
What defines a country’s power? Today, when analyzing strong militias and affluent economies, obsolete weapons and large armies no longer determine a country’s influence. There is a new era coming to the world, and that is the era of Nuclear Power. More and more countries around the world are developing sizable nuclear arsenals ranging from less than ten weapons to some reaching over six thousand. The big question is: Is this transition towards an era of Nuclear power a good thing, or is it something the world needs to be rid of? The answer to these questions are simple. Nuclear Weapons need to be banned worldwide as they pose the single greatest threat to humanity and even the planet itself.

As the world stands today, only two nuclear weapons have ever been launched with the intent to cause harm. This was when America dropped the Little boy and Fat Man at two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the intent to cause enough destruction to end all attacks towards the US. The United States succeeded as both bombs together totaled a body count of 220,000 Japanese casualties and left numerous more men, women, and children either hurt, poisoned, or burnt from the nuclear radiation. Both bombs were launched in 1945, so how does this affect the world today? As of right now there are an estimated 14,900 nuclear weapons worldwide (Gould, Mosher). If two nuclear weapons can take 220,000 lives, the effect of 14,900 nukes would be catastrophic.

The past can only shed so much light on what will happen in the future but history is known to repeat itself. As of right now the thought of world war three happening is becoming more and more probable since Donald Trump has been elected to office. According to Tom Gillespie and Mark Hodge in their article on The Sun “tense relationships between the world’s major military players means that the outbreak of another global conflict is a distinct possibility” (Gillespie and Hodge). Normally this would not be a problem as conflicts arise overseas all the time and usually tend to blow over but as of right now “Strongman Russian leader Vladimir Putin has also deployed warships to the Baltic Sea carrying nuclear-capable missiles. Russian media claimed the ships were strategically placed to have European cities in their sights” (Gillespie and Hodge). As of right now Russia is thought to have the largest nuclear weapons arsenal and is known to have constructed “Satan 2”, the most powerful Nuclear warhead every created. If that is not enough evidence behind the thought of a World War Three, Trump has claimed that he wants the United States to strengthen its nuclear capabilities and “Trump also slammed America’s NATO allies leading to reports the US could pull [out] of the military alliance which was signed after the Second World War” (Gillespie and Hodge). If World War Three were to start, the global effects would be much less if countries were fighting with soldiers and not with bombs capable of wiping out cities.

One of the reasons why Nuclear Weapons are such a threat to mankind and the planet is their effect on the environment. Nuclear weapons are bombs which take advantage of the power generated when splitting a Uranium or Plutonium nucleus. One side effect of this process though is the release of radiation. As of right now “Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned” (Jha). Setting aside the fact that the explosions themselves would destroy mass amounts of the environment, the effects of radiation, if enough bombs were launched, could drastically affect the world’s climate. 

Now how many bombs would it take to cause damage to the whole world? Not as many as one would think, “In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade” (Jha). As compelling as this evidence is to getting rid of nuclear weapons, many countries believe that the global power received from these weapons outweighs the negative effects they will cause to the world if launched. Now what exactly does devastation to the world’s climate and ecosystems mean? According to Jha research has been conducted that the effect of a small-scale war would result in the deaths of tens of millions, Global temperatures would crash and the world would be unable to grow natural crops for Years after the explosion. Not only that but the ozone layer which protects the world from most of the suns harsh radiation would be depleted by 40% in most places and even up to 70% at the poles. The biggest problem here is that the ozone layer is the only thing keeping the planet from being scorched by the sun’s rays. Yes, the ozone layer does repair itself but a 40% reduction would take an extremely long time to regenerate “More than 30 years after scientists first spotted a hole in the atmosphere's protective ozone layer over the South Pole, they are seeing the first fingerprints of healing” (Deamer and Writer). Are Nuclear Weapons worth creating an uninhabitable world?

To some people, the idea of Nuclear Weapons causing immense amounts of damage to the environment is not enough to create an argument worth hearing. These people believe that the immense power that nuclear weapons give outweighs the possible negative effects associated with nuclear explosions. Not only does an explosion effect the environment, but it also affects the people within the explosion radius in many different ways. To begin, every bomb has a different explosion size and fallout radius, depending on how big the weapon is. The first effects of an explosion are ground zero. This is the averaged 1.88-mile radius which is where the Nuke releases what is known as “The fireball”. Any organic material within this radius is hit with the fireball which vaporizes every part of the body leaving nothing behind. This however is not the worst situation to be in. The reason why Nuclear Weapons are such horrible weapons is because of the effects on people who are within 4.65 miles of the blast, “The radiation radius would stretch to 4.65 miles, coating the whole of London transport zones one and two with a 500-rem radiation dose, which would kill up to 90 per cent of people within weeks” (Gayle). The same thing goes for any wildlife located within this radius. What Gayle is saying in the evidence stated, is that these people located within the 4.65 radius are diagnosed with radiation poisoning which slowly kills them over a few weeks. This includes horrible symptoms similar to a severe form of the flu due to the degeneration of cells within the body. Now most of this would be considered predictions, but due to the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki scientists have been able to study survivors who died a few weeks after the incident and even people still alive today with the radiation absorbed in their cells. The biggest problem with nuclear weapons and the effects on humans is that, while killing is not a good thing, killing someone over time rather than instantly is unethical and creates suffering. The effects that these weapons could have on the environment and the people hit with the explosion completely outweigh the power that is gained from a nuclear arsenal.

In the world, there are 14,900 estimated nuclear weapons as stated above. What is strange is only nine countries out of all 196 in the world make up the 14900, led by the United States and Russia. Both Russia and the U.S. are estimated to have 92% of the world Nuclear Weapons contained in their arsenals. Now, why do only nine out of all the countries in the world have Nuclear Weapons? As of right now almost every country that does not have a nuclear weapons arsenal just does not have the technology and education required to actually construct a weapon containing nuclear capabilities. But there is one country looking to expand its horizon and incorporate a nuclear weapon into its militia and that is Iran. The problem Iran has run into here is that the United States and its negotiating partners struck a deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action making it nearly impossible for Iran to construct a nuclear weapon. The Agreement states “Under the agreement, Iran is permitted to keep only a small amount of low-enriched uranium and is forbidden from enriching it beyond 3.67 percent (for reference, 90 percent is considered weapons-grade uranium)” (Tierney). The reason why many are calling this a success is because Iran is the country which leads the world in terrorist attacks, making a nuclear weapon in their hands a big threat to the everyone. What’s wrong with this though is what makes it ok for America and Russia to have nuclear weapons but a country like Iran is forbidden from having one? Even though Iran is a threat to many countries around the world they should be allowed to create a nuclear weapon as it is something they believe is right. It would be a horrible thing for America and other countries but either every country should be allowed to work with nuclear weapons, or the world should be completely free of them.

Throughout this essay the idea of worldwide nuclear proliferation and the reasons why this is needed have been stated. But is this suggestion even possible? It would be a very challenging proposition as right now no one has an exact number of how many nuclear weapons there are worldwide. Every number posted online is started with the word estimated. Another large problem would be getting every country with nuclear weapons to get on board with this idea since getting rid of a nuclear arsenal will diminish a country’s worldwide power. The final counter argument that could be made is that getting rid of all a countries nuclear weapons would result in a loss of millions to and even billions to the United States and Russia. According to Robert Alveraz from the Institute of Policy Study “In 2015, the United States has an estimated 7,300 nuclear weapons, but the average annual per-unit cost is about $1.8 million—a 500 percent increase in per-warhead cost” (Wellen). From the estimate given here the United States would be looking at a 13-billion-dollar loss if they were to get rid of the whole nuclear arsenal. Russia would be looking at an even greater loss as their nuclear arsenal is a few hundred nukes larger. All of these counter arguments above put forth a strong opposition to my main thesis, but as more and more countries are turning towards Nuclear Power the danger to the worlds environment and safety becomes greater every day. The world is one spark away from Nuclear weapons being volleyed back and forth like a birdie in bad mitten. What leaders of countries need to understand is that with nuclear weapons, nobody is a winner. The radius with which a bomb affects is massive. The problem we face is that there is bound to be another world war in the future. Whether it happens in the next few years, or the next hundred, we cannot be sure but the one thing that is for sure is it will happen again. The biggest question is will nuclear weapons be present in this war?

The thought of worldwide nuclear proliferation is one of the most controversial topics. There are so many arguments that can be stacked on both sides. One side behind the idea of losing money and power if nuclear weapons were banned from the earth while the either side fighting the ethical battle. Neither one is to be considered right as the term right has no meaning but the idea of a nuclear free worldwide wins on the ethical side. World leaders need to learn to look past the idea of power and money and think about the sake and mankind and the world. Having money and a strong influence over the world does not matter if there is no world to live in.
