Nuclear Bomb

The subterfuge of atomic bomb has been one of the most signifi abideistert events in the write up of hu spellity. It not only(prenominal) changed the conduct of military strugglefare, but also only trans pret poleed the geo-political equation by placing humanitys level of chink on its own future done coming in monomania of such omni potent means that could wipe out every form of behavior from earth overnight. The memories of the atomic attack on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived as a constant reminder of the supreme havoc that atomic bombs can inflict. These memories are reinforced further by the repeated instances of atomic exam and research into the production of atomic weapons that are much much herculean and lethal in comparison of their predecessors.The pursuance of the research into atomic and thermo thermo atomic weapons, or the weapons of mass destruction, has developd a deep ideological and political branch in the manhood. On the one hand are people li velihood atomic weapons, arguing them as essential tools to maintain prospects of global quietness and also as means to ensure the safety of nations possessing them. While on the other side are people, who see nuclear weapons inherently as a threat to the survival of mankind and campaigning for a ground without fear and apprehensions for a humanity of the post nuclear age where the befog of the threat of an impending catastrophe is forever lifted over.This paper shall insure into the debate on the nuclear policy and relevance of nuclear weapons as a medium to ensure global sleep, while critically evaluating the arguments presented on both the sides. It shall also look into the prospects of a nuclear free world and the visions such world entails for humanity.Constructing a nuclear doctrineThe debate on the feasibility and utility of nuclear weapons has raged since the day the first military make use of of nuclear weapons was reported on 6th August, 2006 (Katz, 1987). The stan dard argument of the advocates of nuclear doctrine have centered on the deterrent effect of the nuclear weapons against every potential attack or threat of aggression (Franklin, 1991). angiotensin converting enzyme of the most frequently cited example is that of role played by nuclear weapons in bringing a swift end to the Second creation War, with minimum thinkable casualty in the process (Graham, 2005). They validly lay out that without the strikes, Japan would have continued to fight till the last man down, taking up the number of casualties on both sides as good as war expenditures to enormous levels (Franklin, 1991).Since then, the nuclear doctrine has been religiously incorporated in the self-abnegation strategy of every major nation, with immense literature created to cite the absolutely necessity and inevitability of nuclear weapons as the only possibly way to ensure global stillness and a war free world (Franklin, 1991). Post the end of the Cold War proponents of th e nuclear policy have further argued the necessity of effective nuclear policy, specially in the view of the dangers posted by spilling of nuclear weapons in the hand of some of the non responsible nations (Graham, 2005).However, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has been severely arraigned by the critics for its short comings and narrow visions that it take of subtlety of world geo-politics and the overly simple way in which it treats the question of deterrence and global peace (Gottemoeller, 2002 ). nuclear policy and the race on building up nuclear armory have been criticized from ethical, moral, political, practical and strategic point of view over more than half a century, especially in the context of the modern bracings report of humanity that has been torn apart by unimaginable horrors of wars and genocide in the 20th century (Muller, 2004).Thinkers, intellectuals and scientists and many military strategists have strongly argued for a nuclear free world, based on the s trong premises that peace is impossible to achieve from those tools that have capacity to utterly destroy life (Cimbala and Scouras, 2002 Cortright, 1999). Their argument is persuasive to reason as it is ironical as a concept and theory to achieve peace by destruction. The only presumptive way by which nuclear weapons can bring peace is through complete annihilation of people, creating a world where no life would exists to bout and compete.Even the history of the post nuclear world does not proclaim any confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent (Graham, 2005). In more than sixty years after the end of Second World War, innumerable conflicts and at least three wars of planetary proportion, involving nations equipped with nuclear power have belied the theory that nuclear weapons can act as any potential deterrent to wars (Cimbala and Scouras, 2002).It only creates a danger in escalation of threats of nuclear arm race, where nations without nuclear weapons a re try to possess these coveted means of mass destruction, to create a world of nuclear mutual self destruction (Franklin, 2002). Its a position that technology can not be limited as a prerogative to a limited number of nations, as the this dangerous technology spreads out, there are every possible chances that it can be use by at some point of time, by some dogmatic and unaccountable regime to create a havoc of unparalleled order (Muller, 2004).The theory of nuclear deterrence also looses its credibility in the manifestation of rise of terrorism as the new danger facing the new world (Graham, 2005). nuclear deterrence did not act as any deterrent to the attack on the World Trade Centers in 2001, or in London bombing in 2006. On the contrary they create a new and infinitely more powerful threat where possible proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups can jeopardize the entire concept of national defense strategies of many nations.ConclusionNuclear weapons can not a ct as means to achieve global peace. They are weapons of mass destruction, weapons that can veil hundred of thousands of people instantly, razing civilizations to dust, leaving behind terminal and a scarred earth that would be inhabitable for many generations. This trail of death can not be a harbinger of peace. Global peace can only be achieved by systematic end of nuclear arsenals, and strictly banning the research, testing and possession of nuclear weapons.ReferenceH. Bruce Franklin. 1991.The nightmare Considered Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature. Nancy Anisfield editor. Bowling Green kingdom University Popular Press. Bowling Green, OH.Gottemoeller. Rose. 2002. Tactical Nuclear Weapons Time for Control. Taina Susiluoto editor. United Nations build for Disarmament Research. Place of Publication Geneva.Milton S. Katz. 1987. Ban the Bomb A explanation of SANE, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. Praeger. New York.Richard R. Muller. 2004. Getting sick(p) A Nuclea r Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Origins and Practice. Henry D. Sokolski editor. Strategic Studies Institute. Carlisle Barracks, PA.Stephen J. Cimbala and Scouras, J. 2002. A New Nuclear Century Strategic Stability and Arms Control. Praeger. Westport, CT.doubting Thomas Graham Jr. 2005. Sixty Years After Hiroshima, A Nuclear Era. Current History. Research Library Core.David Cortright. 1999. Ban the Bomb. Sojourner. Humanities Module.