Why Nuclear Deterrence Is a Dangerous Myth

Why Nuclear Deterrence is a Dangerous Myth

The detonation of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki welcomed a new era of war into the world. Whilst World War 2 brought six years of suffering, its physical effects will last for a fraction of time compared to the everlasting wreckage caused by a war fought with nuclear weapons. In other words, war has changed.

Since 1923, there has been just over 53,000 deaths from aviation accidents, including plane crashes, and tragic events such as 9/11. There have only ever been two hostile nuclear explosions, yet they've caused 315% more deaths than every aviation accident in the last 96 years combined. Two 15 megaton bombs caused the death of 220,000 deaths. Not all of these were instant: the radiation and fallout lingers from the bombs liners, invisible to the eye, slowly killing through burns, radiation and the gradual development of cancer. Unlike in fiction, a large dose of radiation didn't turn anyone into a mutant, a ghoul, or a bearer of super human abilities. All it did was create irradiated corpses. The usage of nuclear weapons was, and still is so devastating; a whole new unit had to be created: a mega death. One mega death is equal to 1 million fatalities due to a nuclear explosion.

Despite the clear devastation caused from the use of nuclear weapons, the response was an arms race. Nations began developing and testing nuclear weapons. Yet not a single one was used in an attack. Many say this was due to the concept of nuclear deterrence. A seemingly rational arrangement that insures international peace would be created through the threat of mutually assured destruction.

In 1955, Winston Churchill stated 'safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.'

Quickly deterrence became less of a strategy, and more an excuse to justify nuclear weapons themselves. All governments that now possess nuclear weapons claim that they are attempting to deter attacks by threat of their own catastrophic retaliation.

However, to some, it seems clear that deterrence does not live up to the principle its title and reputation suggests. Many believe that the public has been distracted by deterrence's promise of safety and peace and missed the danger that is still looming over them.

The main trust in deterrence comes from one thing: That it has supposedly worked before.

Supporters of nuclear deterrence pin it as the main reason World War 3 has been avoided, despite several instances of tension such as the Cold War. They also encourage the belief that deterrence was the driving cause of the fall of the Soviet Union, and consequently the defeat of Communism, as the Wests weaponry stopped the USSR from invading Western Europe.

In reality, history suggests that the United States and Soviet Union avoided world war for multiple reasons, the most prominent being neither side wanted to go to war. Before the nuclear age, the US and Russia never fought in a war, thus claiming nuclear weapons suddenly were the only thing keeping the two countries from fighting is like saying an unplugged, broken toaster never made toast because no one tried putting bread in it. There is no way to show that nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold war, or that they do now.

There is also no evidence that the Soviet Union ever actually wanted or could justify invading Western Europe, or that they were afraid to do so because of the Wests nuclear weapons.

Deterrence supporters are like people who carry garlic cloves to scare away vampires, even though most know vampires are completely fictional. When they are told nobody has ever even seen a vampire, they will simply respond with, "then you must see that it works!" instead of realising the reality of their illogical beliefs.

As the people in danger from nuclear war, we should not be congratulating our leaders, or deterrence theory, and especially nuclear weapons, for keeping the peace.