Ethical Consideration of Using Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

Ethical Considerations of Using Nuclear Weapons Introduction The dawn of August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945, when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not only put the last nail in the coffin of Second World War but at the same time, initiated a huge debate about the ethical considerations of using nuclear weapons. This paper is an attempt to explore the same debate from various perspectives and analyze, explore and evaluate the arguments. However, the paper strongly believes that “nuclear weapons are immoral, unnecessary, illegitimate tools of mass destruction which not only dehumanize the enemy but also take the lives of millions of people and also impact their coming generations” (Cirincione, pp. 64-67). Discussion As mentioned earlier, it was during August 1945 that the world witnessed how destructive and horrendous are impacts of a nuclear bomb but the “nuclear weapons age” formally began a month later from this event on July 16, 1945 at 5:29am. The scientists chose a quite area of the New Mexico desert and that place of the experiment is now known as Jornado de Muerto (Journey of Death) (Paul, pp. 314). The energy from that experimental explosion was so immense that people sitting 150 miles away could feel the shockwaves in the form of a brief earthquake. The explosion created so much light that all the mountains in the neighborhood became visible. The explosion produced its first mushroom shape cloud of smoke which would later go on to redefine the human existence on this planet. J. Robert Oppenheimer who was the Chief scientist and director of Manhattan Engineer District of the War Department project uttered the words from Bhagvand Geeta, which sum up the entire situation. He said, “Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds” (Krepon, pp. 19-23). As the world enters into the second decade of the 21st century, nine countries have the possession of 32000 nuclear weapons having more than eight thousand megatons of energy, which is more than enough to destroy not only the planet earth and even mars given that if these weapons are used strategically. More importantly, these weapons could give too much liberty to the people, groups, and nations who possess it thus putting the liberty of entire humankind in jeopardy (Laurenti & Robichaud, pp. 109-112). Furthermore, the human history has shown, repeatedly, that whenever human beings have had access to so much liberty, they have gone to behave in the same way as defined by Thomas Hobbes in its “state of nature”. This is the state when there is no government or law and order (and in this case, nuclear weapons are powerful than the governments thus disdaining the existence of the governments) and it would be a society where it would be one against all. There would not be any injustice because there would be no law since “might is right” would rule the day (Cirincione, pp. 64-67). People who support the idea of nuclear weapons fail to understand the disastrous impacts and the level of destruction, which it can bring when used. During any nuclear explosion, for the first few fractions of second, the temperature of the fireball created by the nuclear explosion will be more than the temperature of the surface of sun and that is more than 6000 degree centigrade (Tannenwald, pp. 220). Due to its high temperature, it will radiate heat and light to within several miles of the denotation point and people in the surroundings will not explode but they would actually be evaporated in such a way that there would remain no trace of them. Even within the three miles radius of the denotation point, the intense light flash and heat would cause the carbonization of the skin, ignition of the clothing and the sand particles in the surrounding would explode like popcorn having the potential to cause enough damage to humans. Experts believe that nuclear explosions have the capability of setting fires in any dry objects, which are in the radius of 100 square miles (Lee, pp. 102-103; Paul, pp. 314). General George Lee Butler, who served as the former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Strategic Air Command (1991–92) and U.S. Strategic Command (1992–94), expresses his views regarding the use of nuclear weapons in the following words. General Butlers says, “Despite all the evidence, we have yet to fully grasp the monstrous effect of these weapons, that the consequences of their use defy reason, transcending time, and space, poisoning the Earth and deforming its inhabitants. Nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, and militarily inefficient” (Perkovich, Acton & International Institute for Strategic Studies, pp. 52-53). Quite understandably, by acknowledging, legalizing and justifying the presence or stocking of nuclear weapons by countries, the humankind would be accepting nuclear weapons as the last resort arbiter for solving global conflict would mean that people all around the globe would be living their lives under perpetual anxiety. Even worse is the fact that it allows governments and people to consider using their extremely dangerous instincts when other options for solving problems fail (Reed & Stillman, pp. 99-102; Laurenti & Robichaud, pp. 109-112). Important here to note is that throughout the human history, whenever communities, nations, and societies have tried to win wars, they have done the same with dehumanizing their enemy in front of their people. When Hitler wanted his armies and people to initiate mass killings of Jews and non-Germans, he presented those communities, races, and groups of people as less inferior human beings, or non-humans who are non-worthy of life since they are a threat to the existence of superior human beings. Americans did the same in the Second World War by dehumanizing the Japanese, which made it easy for their soldiers to accept the fact that with their bombs and bullets, they killed millions. However, important here to understand is the fact that in process of dehumanizing their enemies and killing them brutally, they themselves become the inferior forms of humans (Cirincione, pp. 64-67; Sorabji & Rodin, pp. 142-143). When humans develop the ability to use nuclear weapons against their fellow human beings, the ones whom he does not know properly or has not seen them, before most of whom are innocent, or even if charged guilty even then their guilt is far away from being proved, this is nothing but a disgrace to the entire human civilization. Putting the security and safety of one’s own community and disregarding the value of lives of other innocent people is something, which is contrary to human rights, and the basic principles lay down by religions (Perkovich, Acton & International Institute for Strategic Studies, pp. 52-53). Another opposition to the idea of nuclear weapons is rooted in the fact that the term “nuclear weapon” in itself is an oxymoron. According to its definition, a weapon is any device, tool, or machine used as the commonest method to resolve conflicts and combats. If one party in the conflict or combat has possession of better weapons this imbalance of power would allow that party to decide the final stage of the conflict, which is the determination of a “winner” and “loser”. On the other hand, any war fought with “nuclear weapons” (considering that both parties have the possession of nuclear weapons) would leave both the parties on the losing side. There would be any winner. As mentioned earlier, that weapons can help in resolving conflicts and creating an imbalance of power, however, in the case of “nuclear weapons” the same is not true (Krepon, pp. 19-23; Tannenwald, pp. 220). Immanuel Kant who is also known as the Christ of Enlightenment has also put forward his theory of ethics and categorical imperative remains an important pillar of Kantian ethics. Kant’s ethical theory presents two important principles, which if considered, would lead to the development of ethical actions and ethical principles (Lee, pp. 102-103). First, one should always support principles and perform such actions, which fulfill the test of universality and reversibility. This means that one could apply that law or action under all circumstances and to all people. Individuals who support breaking of traffic should ask themselves that is this proposition is applicable to all situations. If someone had stolen something from them, would they stick to their position? Second, one should try to explore the answer to the question that whether this action, law, or principle treats humans as ends in themselves or means to an end (Amstutz, pp. 35-38; Paul, pp. 314). Applying these classical and well-known ethical principles to the current case, it is evident that possession of nuclear weapon cannot be considered as an ethical action. The country that hold nuclear weapons as of today, do not want other countries to use acquire weapons despite the fact that the number of weapons, which these countries hold are beyond their capacity to use. Iran and North Korea are the examples of the countries, which have come under strict scrutiny due to their possession of nuclear weapons (Laurenti & Robichaud, pp. 109-112). Second, use of nuclear weapons or even possession of the same is on the contrary to treating people as ends in themselves. By killing people or threatening to them, governments, nations, and establishments try to achieve their means of power, money and others, and quite understandably, innocent human beings become means to an evil end but not end in them (Reed & Stillman, pp. 99-102; Rublee, pp. 130-132). It is imperative here to understand and explore the arguments put forward by the group of people who hold the view that it is morally and ethically right to possess and increase the possession, dissemination, and use of nuclear weapons. Their arguments are based in the theory of ethical egoism and the practical situation of the globe. Nietzsche believed that ethical actions are those, which benefit you in the long run. The theory believes that only by only being self-interested, rational, and egocentric, one could benefit the society and label his or her actions as ethical. Furthermore, these people also try to find the rationale behind their argument in the current global situation (Quinlan, pp. 204-205; Sorabji & Rodin, pp. 142-143). Balance of power is one the most crucial imperatives for peace, justice and equality. In the absence of imbalance of power, the party or country with the upper hand is most likely to bully the other party or country, which may lead to injustice as well. Consider the case of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia (known as Soviet Union at that time). The prime reason behind Joseph Stalin wanting to make Russia a nuclear power was that in the early 1940s, the Soviet intelligence had strong information about the allied scientists working on a similar project. By the end of the year 1942, that information became so strong that Soviet Union had no choice but to initiate a high-level program to enable Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. Due to the leadership and expertise of Dr. Andrei Sakharov and Dr. Igor Kurchatov, Soviet Union was able to test its first nuclear weapon successfully on August 29, 1949 (Rublee, pp. 130-132; Dower, pp. 85-87). Another case in this regard would be of Pakistan and India. Since their independence on August 141 1947 and August 15, 1947 respectively, these countries have been archrivals and have fought three wars in the past 60 years. Any political, military, social, or economic development in either of these countries creates enough ripples to cause related changes in the other countries as well. Pakistan started its nuclear program during the early 1970s and the prime reason behind the same was the threats of India and intelligence information regarding India working on nuclear projects (Sorabji & Rodin, pp. 142-143). It was in the year 1974 that India successfully tested its first nuclear missile. This put immense pressure on Pakistan and ensured that the country maintained a defensive and submissive policy against its earth rivals. During the late 1990 when relations between Pakistan and India became very strained, Pakistan finally came up on the scene with its successful testing of nuclear weapons on May 28, 1998 that allowed the country to look its rival in the eye again (Amstutz, pp. 35-38). The prime reason behind presenting these scenarios of rivals US-Russia and Pakistan-India was to put forward the point that since the day when the scientists of United States made it the first nation state to hold nuclear weapons, it became imperative for almost every other nation to acquire these weapons in order to ensure their national security (Quinlan, pp. 204-205). Despite signing the NPT, the five countries, which are signatories of NPT, United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom, still possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire humanity (Dower, pp. 85-87; Paul, pp. 314). Despite the fact that these countries have brought systematic reduction to its nuclear warheads, the threat of attack on other countries will remain there until and unless there is complete demolition of these weapons from every nation on this planet. Until that point, acquiring nuclear weapons is a logical and rational step taken by the governments to ensure their national security (Perkovich, Acton & International Institute for Strategic Studies, pp. 52-53). Furthermore, in extension to the above-mentioned point, the possession of nuclear weapons by a few countries and the threat of its use is an effective deterrent of war. During decades of cold war, the US and USSR did not convert their conflict into a war because the countries knew that both the nations possess nuclear weapons and having a war would be equivalent to inviting death to the entire humanity (Reed & Stillman, pp. 99-102). Conclusion Despite the fact that nuclear weapons may have been imperative in the past for nations in order to maintain balance of power but considering its impacts and potential, it has become imperative to create a new balance of power by eliminating these weapons from the face of earth. Allowing any nation or group of people to hold these weapons, regardless of their promises to never use it, is still a proposition, which puts the existence of life on its planet at stake. Even the greatest mind of the 20th century also believes that “The unleashing of power of the atom bomb has changed everything except our mode of thinking, and thus we head toward unparalleled catastrophes” (Amstutz, pp. 35-38; Dower, pp. 85-87). Furthermore, in light of many ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Rawlsian ethics and others, nuclear weapons and their use appears to be unethical. The ethical consideration regarding the use of nuclear weapons is not to use them at all. As a noted expert one said, “Bullets kill men, but atomic bombs kill cities. A tank is a defense against a bullet, but there is no defense against a weapon that can destroy civilization. . . . Our defense is law and order” (Perkovich, Acton & International Institute for Strategic Studies, pp. 52-53). Works Cited Amstutz, Mark R. International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005 Cirincione, Joseph. Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. Columbia University Press, 2008. Dower, Nigel. The ethics of war and peace: cosmopolitan and other perspectives. Polity, 2009 Krepon, Michael. Better safe than sorry: the ironies of living with the bomb. Stanford University Press, 2009. Laurenti, Jeffrey, & Robichaud, Carl. Breaking the nuclear impasse: new prospects for security against weapons threats. Century Foundation Press, 2007. Lee, Steven P. Morality, Prudence, and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Paul, T. V. The tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons. Stanford University Press, 2009 Perkovich, George, Acton, James, & International Institute for Strategic Studies. Abolishing nuclear weapons. Routledge for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2008. Quinlan, Michael. Thinking about nuclear weapons: principles, problems, prospects. Oxford University Press, 2009. Reed, Thomas C. & Stillman, Danny B. The nuclear express: a political history of the bomb and its proliferation. Zenith Imprint, 2009 Rublee, Maria Rost. Nonproliferation norms: why states choose nuclear restraint. University of Georgia Press, 2009. Sorabji, Richard, & Rodin, David. The ethics of war: shared problems in different traditions. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006. Tannenwald, Nina. The nuclear taboo: the United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Read More