Nuclear weapons are some of the most feared weapons of mass destruction because of the devastating effects that they might as seen from the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the WW2. However, there are instances which have proven that the weapons are strategically obsolete. First, before exploring how nuclear weapons have been rendered obsolete, it would be important to define the concept of strategy in relation to nuclear weapons. In warfare, strategy refers to the art or science of using all the economic, political, and military and all the country’s resources to achieve the goals of war such as deterring or preventing it (Jagger, 2013). Mostly, nuclear weapons serve the strategic purpose of deterring and preventing war, which works preventing an attack by threatening nuclear retaliation on any attacking state although it is naturally destructive. With its destructive capability, it is impossible to apply it without incurring complete capitulation or destruction of the enemy. In this view, nuclear weapons are devastating such that they make the country’s deterrence their highest rational military strategy. Therefore, many states have discontinued the use of nuclear weapons as a strategic way to maintain peace via deterrence thus rendering them obsolete.
Nuclear weapons are not only unusable against the threat of terrorism but also have failed to achieve the very purpose they were meant to achieve; deter attacks on nuclear powers (Zubok, 2007). Presently, they are no longer needed in the prevention of wars between countries with nuclear states because the changes in the relationships between the great powers of the world propelled by the process of globalization. The changes in these relationships have rendered the nuclear weapons irrelevant in the aversion of war. Moreover, while mutually guaranteed destruction and strategic stability theories argue that nuclear states maintain peace by the assured suicide of applying nuclear weapons, it is obvious that the escalation into total war is equally unacceptable as a deterrent (Burns & Siracusa, 2013). For this reason, nuclear weapons have become nothing but strategically obsolete.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moreover, various scholars concur that nuclear weapons stopped serving the strategic relevance they were meant to serve (Jagger, 2013). This is particularly demonstrated by movement like the Global Zero Campaign that fights and crusades for the eradication and abolishment of nuclear weapons from the earth. Following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, where the application of nuclear weapons generated horrific long term and short effects, much of the sentiments in America and Europe indicate that nuclear weapons have become strategically obsolete. As it stands, they are only used as a symbol of a country’s military capability. Nuclear weapons were used for the very first time as a deterrence strategy during the Cold War when America’s General Leslie Richard Groves, suggested that the country would have to deter the Soviet’s expansionary plan by using the bomb (Burns & Siracusa, 2013). Sadly, this plan failed miserably as their deterrence tactics allowed Stalin to fast-track an arms project to achieve mutually guaranteed destruction. Hence, the Cold War serves as a prime illustration of how nuclear weapons and their deterrence strategy failed its original purpose.
Many nuclear powers such as China and the US have refused to apply nuclear weapons against unequipped countries because of their destructive nature and the resultant rejection of their usage by the international community (Great Britain. 2007). A key implication of this is that the deterrent function of nuclear weapons is completely ineffectual from the perspective of non-nuclear aggressors because they understand the reluctance to apply them. Nuclear threats are manifested as lacking credibility (Perkins, 2014). This has been proven by numerous cases the most recent interesting one being Argentina’s attack on Britain. This reveals how weak the deterrent approach is thus rendering nuclear weapons strategically obsolete. However, the saddest thing is that this tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons has extended to other nuclear powers leading to clashes such as the 2001 Pakistan/India conflict (Wilson, 2013). Although these conflicts have indeed remained limited, they could have escalated and this proves that these weapons are no longer an effective or credible deterrent. Therefore, it is clear that these weapons have reached their strategic obsolescence.
On the other hand, those who hold the contrary opinion cite other examples to justify the use of nuclear weapons and the use of such force. China serves a perfect example as it tried to change the status quo within the international fraternity and this antagonistic policy almost escalated (Perkins, 2014). Advocates of nuclear weapon further contend that war is something inevitable and the rise of China as an economic powerhouse has been accompanied by an inevitable armament against the offensive powers like the US (Wilson, 2013). It seems China using nuclear is unfathomable because of their participation in global institutions and international presence. For instance, China was applauded for using nuclear weapons to defeat Kin Jong-Un of North Korea. The recent decades of peaceful coexistence among international community member states are enough proof that the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrence strategy works best. Countries such as Britain share similar sentiments as their former Secretary of Defense, Des Browne once said, “ Our deterrent has been a central plank of our national security for the past fifty years ” (Great Britain. 2007). Though the existence of nuclear weapons has become highly symbolic, their mere existence offers a security back up should an aggressor trigger security concerns.
Until the Global Zero Movement achieves its goals and objectives, no state or individual should argue that nuclear weapons are strategically redundant (Zubok, 2007). The organization focuses on confiscating all nuclear weapons across the globe. In addition, the point that most world countries have chosen not to apply nuclear force against other states in times of conflicts and war does not mean that states like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea that have been continuously campaigning for the use of nuclear may never use them even in future. Advocates of nuclear power believe that it is the global nuclear disarmament campaigns and the international outcries which have successfully deterred states like Iran and North Korea from using these weapons (Perkins, 2014). If given a chance, such countries would otherwise strategically apply nuclear force to destroy aggressor states given that they can still easily access nuclear weapons.
Overall, although a few states continue to use nuclear weapons, various key factors make them useless and unusable in present-day battles. Nuclear weapons have failed to serve as an effective and credible deterrent against aggressors. Drawing from the constructivists’ perspective, the abhorrence ascribed to nuclear weapons has sparked their non-use and eliminating their credibility as a deterrent tactic hence rendering them strategically obsolete. Moreover, terrorist movements pose a major security threat which cannot be countered through the use of strategic nuclear deterrence or bombing. Although non-nuclear countries are not deterred by nuclear weapons, the major world powers have resorted to neutrality and non-intervention due to the increased globalized economic interdependence. Therefore, things such as war have become a rare occurrence in the developed world and a minimal threat of nuclear war between developed economies in future. Consequently, this eliminates any need for nuclear deterrent rendering them strategically irrelevant. Overall, nuclear weapons have not only failed but they are unnecessary and the unlikely conflict or war amongst nuclear powers foster their obsolescence.
References
Burns, R. D., & Siracusa, J. M. (2013). A global history of the nuclear arms race weapons, strategy, and politics . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO
Great Britain. (2007). The future of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent: The White Paper: ninth report of Session 2006-07 . London: Stationery Office.
Jagger, J. (2013). The nuclear lion: What every citizen should know about nuclear power and nuclear war . New York: Plenum Press.
Perkins, J. H. (December 01, 2014). Development of risk assessment for nuclear power: insights from history. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4, 4, 273-287.
Wilson, W. (2013). Five myths about nuclear weapons . Boston, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Wilson, W. (January 01, 2012). Nuclear weapons could become obsolete. World Today London Oxford University Press Then the Royal Institute of International Affairs-, 68, 6, 22-28.
Zubok, V. M. (2007). A failed empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
