicule. Ever since the disastrous bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world was introduced to the ever-growing threat of nuclear warfare. Without a constructive defence, we would have certainly shot ourselves in the foot. As such, the ‘brilliant’ thinkers of our time decided that the only way to deter countries possessing that threat would be if they themselves became the same threat. I and opponents reject such a primal theory, asserting what we have all been taught in grade school: two wrongs do not make a right.

     Logically, one would assume that if two nations are in possession of nuclear weapons, they would not instigate nuclear warfare or attack each other. That is the basis of the nuclear deterrence theory, which states that the possession of nuclear weapons leads to deterrence under the promise of retaliation and mutual destruction. What seems like a perfectly rational and reasonable theory is, however, far from accurate and is heavily flawed, which has led many scholars, such as the distinguished Professor Frank Zagare to describe the theory as ‘logically inconsistent’ and ‘empirically inaccurate’. Frank’s remarks come from a series of investigations and studies focussing on historic wars, cold wars, and tensions that eventually concluded that deterrence has never worked (source: Washington Post; The Guardian). The disclosure of these realities has led many major proponents of the theory and lawmakers, some of which include Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Sam Nunn, to reverse their decisions, claiming that nuclear warfare is in fact ‘a source of extreme risk’ and not a worthwhile deterrence method. Ironically, proponents have thanked nuclear deterrence for the fact that there has not been a third world war, even when the cold war between the US and USSR was at its peak. This is a prime non-sequitur, as not only is there no relation between the two events, but studies have shown that there is compelling evidence explaining why there was no war, such as the two sides simply not wanting to go to war. To put it in colloquial terms, nuclear deterrence is like saying a car with no wheels or engine does not move because no one put the key in the ignition. It is illogical to say there is a correlation between the nuclear deterrence theory and why we do not have nuclear wars plainly due to the fact that there is no nuclear war. There are likely other reasons explaining that, and nuclear deterrence is not one of them.

      Let us for a moment suppose that nuclear deterrence does in fact work. That does not mean it is time for celebration yet. Even if deterrence were to work, it would not be an effective method per se. For something to be effective, it is crucial that it successfully results in intended results (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). For instance, although capital punishment provides punishment for guilty individuals (intended result), there are considerable risks of excruciating botched executions (unintended result) and of executing innocent individuals (unintended results). That means capital punishment is not an effective punishment method. The same philosophy can be applied to nuclear deterrence. While deterrence may provide hindrance (it does not), it has severe unfavourable effects, such as nuclear close calls (there has been ten of them), their catastrophic consequences, the distress they cause, their lavish expense, their proliferation, and most importantly their unnecessity (for emphasis, the use of nuclear weapons violates international humanitarian law, and such violation would be very costly, not just in terms of money). When you weigh the favourable/intended results with their contrary, you would see (like the scholars and lawmakers) that deterrence for the potential expense of lack of security and destruction is not a fine trade, deeming deterrence ineffective. But again, none of that matters, since deterrence has been proven not to work.

     Resorting to a weapon of mass destruction capable of writing the last chapter of Earth’s history for deterrence is beyond inordinate and, frankly, insane. Supporting a system that has been proven to be a failure and ineffective (and would still not be worth it if it were effective) is the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears. There is not a single bit of evidence that supports the fact that nuclear deterrence is effective, and all reliable sources have concluded otherwise. The possession of nuclear weapons was never for deterrence, it was for show of power, masked under the ‘concerned-father’ mask. Nothing remains now but to follow the steps of the researchers, professors, scholars, and lawmakers who have all realised we are laughing at ourselves when we say nuclear deterrence is effective.

Reference List

• “Nuclear Deterrence Is a Myth. And a Lethal One at That.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 14 Jan. 2018, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash.
• “Nuclear Deterrence.” RAND Corporation, www.rand.org/topics/nuclear-deterrence.html.
• “Effective.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effective.