Is Disarmament Actually Preventing War?

Nuclear non-proliferation has been a main aim of states across the globe for countless years. However, only in the past few years has it been successful. The Cold War era brought consistent animosity and strife between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as they fought a seemingly never-ending arms race. However, as years progressed, the hostility lessened into a virtual nothingness. Now, the United States, Russia and countries around the world have been working to dismantle any nuclear warfare that they have, not only erasing any threats to one another, but creating a new peace that the world hasn’t experienced since the early 1960’s. More importantly is that the U.S. and numerous other countries are working to create peace through nuclear non-proliferation and winning the war against war. Despite this welcome advancement in world peace, critics question many issues surrounding disarmament, especially of the vulnerabilities that nuclear non-proliferation will bring to the United States without a strong source of warfare to protect us. The plan for nuclear peace between Russia and the U.S. is under controversy, as many wonder how much peace it will actually ensure. Furthermore, the dismantling of the B53 bomb brings into question the security and success of plans for future types of warfare and protection. Therefore, even if disarmament has extinguished one type of war that has sparked the fear of millions throughout recent history, it is igniting a new fear for newer wars in the future. In this sense, disarmament is simply creating even more war, instead of defeating it.

Starting around 1961 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union had constant tension that led to an arms race sparking fear among millions. Although treaties have been put into place for a couple decades, only recently has nuclear disarmament truly been enacted. Last Tuesday, the U.S. began dismantling the “last of the nation's most powerful nuclear bombs” (US). The dismantling of the B53 bomb, which was “put into service in 1962, when Cold War tensions peaked during the Cuban Missile Crisis,” marks the end of a dismantling program that the U.S. began in an effort to create a more secure peace surrounding nuclear warfare (US). According to Joe Cirincione, the dismantling of nuclear weapons and finally the last B53 bomb is “a chapter of the old War that we are putting behind us” (Fox). Thomas D'Agostino, the nuclear administration's chief, called the bomb's elimination a "significant milestone." According to Hans Kristensen, a spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists, the B53's disassembly ends the era of big megaton bombs.

However, despite the countless advantages of a nuclear safe world, others call upon many concerns. Many question how sure the United States is that Russia is also dismantling their nuclear stockpile. Many worry that a lack of nuclear warfare will put the United States into a state of vulnerability that would in turn allow for Russia to attack the United States (Fox). “Among other criticisms, US opponents of the treaty argued Russia would have reduced stockpiles anyway as its arsenal aged, so the US had no reason to agree to scrap its own nuclear arms” (BBC). In order to quell these apprehensions, “US President Barack Obama has signed an arms treaty with Russia that would reduce the nations' nuclear arsenals and bolster verification mechanisms” (BBC). The treaty allows for the two countries to inspect the dismantling of the nuclear weapons and creates procedures for the handling during and after the process (Fox). “The New Start treaty, agreed to by Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, limits each side to no more than 800 deployed nuclear warhead delivery systems (including bombers, missile launchers and nuclear submarines), a cut of about 50%. It limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads” (BBC). “He [President Obama] indicated that he hoped to use (the) treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations” (Sanger). According to the president, “we are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole.” In this case, the U.S. has created a peace between the countries that will prevent another war.

Others are upset over the restriction of the construction of new nuclear warfare. Instead, they must “modernize the stockpile of nuclear weapons that we already have “ (Weighing). However, Sanger points out that the United States has not put to use any of the nuclear weapons in any of our current stockpile. Therefore, this should not be an issue at all. President Obama also felt it would be hypocritical to create new weapons when we are urging other countries like Japan and North Korea to eliminate their supplies (Weighing).

Moreover, many question whether the disarmament of these nuclear weapons will simply provoke attacks from other countries. According to David Sanger of the New York Times, a nuclear attack on the United States would not be from another state, but from a nuclear group (Weighing). In order to solve this issue, President Obama says that it is important for other states to destroy their nuclear weapons as well so that there is no way for terrorists to get their hands on them (Weighing). Furthermore, although we aren’t using nuclear weapons, “we can knockout most of the command structures we need with non-nuclear weapons“ that the U.S. now has (Fox). “Today's bombs are smaller but more precise, reducing the amount of collateral damage” lessening the damage that older nuclear weapons could have potentially caused (US). Mr. Obama stated that “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons, and make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances. However, in this instance, the U.S. is not eliminating war, but instead shifting the way that they fight war.

Perhaps one of the most alarming issues of the nuclear non-proliferation is the American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons (Sanger). “Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions” (Sanger). “For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack” (Sanger). Critics feel that this policy creates a situation in which the U.S. is basically welcoming attacks from other countries. Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. It appears that the U.S. is not preventing attacks from other countries, just basically asking them to attack us in a new way, and saying that we won’t attack them back. This too, does not seem to be obliterating any type of war.

There appears to be many loopholes in the seemingly ideal non-proliferation actions taken by the U.S., Russia and perhaps more countries around the world. Although it first appears to be a successful defeat of the always possible nuclear warfare, the policy welcomes the introduction of new types of warfare and opens the United States up to new vulnerabilities that we did not have before. However, the disarmament of these nuclear weapons does not mean that our entire stockpile has been destroyed, just the strongest. And maybe, this is satisfactory for the millions that remember the terror that spread across the globe during the Cold War era and can be accepted by those who did not experience that, as they can safely say that they do not have to worry about nuclear warfare evoked by another state.


Works Cited
"BBC News - New Start Treaty: Obama Signs US-Russia Nuclear Papers." BBC - Homepage. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .
Sanger, David E., and Peter Baker. "Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 05 Apr. 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .
"U.S. Dismantles Last B53 Mega Nuke Bomb - Fox News Video - Fox News." Fox News Video News Breaking Video News Updates Latest News Videos. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. .
"US's Most Powerful Nuclear Bomb Being Dismantled - Yahoo! News." Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .
"Weighing Nuclear-Free Options - Video Library - The New York Times." Video Library Home Page - The New York Times. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .