The Moral Question of the Nuclear Bomb
Aby April 15th, 2007
Some months ago, I had to face the ire of one of my pacifist friends regarding my stance on nuclear bombs. I was of the opinion that in light of post-World War 2 realities, it was necessary for some countries to maintain a sizeable nuclear force, as a credible deterrance against serious enemy threats. She, a Greenpeace activist and a masters in political science, felt that any approval of nuclear weapons is inherently amoral and against humanity. This outrage from a political scientist made me ponder over the question - who or what decides the morality of a country possessing nuclear weapons? Is surrendering to a nuclear capable enemy more humanistic than having a credible nuclear defence?
The Nazi massacres and US nuclear bombings of Japanese cities shocked the world at the extent of brutality that some nations would go to, for power or victory. The outcome of World War 2 was a painful lesson on realpolitik, in a world where morality is dictated by nations who weild power. It become righteous for a winning country to exterminate over 200,000 civilians, in order to terrorise the enemy and bring an adversary to despair. The act was a lesson unto itself, that it no longer matters what you do or did to win, so long as you are the victor. A classic case of “the ends justify the means”.
The victory of USSR and US in the World War 2 created two new superpowers, with opposing political ideologies. This conflict of ideologies created an intense bitter rivalry between these two mights, with one side threatening to use nuclear weapons against the other if faced with their conventional might. The lessons of Nazi brutality in World War 2 were enough to teach the Soviet political leadership that such threats are often painfully real, often with devastating consequences. Hence, the Soviets launched a nuclear weapons development program, headed by Igor Kurchatov, to negate the American threats of a nuclear holocaust on Russia. The success of Soviet nuclear program drastically changed the US foreign policy towards USSR to one of detente (peaceful coexistence), rather than of war. It was also another political lesson for the world, that posession of nuclear weapons are the most powerful insurance against foreign aggressors.
The fireball from the site of Chinese 506 nuclear test (Photo by Wikimedia)
After Russia insured itself from Anglo-American threats, it was China’s turn to face the heat. It had to contend with constant nuclear blackmails by Britain and United States during the Taiwan crisis of the 50s and 60s. Mao Zedong realised that China would be unable to command a diplomatic quid pro quo relationship from US without being a nuclear power. Hence, he pushed China to a race for nuclear warhead and missile developement programs. It was met with success in October 16, 1964, when the 506 test brought China to the fold of nuclear countries. Following this development and the deployment of DF-3A missile, the United States changed its policy towards the People’s Republic of China. The sabre rattling and nuclear threats of the Anglo-Americans gave way to diplomatic ties, and by effect, peaceful coexistence (which continues to this day).
These lessons were not missed by countries like India, Iran or North Korea, who realised that the only way to insure themselves from an foreign aggression is to nuclearise themselves. As it is, diplomacy and peaceful coexistence between adversaries happens only when both sides command a level playing field. Morality and ethics can only go so far.
Possibly Related posts:
- Mutually Assured Destruction in Nuclear Politics
- United States vs China - Consequences of a Nuclear War
- China vs United States: Nuclear Arms Race
- US vs Russia vs China - Nuclear Warhead Stockpiles
- China’s No First Use Policy
- Internationalism , World Politics
- Comments(4)
Loading ...
[...] up like Iraq or Vietnam and we didn’t. Thanks to the big sticks called nuclear bombs and ICBMs. The Moral Question of the Nuclear Bomb __________________ I have removed by avatar on this forum because of the unwritten rule where [...]
[...] and the Dresden massacre has the latter objective in mind, the stance changed when Stalin had the Первая молния nuclear test in 1948 and showed even he could impress by killing dissidents. [...]
I maintain that attaining and retaining nuclear weapons is immoral, however strong the logical appeal may be. I think in order to have any credible discussion on this topic, the agreement must come in the form of strict definitions. The problem is, if too many nuclear weapons exist, and are controlled by an increasing number of nations, an accidental fire — the Cold War has taught us that not only is this possible, but is very likely in a heightened state of paranoia — would trigger nuclear exchange.
So no, it is logical to have deterrence against aggressors; it is moral to defend a people of a nation. But to fulfill either of the two via nuclear weapons in no way constitutes morality, unless it is deemed a moral choice — and we know how easily manipulated that is.
There is NOTHING moral about nuclear weapons. What victory would it be if you defeated your adversary but also destroyed yourself. That would be the only outcome of a nuclear war. If you had to destroy the world to prove a political, religious or economic point then you wasted your time for not even yourself could benefit from your victory because we would all be dead.
War itself whether conventional or non conventional is immoral. Is it the leaders of the nations that die…..no its the poor who have no power or say in the matter they are the ones who are sent out to die.