Everything you wanted to know about nuclear deterrence but were afraid to ask, by SP’s newest writer ADAM HUGHES.
Despite strong arguments against nuclear weapons, most of the developed nations including the most powerful ones such as the USA, Russia, UK, France and China have refused to abandon nuclear weapons. In fact, new unofficial nuclear powers like India, Pakistan and Israel have joined in, alongside rogue nations such as North Korea are said to have developed nuclear bombs while Iran too is trying to make nuclear weapons to counter USA domination of the Middle East.
The countries that posses these weapons view them as beneficial so we need to examine whether or not they are of value. In the UK, our Nuclear Deterrent is based here in Scotland in Faslane and consists of four submarines armed with 16 warheads each.
Wait! There are positives to nuclear weapons, the main one being that they’re a cheaper form of insurance against aggression from other countries. Building massive army, fighters, armour costs a great deal of money. In comparison building a few nuclear bombs is quite cheap. North Korea has used this strategy quite effectively to keep USA at bay despite provoking the larger power numerous times.
But the problems nuclear power and weapons cause are devastating. Radiation from both accidents and normal activity with nuclear deterrence has had many tragic ramifications. Chernobyl, Fukushima, nuclear submarines damaging the environment, the death of military personnel – the list goes on.
The nuclear weapons industry produces a large volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and even (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. This means that there is an ever present danger to those who live and work around the Trident submarines here in Scotland.
Terrorism is also a major concern with a nuclear deterrent, there is a danger that in politically unstable countries like Pakistan or Russia these weapons could fall into the hands of rogue terrorist groups.
People continue to be affected by radiation even decades after incidents involving nuclear attacks. Nuclear Weapons were only used by USA against Japan when two low level nuclear bombs were dropped over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The bombs killed thousands and caused disability and radiation diseases amongst survivors and helpers. These effects were still being felt even now almost 65 years after the bombs were destroyed in 1945.
A nuclear deterrent also diverts funds from more productive uses. Nuclear Weapons are very costly for small countries with limited resources like Pakistan and North Korea. While the majority of the population remains mired in desperate poverty, developing nuclear weapons diverts precious resources to nuclear weapons programs. Nuclear Delivery Mechanisms like Fighters, Missiles and Submarines also cost billions of dollars and are needed to build an effective Nuclear Deterrent.
It also seems to me that people may have just forgotten about the Cold War and are not considering the possibility that a similar situation may arise today. With more countries in possession of nuclear weapons there is a higher risk of something catastrophic happening.
These weapons essentially make themselves redundant as the possession of them prevents their use and the use of them would leave us with nothing. The UK is part of NATO, whose main benefactor is the US and so we would be protected by them if we were to get rid of our Nuclear weapons, which is something I highly suggest.
