The Need for Nuclear Weapons in the World

I believe the concept to seek a world free of nuclear weapons is more dangerous than a world with nuclear weapons and virtually unreasonable. Those who seek a nuclear free world believe that with no weapons of mass destruction, there would be no more nuclear wars, and that terrorists would be less likely to obtain these weapons of mass destruction if they no longer existed. 

However, as Thomas Schelling states, the knowledge of how to use and create nuclear weapons will never disappear. If a nation no longer wanted to abide by a treaty that envisioned the end to all nuclear weapons, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or withdrew from the pact they would be able to build new nuclear weapons. This would pose an even greater threat on the world as opposed to our current world with nuclear weapons because this nation that withdrew from the pact would be the only one with a nuclear weapon, and other countries would have no weapon of counterattack to protect themselves. At least in our current world, we have the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, which acts as a strong deterrent for nuclear war. Since other nations are aware of each other having nuclear weapons, nations would be aware of the other nations being able to counterattack and such counterattacks could lead to the destruction of the world, which no rational leader would desire. As Schelling questions, in a world free of nuclear weapons, “could a major nation maintain conventional forces ready for every contingency, without maintain a nuclear backup?” (126). It seems as if there were no longer nuclear weapons in the world, nations wouldn’t be able to protect themselves and there would be a greater possibility of nuclear war than in our current world with the MAD policy.

Supporters of a world free of nuclear weapons also claim that if there were no nuclear weapons in the world, terrorists would have a less likely chance of obtaining one and using it against people. But, as I stated before, the ability to build nuclear weapons for destruction would still be there since the knowledge is still there. So if terrorists wanted to use nuclear weapons they would, and it would pose a greater threat to the world because there would be no way to counterattack their threat.

Supporters of a nuclear free world also claim that with no nuclear weapons there would be less chance of an accident, in my opinion this is almost leaning towards the absolutism point of view, where the preservation of human life outweighs the potential dangers of a nuclear free world. However, I am inclined to agree with Schelling’s point of view that the ends justify the means that by keeping nuclear weapons and continually applying MAD in order to prevent a nuclear war would outweigh the risk of an accident. While I don’t believe that we should move towards a nuclear free world, I do think that we should promote the reduction of nuclear stockpiles, and set more regulations for the storing and preventative security measures of nuclear weapons so that these weapons of mass destruction don’t fall in the wrong hands.