White 1

Marshal White
Christina Giarrusso
10 December 2016
ENC2135
Abolish or Demolish? A Research Report on the effects of Nuclear Weapons
On the dark day of 6 August 1945, the United States of America made the executive
decision to bomb Hiroshima, Japan with a uranium nuclear weapon. According to the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, this nuclear weapon was solely responsible
for the deaths of just over 140,000 people in only a few short months. Over the course of the
following years, many other people lost their lives to the radiation-based poisoning that lingered
after the explosion of the nuclear weapon. Just a brief three days after the first uranium bomb
was detonated over Hiroshima, the United States had a new plutonium-based nuclear weapon
created and dropped over Nagasaki, Japan. Before January of the following year, over 74,000
people that were living in Nagasaki lost their lives to the explosion and the nuclear radiation
(International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). Both of these nuclear weapons that the
United States used to utterly crush Japan in the first world war were the result of an initiative
called the Allied Manhattan Project. The detonation of these two nuclear bombs has stained
history as mankinds first and last use of nuclear weapons to wipe out large populations of
people.
However, just because nuclear weapons have not been massacring entire cities of people
since the first world war, that goes against the implication that nuclear weapons have since been
permanently decommissioned and done away with for the good of humanity. Unfortunately,
many of the worlds most powerful militaries are centered around nuclear arsenals and massive
strongholds of nuclear warheads with much more destructive capability than the two bombs used

White 2
in 1945. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, only nine
countries possesses a grand sum of over 15,000 nuclear weapons. Of those 15,000, the United
States hold roughly 7,200 warheads and Russia holds about 7,500 warheads making both of these
countries neck and neck in the running for the most dangerous country on planet Earth. Just two
nuclear weapons created in haste during the 1940s were enough to annihilate close to 200,000
people, so what are the implications of 15,000 nuclear weapons created over the course of the
following 70 years? Surely, great strides have been made in technology and the implication that
these current warheads outclass the two bombs from 70 years ago goes without saying. In
essence, if the United States and Russia were to go to nuclear war today, the explosion from the
nuclear weapons alone would enough to wipe out most of the human population. Nuclear
weapon research and development should be halted permanently for the sake of all people
around the globe because:(1) of the ethical dilemmas that result from stockpiling and using
nuclear weapons, (2) the threat that these weapons pose to international security, (3) the
consequences that the environment could suffer in the event of nuclear catastrophe, (4) and the
economic burden that nuclear weapons places on our country.
The most blatant argument from the human rights point of view against nuclear weapons
is based upon the simple truth that nuclear weapons and warheads are capable of instantaneously
destroying hundreds of thousands of people. According to the Arms Control Association,
approximately 23,000 nuclear warheads exist across every country on the planet (remember that
nine countries contain the vast majority of these). Of the 23,000 nuclear weapons, just over 2,000
are given high alert status. This status is given to nuclear weapons and warheads that are able to
be launched instantly at the sight of any given threat that warrants nuclear measures (Arms
Control Association). To make the situation even more dangerous, the nuclear weapons are

White 3
divided among countries with political and military tensions (the United States and Russia, for
example). Unfortunately, the situation continues to worsen. According to the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, many of the countries that are designated Nuclear
Weapon States are in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). Both of these treaties
were put into place by the United Nations in order to diminish the growth of nuclear weapon
arsenals, but just about every country, including the United States, is in violation of these
treaties. According to the Arms Control Association, the Nuclear Weapon States: China, France,
Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States are officially recognized by the Nonproliferation
Treaty and despite the fact that the nuclear arsenals of these countries are considered legitimate,
they are still technically illegal because they violate the treatys proliferation clause that states
that it is illegal for a country to grow and maintain a large nuclear warhead arsenal in perpetuity.
In Article VI of the treaty, each state-party is to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament. Unfortunately, that is not the case. During the year 2000, the five countries that
belong to the Nuclear Weapon States listed above pledged to pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament (armscountrol.org). The five nations have clearly gone against the treaty
and instead pursue the interest of their own respective countries. This has resulted in the growth
of nuclear arsenals on a global scale.
More careful analysis of the human rights perspective shows that the Nuclear Weapon
States are doing much more than simply defying treaties set in place by the United Nations.
According to Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, honorary professor at the University of Pretoria and legal

White 4
advisor to the Swiss delegation in the negotiation of the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, Human rights
laws regulation of the use of force encompasses two core rules. First, any force used must be
only the minimum necessary. Second, force used must be proportionate to the threat (CaseyMaslen 664). Clearly, nuclear weapons are only the minimum necessary force when threatened
with another nuclear weapon. So in essence, nuclear weapons are only considered necessary
because other countries have nuclear weapons. So if no countries were stockpiling nuclear
weapons in the first place, according to international human rights law, nuclear weapons would
never be a necessary circumstance. According to Dr. Nick Ritchie, senior lecturer in the
department of politics at the University of York states that, at some point in a nuclear arms
reduction process a state will face a simple binary choice: deploy a minimum capability in a
minimal way or fall below the threshold and exert zero deterrent effect. The UK and France
argue they are at that point (Ritchie 7). What Dr. Ritchie is pointing out is that the United
Kingdom and France have determined that maintaining their respective nuclear arsenals is not
worth the benefit of nuclear deterrence. It only holds to impede upon human rights and cause
ethical dilemmas.
Coinciding with the argument that nuclear weapons have the ability to desecrate entire
cities of people in an instant, it is not unreasonable to assume then that growing and maintaining
large nuclear arsenals is a threat to security on an international scale. According to Dr. Rebecca
E. Johnson, an executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, If
nuclear weapons were used in a regional conflict no matter where the consequences would
be international (Johnson 178). If approached logically, large-scale nuclear weapons do not
actually solve any of the foreign or domestic conflict seen in the present. If domestic terrorism is
used as an example, as it is one of the most controversial and relevant topics this day in age,

White 5
clearly the United States would have trouble using nuclear weapons to deter terrorists that have
already made it into the country. So if the nuclear weapons display no purpose for domestic
terrorism, what about deterring foreign conflict? The idea that nuclear weapons somehow
prevent conflict from happening is just that, an idea. Nuclear weapons have been the explicit
cause for armed conflicts overseas such as Operation Desert Storm. According to the United
States Air Force Wing Commander Frank Cleminson, the United States invaded the Middle East
on the premise that Saddam Hussein was hiding nuclear and chemical weapons and using them
against citizens in the Iran-Iraq war. It was even believed that he had plans to head research and
development of these weapons in order to wage war with other foreign countries (Cleminson 15).
It is important to note that the United States had no concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein
actually had any of these weapons, but just the idea that nuclear weapons had fallen into
untrustworthy hands was enough to engage in a small-scale war with Middle Eastern countries in
2003. According to Ward Wilson, a senior policy analyst at the British American Security
Information Council, They are clumsy, muscle-bound, expensive, unhandy weapons with little
use except as totems of status. They are very difficult to win a war witheven if you have a
monopoly on their use (Wilson 319). In hindsight, if nuclear weapons had been abolished after
the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is possible that this conflict could have been
prevented in its entirety.
Moving to another example that proves the monumental risk to security of nuclear
weapons, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was arguably the closest the world has been to being
brought to nuclear ruin. According to James E. Doyle, an independent nuclear security specialist
that was on the technical staff of the Nonproliferation Division at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory from 1997 to 2014, We know that nuclear deterrence can fail, either through poor

White 6
decisions, escalation during a crisis, a series of mechanical and human errors, or malicious acts
that lead to inadvertent use. It has nearly failed several times, the most famous example being the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (Doyle 11). Doyle goes on to discuss how in the year 2002, more
information was released that shows just how close the United States came to launching a
nuclear assault that purely the result of an accident. On 26 October 1962, a United States Naval
Destroyer USS Beale was tracking and dropping small charges no larger than hand grenades onto
a Soviet Russian submarine in order to signal it to rise to the surface. Unknown to the US forces,
that soviet submarine was armed with a 15-kilotonne warhead and was strongly considered
defending itself due to the fact that it was surrounded by US ships and was running low on
oxygen for the crew. The captain of the soviet submarine ordered the nuclear warhead to be
armed, but fortunately for every living human on the planet, the submarine brigade commander
was also on board and made the decision to overrule the captains order and saved both countries
from launching nuclear attacks on one anothers fleets (Doyle 13). This is one example of many
provided during the Cuban Missile crisis that brings to light how many times the United States
was inches away from nuclear war with Russia.
One other important argument to consider when analyzing the repercussions of using
nuclear weapons is the domino effect that they have on the environment and all living organisms.
According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, it would take 0.1% of
the explosive yield of the global nuclear arsenal to bring about devastating agricultural collapse
and widespread famine (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons). This
catastrophe would most likely be brought about by the enormous dust cloud created by the
detonation blast. According to the Dr. Ira Helfand, member of the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War, this cloud of dust would likely block up to 10% of the sunlight

White 7
on the planet disrupting the process of photosynthesis that plants use to produce energy
(Helfand 7). It does not take a scientist to understand that if photosynthesis stops, all of the plant
life on Earth will perish. That means that practices such as agriculture and livestock will perish
and the human race will be left with no food. Dr. Helfand also goes on to discuss how the dust
cloud could cause a significant temperature drop by saying the average surface temperature
would be between -7 C and -8 C if only a portion of the global nuclear arsenal was used
(Helfand 11). By means of comparison, the most recent ice age that came about approximately
18,000 years ago left the surface temperature around -5C (Helfand 11). This temperature drop
would disrupt every single ecosystem that exists on the planet. Animals and plants have a
specific range of tolerance that corresponds to a climate, which would be threatened by the drop
in temperature. The tremendous amount of dust in the atmosphere would also affect and inhibit
the formation of clouds causing decreases in rainfall (Helfand 14). That means sunlight, heat, and
rain would all be next to non-existent in the event of nuclear fallout. The combination of climate
disruption and global famine would eventually kill all life on the planet.
After taking into account all of the negative effects that the global nuclear arsenal has on
the world, one might ask, what is the next step? We must work to convince the world leaders that
nuclear weapon arsenals must be diminished and work towards abolishing them entirely.
According to Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton University, and David
Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the greatest obstacle to moving
forward on the path to a world free of nuclear weapons is to be found in the lack of political will
by the leaders of the nuclear-armed countries. They tend to view nuclear weapons as a positive
contribution to their military might, and they seem fearful of giving up these ultimate devices of
annihilation (Falk & Krieger 280). Since the year 2010, the catastrophic humanitarian impact of

White 8
nuclear weapons have featured prominently in discussions among governments and civil society
organizations on ways to advance nuclear disarmament. This emerging discourse on the harm
that nuclear weapons cause to people, societies, and the environment underscores the urgency of
action for the complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The devastating effects
of nuclear weapons have been well documented, and provide a clear rationale for negotiating a
ban. Nuclear-free nations have long complained of the lack of progress being made towards
nuclear disarmament. Many have expressed grave concern at the continuing build-up and
modernization of nuclear forces. Though frustrated, they are not without influence. After all, they
make up the overwhelming majority of states. Working effectively together, they could create a
powerful legal ban on nuclear weapons, which would not only stigmatize the weapons, but
would also build the pressure for disarmament. It is time to abolish the use, production, and
stockpiling of large nuclear weapons before the point of no return.

White 9

White 9
Works Cited
"Arms Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971." Arms
Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971. Web. 15
Oct. 2015.
Casey-Maslen, Stuart. "The use of Nuclear Weapons and Human Rights." International Review
of the Red Cross 97.899 (2015): 663-680. Print.
Cleminson. "Arms Control Today. What Happened to Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?
(2013): 15-36. Print.
Doyle, James E. "Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?" Survival (00396338) 55.1 (2013): 734. Print.
Falk, Richard, and David Krieger. "A Dialogue on Nuclear Weapons." Peace Review 28.3
(2016): 280-7. Print.
Helfand, Md Ira, International Physicians For The Prevention Of Nuclear War, and Physicians
For Social Responsibility. Nuclear famine: a billion people at risk (2005): 7-21. Print.
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons." ICAN | International Campaign to
Abolish Nuclear Weapons. ICAN, Web. 31 Oct. 2016.
Johnson, Rebecca E. "Security without Nuclear Weapons: The Regional-International
Nexus." Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture 19.1/2 (2013):
178. Print.

White 10
Ritchie, Nick. "Waiting for Kant: Devaluing and Delegitimizing Nuclear
Weapons." International Affairs 90.3 (2014): 601-23. Print.

White 10
Wilson, W. "The Gordian Knot: Moral Debate and Nuclear Weapons." ETHICS &
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 27.3 (2013): 319-28. Web.