Nuclear weapons debate
The nuclear weapons debate refers to the controversies surrounding the threat, use and stockpiling of
Nuclear disarmament refers both to the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-free world. Proponents of disarmament typically condemn a priori the threat or use of nuclear weapons as immoral and argue that only total disarmament can eliminate the possibility of nuclear war. Critics of nuclear disarmament say that it would undermine deterrence and make conventional wars more likely, more destructive, or both. The debate becomes considerably complex when considering various scenarios for example, total vs partial or unilateral vs multilateral disarmament.
Nuclear proliferation is a related concern, which most commonly refers to the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries and increases the risks of nuclear war arising from regional conflicts. The diffusion of nuclear technologies -- especially the nuclear fuel cycle technologies for producing weapons-usable nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium -- contributes to the risk of nuclear proliferation. These forms of proliferation are sometimes referred to as horizontal proliferation to distinguish them from vertical proliferation, the expansion of nuclear stockpiles of established nuclear powers.
History
Manhattan Project
Because the Manhattan Project was considered to be "
Franck Report
On June 2, 1945,
The report also argued that to preclude a nuclear arms race and a destabilized world order, the existence of the weapon should be made public so that a collaborative, international body could come to control atomic power:
"From this point of view a demonstration of the new weapon may best be made before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island. The best possible atmosphere for the achievement of an international agreement could be achieved if America would be able to say to the world, “You see what weapon we had but did not use. We are ready to renounce its use in the future and to join other nations in working out adequate supervision of the use of this nuclear weapon.”[3] - The Franck Report
Szilárd Petition
70 scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, many of them from Met Lab, represented in part by
"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in the light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved."[4] - The Szilárd Petition
The petition also warned Truman to consider the future implications of the decision to use the atomic bomb, including the probability of a rapid nuclear arms race
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The
Postwar
After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world’s nuclear weapons stockpiles grew,
In the early 1980s, a revival of the
Arguments
Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of
Kenneth Waltz argues in favor of the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons.[20] In the July 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs Waltz took issue with the view of most US, European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. Instead, Waltz argues that it would probably be the best possible outcome by restoring stability to the Middle East since it would balance the Israeli regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.[21] Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University, author of Atomic Obsession[22] has also dismissed the need to interfere with Iran's nuclear program and expressed that arms control measures are counterproductive.[23] During a 2010 lecture at the University of Missouri, which was broadcast by C-Span, Dr. Mueller also argued that the threat from nuclear weapons, including that from terrorists, has been exaggerated in the popular media and by officials.[24]
In contrast, various American government officials, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry,[25][26][27] who were in office during the Cold War period, now advocate the elimination of nuclear weapons in the belief that the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective ever since the Cold War ended.[25] A 2011 article in The Economist argued, along similar lines, that risks are more acute in rivalries between relatively-new nuclear states that lack the "security safeguards" developed by the Americans and the Soviets and that additional risks are posed by the emergence of pariah states, such as North Korea (possibly soon to be joined by Iran), armed with nuclear weapons as well as the declared ambition of terrorists to steal, buy, or build a nuclear device.[28]
See also
- Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
- Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Global catastrophic risk
- List of nuclear weapons
- No first use
- Nth Country Experiment
- Nuclear Tipping Point
- Three Non-Nuclear Principles, of Japan
- Uranium mining debate
References
- )
- ^ Schollmeyer, Josh (January–February 2005). "Minority Report". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on 2016-05-14. Retrieved 2009-08-04.
- )
- )
- ISBN 0-19-850340-7.
- ^ Nuke-Rebuke: Writers & Artists Against Nuclear Energy & Weapons (The Contemporary anthology series). The Spirit That Moves Us Press. May 1, 1984. pp. 22–29.
- .
- ^ Mary Palevsky, Robert Futrell, and Andrew Kirk. Recollections of Nevada's Nuclear Past Archived 2011-10-03 at the Wayback Machine UNLV FUSION, 2005, p. 20.
- ^ "Federation of American Scientists: Status of World Nuclear Forces". Fas.org. Archived from the original on 2013-01-02. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
- ^ David Cortright (2008). Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas, Cambridge University Press, p. 147.
- ^ Jonathan Schell. The Spirit of June 12 Archived 2014-12-05 at the Wayback Machine The Nation, July 2, 2007.
- ^ David Cortright (2008). Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas, Cambridge University Press, p. 145.
- ^ 1982 - a million people march in New York City Archived 2008-05-16 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ David Cortright (2008). Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas, Cambridge University Press, p. 148.
- ^ Elliot, Jeffrey M. and Robert Reginald. (1989). The Arms Control, Disarmament, and Military Security Dictionary, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
- ^ Gertcher, Frank L., and William J. Weida. (1990). Beyond Deterrence, Boulder: Westview Press, Inc.
- ^ "Oops, page not found (404 error)". Stimson Center. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ Krepon, Michael (November 2, 2010). "The Stability-Instability Paradox". Arms Control Wonk. Archived from the original on January 12, 2015. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
- ^ James G Blight, Janet M. Lang. The Fog of War: Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, page 60.
- from the original on 2012-10-14.
- ^ Waltz, Kenneth (July–August 2012). "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability". Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 2013-12-22.
- ^ "Atomic Obsession - Hardback - John Mueller - Oxford University Press". Archived from the original on 2012-04-16.
- ^ Bloggingheads.tv Archived 2014-08-03 at the Wayback Machine from 19:00 to 26:00 minutes
- ^ "[Atomic Obsession]". C-SPAN.org. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
- ^ Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. A World Free of Nuclear Weapons Archived 2010-06-15 at the Wayback MachineWall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, page A15.
- ^ Hugh Gusterson (30 March 2012). "The new abolitionists". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on 6 June 2013.
- ^ "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons - - Publications - Nuclear Security Project". www.nuclearsecurityproject.org. Archived from the original on 2017-02-09. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
- ^ "Nuclear endgame: The growing appeal of zero". The Economist. June 16, 2011. Archived from the original on December 3, 2011.
Further reading
- M. Clarke and M. Mowlam (Eds) (1982). Debate on Disarmament, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Black Inc.
- Falk, Jim (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press.
- Murphy, Arthur W. (1976). The Nuclear Power Controversy, Prentice-Hall.
- Malheiros, Tania. Brasiliens geheime Bombe: Das brasilianische Atomprogramm. Tradução: Maria Conceição da Costa e Paulo Carvalho da Silva Filho. Frankfurt am Main: Report-Verlag, 1995.
- Malheiros, Tania. Brasil, a bomba oculta: O programa nuclear brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Gryphus, 1993. (in Portuguese)
- Malheiros, Tania. Histórias Secretas do Brasil Nuclear. (WVA Editora; ISBN 85-85644087) (in Portuguese)
- Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, University of California Press.
- Williams, Phil (Ed.) (1984). The Nuclear Debate: Issues and Politics, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.
- Wittner, Lawrence S. (2009). Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, Stanford University Press.