Since World War II up until 2021, the world has experienced an unprecedented period of peace between nations possessing nuclear weapons. Unlike non-nuclear countries that faced constant instability and oppression by more powerful nations. Those with nuclear capabilities have avoided direct conflict, opting instead for cold wars fought with soft power and economic tactics. The use of nuclear weapons in Japan in 1947 raised global awareness about the potential destruction they could cause. Instilling a fear that has contributed to the relative peace we see in the world today. This in Nuclear Paradox that most destructive weapons are reason for the peace today ‘more nukes create more peace’.

Officially, there are nine countries with nuclear arsenals, with Russia and the USA possessing over 2,000 nuclear weapons each. Notably, Ukraine and South Africa once had nuclear capabilities, but when Ukraine relinquished its nuclear weapons, Russia invaded despite promises from both Russia and the USA to protect the nation. This raises questions about the potential deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

Consider the hypothetical scenario: What if Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons? Would Russia have dared to invade? The possession of nuclear weapons and the geopolitical responsibility that comes with it seem to ensure the sovereignty and security of nations. Taiwan, for instance, might benefit from possessing not only nuclear weapons but also a nuclear submarine, which could act as a deterrent against potential threats from China.

Countries with more nukes and advanced nuclear capabilities, like Pakistan, often receive financial support even in dire economic situations. The fear that a nuclear-armed nation might collapse, leading to the dispersion of its arsenal, appears to influence international aid decisions. This dynamic also extends to major powers like the US and Russia. Which, without immediate repercussions, can engage in military interventions for their national interests.

The argument emerges that if more countries, particularly those under constant threat, had nuclear weapons, global security issues might find resolution. The potential presence of nuclear weapons in responsible hands could prevent crises such as those between Taiwan and China, North and South Korea, and Russian aggression. The notion suggests that more nuclear weapons might lead to more peace, albeit through a delicate balance of mutually assured destruction.

However, this peace comes at a cost, with nations effectively holding the world hostage. The Cold War era witnessed indirect harm through sanctions and economic isolation. While the fear of nuclear weapons has prevented direct conflicts, it has not spared humanity from indirect consequences.

Considering a hypothetical world where nuclear weapons were never developed. The cycle of world wars might have persisted, disrupting peace every few years. The fear instilled by nuclear weapons, paradoxically, has contributed to the extended period of global peace.

For those advocating the ban of nuclear weapons, the comparison to firearms is highlighted. If guns, responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, have not been banned. It seems unlikely that the international community will agree to the complete prohibition of nuclear arms.

The nuclear paradox raises complex ethical and strategic considerations. Forcing us to grapple with the interplay between fear, peace, and the potential for global harmony through ‘more nukes’ nuclear deterrence.

Related Post