Topics:Denuclearization

Denuclearization (or Nuclear Disarmament) is an argument for the partial or complete dismantling of nuclear weapons. Specifically, for nuclear warheads such as the two nuclear bombs used by the American military to attack the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Following World War II, this has been a strongly advocated diplomatic approach between nations resulting in several international treaties. In recent years, more nations have developed nuclear programs making the development and management of nuclear stockpiles a critical part of international policies. Doctoral students were asked to take "Pro", "Con", and "In Between" positions regarding the usefulness and harm of Denuclearization.

Team

• Devin
• Lucy

(authors and sources listed alphabetically)

Arguments

Pro arguments Ineffective to use nuclear weapons while fearing swift nuclear backlash Nuclear innovation drives development that could fall into the hands of violent threat actors Issues with nuclear weapon security & maintenance Safety concerns for citizens located near nuclear facilities The dangers of nuclear waste storage and disposal	Con arguments It’s too late Freedom & Self-determination Stability Lack of enforcement ability

Vote Pre-Discussion Results

Become a member/Login and vote You are not logged in. In order to vote, to be notified when there are updates, and new votes are required, you can log in or create an account.

Discussion Summary

Denuclearization (or Nuclear Disarmament) is an argument for the partial or complete dismantling of nuclear weapons. Specifically, for nuclear warheads such as the two nuclear bombs used by the American military to attack the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Following World War II, this has been a strongly advocated diplomatic approach between nations resulting in several international treaties. In recent years, more nations have developed nuclear programs making the development and management of nuclear stockpiles a critical part of international policies. Pro-nuclear arguments have been made on the grounds of deterrence and protection from aggressors for smaller countries, while anti-nuclear arguments focus on the unique destructive power of these weapons should they ever actually be used and on the security concerns regarding what state and non-state actors might end up in possession of one.

‘FOR’ Argument: Nuclear weapons allow smaller nations a large-scale destructive power against larger nations to deter potential invasions. Additionally, the already existing technology is widely known, and it is impossible to suppress threat actors from wielding it.

‘AGAINST’ Argument: The perceived protection of nuclear weapons against other nations’ nuclear programs does not compensate for the reality of security concerns, health risks, and costs of maintenance and disposal.

Arguments For

Several renowned scientists, military officials, and long-time diplomats have advocated for denuclearization given its perception of protection against other nations’ nuclear programs does not compensate for the reality of security concerns, health risks, and costs of maintenance and disposal.

1. Ineffective to use nuclear weapons while fearing swift nuclear backlash

   In recent years, more nations have developed nuclear programs allowing access to nuclear-grade weapons. While there is a perceived, theoretical benefit of protection by possessing these weapons, in practice there is no sound strategic argument for deploying these weapons against a nuclear-armed actor without fearing equally destructive retaliation. Rather than other nations, the more likely threat actors to utilize such weapons are terrorist groups who would not fear such suicidal consequences thus rendering a nuclear stockpile to be ineffective.

2. Nuclear innovation drives development that could fall into the hands of violent threat actors

   The push for innovating nuclear weapons to maintain or expand the current stockpile means developing smaller, sleeker, and more destructive weapons. This risks the devices and resources from these innovations falling into the hands of terrorist groups who, as mentioned above, are more likely to deploy nuclear weapons without fearing consequences on themselves.

3. Issues with nuclear weapon security & maintenance

   There have been documented security failings by the military forces responsible for overseeing these weapons that could be exploited by violent threat actors. Additionally, there is an astronomical amount of funding allocated to developing and maintaining the current U.S. nuclear stockpile.

4. Safety concerns for citizens located near nuclear facilities

   In the United States, there have been an estimated 30-1,000 incidents of nuclear mishaps from the mishandling of nuclear-grade weapons. The severity has ranged from miraculously no casualties to several deaths even without widespread nuclear detonation. This could impact people living nearby within the immediate blast radius and could contaminate the environment for a much wider population.

5. The dangers of nuclear waste storage and disposal

   The historic failing to properly handle nuclear waste from dismantled weapons and nuclear power plants would be further exacerbated by contributions from future weapons if planning to maintain the current nuclear stockpile.

Arguments Against

1. It’s too late

   nuclear weapons are by far the most destructive invention in the history of humanity. Many would argue that their invention and initial development was highly unethical or immoral, and I’m not going to argue against that stance – the problem is that it has been too late to prevent their proliferation for decades now. In the state of the world now, a country owning nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent against other countries using their own nuclear weapons or going to conventional war, so the net effect ends up being positive in reducing the amount of war and violence in the world. Ethical framing: utilitarian

2. Freedom & Self-determination

   Many people who argue in favor of gun ownership argue that guns are “force equalizers” in that they provide otherwise vulnerable people the ability to protect themselves from aggressors, no matter the physical strength or size of the aggressor. While I find this framing problematic for gun ownership, I think it is a great analogy for nuclear weapons; the deterrence from nuclear weapon ownership provides vulnerable countries with a force equalizer to maintain their rights to sovereignty and self-determination in the face of aggressors. You can see what has happened to former soviet states who voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons (Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan) or who never had them (Georgia, Moldova) and what has happened to them since in the face of Russian aggression. Compare this to the protection from Russia that the Baltics now have under NATO’s nuclear umbrella or the cessation of conflict between Pakistan and India since both developing nuclear weapons. Ethical framing: Deontological (rooted in freedom/self-determination/rights based)

3. Stability

   Compared to the state of the world prior to and during WWII, the rate of war and conflict has actually gone down since the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You could argue that globalization, alliances, and international law have also contributed to this, but the existence of nuclear weapons in multiple spheres of influence around the world has certainly limited who can attack who in terms of conventional war without fear of nuclear repercussion. Ethical framing: utilitarian or deontological (anti-war)

4. Lack of enforcement ability

   The problem with the Nonproliferation treaties and with denuclearization in general is that once the technology is out there, it is extremely difficult to determine with 100% certainty that either state or non-state actors have gotten rid of all their nuclear weapons. Any country or non-state actor having even a single nuclear weapon gives them the ability to flatten a city, which provides an extremely strong incentive to not get rid of all their nuclear weapons, even if they say that they are going to. This incentive structure will punish countries who take the allegedly morally correct route of getting rid of their nukes while benefitting the countries who don’t by increasing their military power relative to the countries that follow the rules. Ethical framing: utilitarian

Vote Post-Discussion

Become a member/Login and vote You are not logged in. In order to vote, to be notified when there are updates, and new votes are required, you can log in or create an account.