Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, nuclear weapons have stood at the forefront of geopolitics and relations between all countries. Nuclear weapons are possibly the most powerful weapon for a nation’s military to possess,  but the rampant fear and escalation present at the closing of the Cold War has lead some to call for total disarmament. There is a population that believes nuclear weapons are vital for a country to be relevant on the global scale, while a contrary group believes that the risks of total nuclear annihilation are far too great and that no man or nation should be able to wield that much power.
Nuclear weapons provide several unique benefits due to their immense power: the first of these is nuclear deterrence. To begin, one must define the word “deterrence.” There is a difference between defense and deterrence. To elaborate, defense is making the cost of attacking too high and thus making sure no aggressive nation attacks, but defense, however, has no threat of retaliation. Deterrence is a more effective strategy due to the this threat. Deterrence creates peace by making sure that if an aggressive nation were to attack, they would take horrific casualties and thus make the cost of attacking too high to consider. This policy of deterrence has existed since the U.S. stopped being the only nuclear power in the world. Due to the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, nuclear policy has primarily centered around making use of nuclear weapons without ever actually utilizing them against another nation. One may question the purpose of nuclear weapons if they should never be used. The use of them comes primarily in political influence. In his paper, The Case in Favor of US Nuclear Weapons, Dr. Robert G. Spulak states, “Nuclear weapons and the threats they imply can be used explicitly (although not without risk) to protect U.S. interests” (par. 25). Attacking any overseas or domestic asset of a nuclear state risks nuclear retaliation, even though it is not a likely outcome. Having nuclear arms to provide a looming threat of total destruction provides stability towards the assets of a country. Another aspect of nuclear deterrence is the prevention of nuclear war by other nuclear states. “Nuclear weapons are uniquely effective for deterrence because they are enormously destructive and can be delivered in swift retaliation” (Spulak par. 15). In the hypothetical scenario that another nuclear state were to aggressively use its arsenal, the U.S. could quickly deliver devastating strikes to both population centers and strategic military assets of the belligerent country. To take this threat of second strike further, Mutually Assured Destruction, or M.A.D. is a scenario in which no country can utilize its nuclear arsenal at all because in doing so, they would be completely destroyed by other any other country in possession of nuclear weapons. M.A.D. is the most significant contributor to the Cold War never going “hot”. There were several proxy wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, but the United States and U.S.S.R. never directly engaged each other with conventional forces. For nuclear deterrence to be effective, a country has to be both ready and willing to utilize their weapons in the event of a nuclear war. Simply stockpiling weapons without keeping them at the ready does not allow for second strike capability, the most important aspect of M.A.D. Nuclear deterrence additionally has several other benefits such as providing smaller nations a massive force multiplier. Israel has developed their nuclear program for this reason exactly. Although they initially did so in secrecy, the Israeli government will now  recognize their nuclear arsenal, though they will not specify what it may contain. As to reason they were so quick to develop nuclear technology, is the existence of multiple aggressive countries surrounding them. Their possession of nuclear weapons gives them a trump card in any conventional war. Additionally, a country may want nuclear weapons because it cannot match its adversaries in a conventional war. North Korea, for example, has made an aggressive push towards developing nuclear arms in the 21st century. Due to their rivalry with the far more modernized and globally assisted Republic of Korea (South Korea), North Korea desires nuclear weapons to help bridge the gap of conventional strength between the two countries. The United States actively opposes North Korea’s policy of nuclear research due to their “dubious” morals. As part of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil”, North Korea does not have healthy relations with both the U.S. and almost every other country on Earth, save China. And now, even China does not actively support them as they used to. The U.S. fears North Korean nuclear arms because for every new nuclear state, nuclear deterrence grows weaker. Nuclear deterrence is strongest in a bipolar (Bipolar meaning power is largely invested within 2 major groups) world, such as the Cold War. Because of this, the United States protects its nuclear secrets with great care and does not share them willingly. Other nations do not hold their secrets so tightly. France has given assistance in developing a nuclear program to several nations such as India, Israel, and Pakistan. The American policy of non-proliferation is an attempt to limit the number of nuclear weapons globally because as the number increases, risk of use or accidents increases too. This risk is especially compounded when states with a history of civil unrest, such as Pakistan, gain access to nuclear weapons. If a revolution were to occur and these nuclear weapons were to fall into the wrong hands, millions could die. This risk is why most modern countries have taken up a policy of peaceful negotiation and non-proliferation; however, non-proliferation and democracy are not effective methods of maintaining global peace on their own. For this reason, nuclear deterrence will always have a place within American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
	Though the positives of nuclear deterrence can be weighed against the risks of nuclear proliferation fairly equally, it does not change the fact that any state that is missing a nuclear arsenal is at a significant disadvantage towards any state that does both in terms of geopolitical influence and conventional military strength for several reasons. One of the major reasons the United States and its allies maintain their nuclear arsenals is for the unlikely, but possible use against another country in protection of their people and territory. As discussed earlier, nuclear weapons provide a powerful deterrent towards aggressive action. But what if a country lacked them? Without threat of nuclear retaliation, a nuclear state is free to launch both conventional and nuclear strikes against a country without threat of secondary nuclear strike. Without having some form of second strike capability, there is no effective counterattack to a comprehensive nuclear strike by the enemy. Though risking the lives of millions of people is not ideal, it is the only solution. “Nuclear weapons have this dual nature: they are the only possible solution to the problems they pose” (Spulak par. 8). Though some may argue nuclear war is unlikely in the 21st century, it does not change the fact that merely possessing nuclear weapons will force every country in the world, no matter how big or small, to take someone seriously. Everyone has their own reasoning or motivation to develop nuclear weapons and the international influence that comes with them is certainly among them. “By building nuclear weapons a country may hope to enhance its international standing. This is thought to be both a reason for and a consequence of developing nuclear weapons. One may enjoy the prestige that comes with nuclear weapons” (Waltz par. 44). As stated then, there is something unique about nuclear weapons in a country’s global influence. Even immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union when they were at their weakest, Russia was still a global force due to their massive nuclear stockpiles and weapons still readied and aimed. One popular counterpoint to the increased international standing is that nuclear weapons are proliferated purely to serve the egos of the leaders of a country; however, this accusation is plainly untrue for the following reasons: no other weapon can match the effectiveness of nuclear weapons, without WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction) the U.S. cannot protect its allies against nuclear strike, and lack of nuclear weapons gives any country in possession of them significant leverage against one that does not. As Dr. Robert Spulak states in “The Case in Favor of U.S. Nuclear Weapons”
 Since we absolutely cannot achieve the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons and the knowledge of how to construct them, policies and actions that appear to move in that direction will always fail the test of plausibility. But since these policies and actions would be undertaken in the name of "reducing nuclear danger," they acquire a respectability that they have not earned through critical examination. (par. 36).
	Though their main benefits primarily come from merely threatening to use them, nuclear weapons provide unmatched power in any situation they are employed in. The first and most well-known usage of nuclear weapons is that of the I.C.B.M. (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). An I.C.B.M. is similar to the sort of rocket that carries a satellite into space, for example. The main difference being that instead of a satellite, it is carrying several dozen independently targeted reentry vehicles all equipped with nuclear warheads almost one hundred times stronger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even a single missile, targeted properly, could kill millions of people. This has been the primary delivery vehicle for the United States, Russia, and the former Soviet Union. In addition to I.C.B.M.’s, most militaries have several other delivery methods developed for their nuclear devices. This diversification of assets is an attempt to make sure that in the event of nuclear war, some nuclear warheads would be delivered in second strike regardless of damage to other weapons. After I.C.B.M.’s, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and the People’s Republic of China all possess nuclear-powered submarines equipped with nuclear tipped S.L.B.M.’s (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles). The primary advantage of S.L.B.M.’s is that they cannot be destroyed quickly due to the nature of the submarine they are carried on. One of the major drawbacks is that nuclear submarines are both incredibly expensive to operate and difficult to build. This does not stop them from being both the United Kingdom and France’s primary delivery method. They allow a country with relatively low military spending to “punch above its weight” and still be a relevant geopolitical force. After I.C.B.M.’s and S.L.B.M.’s, the last main method for delivering nuclear warheads at a strategic level is bombers. Currently, the United States Air Force maintains several heavy bombers capable of delivering both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons such as the B2 Spirit, B1 and B1B Lancer, the B-52 Stratofortress, and the P-2 Neptune. Other prolific strategic nuclear bombers include the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, the primary strategic bomber of Russia, and the Avro Vulcan, only recently retired by the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force). After I.C.B.M.’s, S.L.B.M.’s, and strategic bombers, the methods of delivery for nuclear payload become far more varied and eccentric. Though built in small numbers, a menagerie of tactical nuclear weapons was developed throughout the Cold War. Interesting examples include the Davy Crockett nuclear mortar, the Mark 45 nuclear torpedo, and a wide variety of nuclear artillery shells, air to air missiles, and dozens of other conveyance systems. During the Cold War, almost anything that carried conventional explosives had some sort of nuclear derivative. No matter what is carrying them, nuclear weapons are incredibly devastating across the board. The final benefit to their strength is that further weapons developments do not rule older devices irrelevant. Any army attempting to field infantry armed with Napoleonic muskets would be destroyed handily by an army equipped with modern rifles; however, dropping a primitive nuclear weapon such as Little Boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, would still cause massive casualties. “One side’s missiles are not made obsolete by improvements in the other side’s missiles” (Waltz par. 29). This means that any nation who develops nuclear weapons has an incredibly potent weapon regardless of any possible advancements in technology. This staying power of nuclear arms is why Russia’s relatively antiquated missile fleet is still a force to be reckoned with. Nuclear arms provide a colossal force multiplier that does not lose potency as it ages. This permanence makes them unquestionably the most powerful weapons ever developed by man.
	The advantages of a nation’s possession of nuclear arms are undeniable, but one may begin to question the disadvantages that come with them. One of the primary negatives to the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the issue of radioactive waste. Both the creation and the maintenance of the physics packages, or the part that creates the nuclear explosion, creates a significant amount of hazardous waste that requires special procedures to store and must be closely guarded in storage. The reason for this protection is that any terrorist organization could conceivably utilize the radioactive waste in a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is an explosive device that scatters radioactive material in a populated area in an attempt to irradiate and poison the people living there. Even when stored responsibly, nuclear weapons still have a history of accidental release of radioactive material. Throughout the Cold War, both the United States and Soviet Union have displayed a worrying amount of incompetence when it comes to handling them. Just between 1950 and 1960, the U.S. alone lost nearly 20 nuclear bombs. Because Russia keeps old military documents classified, the exact number is not known. U.S. analysts estimate that in the same era, the U.S.S.R. lost nearly 40 bombs. Several U.S. I.C.B.M.’s have detonated within their silos, fortunately this was merely the volatile rocket fuel combusting and not the nuclear portion detonating. Beyond the accidents associated with maintaining a nuclear arsenal, several nuclear tests have ended with the release of fallout over populated areas. The prolific Bikini Atoll test, Operation Crossroads, in which the United States detonated its first hydrogen bomb, caused thousands of the native inhabitants of the area to be forcibly relocated after hundreds received fatal doses of radiation. Such callous inconsideration towards the people and environment of an area is what eventually forced both the Soviet Union and United States to sign the Limited Test Ban Treaty. This forced all nuclear test detonations to be underground and specifically bans tests in space, the atmosphere, and on the surface. Treaties like this are a step in the right direction, but several tests have been conducted in direct violation of this treaty by nations such as North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, and China, who did not sign this treaty. To put an end to injustices similar to the one in the Marshall Islands, all nations must cease this irresponsible nuclear testing. Another aspect of nuclear waste that is seldom touched upon is the fact it could conceivably be fashioned into a crude nuclear device. Such a device would have a mere fraction of the yield of a military warhead, but it would still be capable of causing unparalleled suffering to any city it was detonated within. Although the Department of Energy seems to take the security of waste disposal sites seriously, it would not stop a determined attacker. Areas such as nuclear power plants are also at risk. Nuclear power provides relatively clean power for long periods, but at the cost of being massive security risks. A group could conceivably take over a nuclear power plant and force it to melt down. A meltdown like this could turn a metropolitan area into a ghost town, like the city of Pripyat, home of the infamous Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Nuclear technology of any kind presents a massive domestic security risk due to the dangerous waste and the possible malicious uses of benign technology such as nuclear reactors. The security of the waste disposal sites and the construction and maintenance of them is a massive drain on resources that could be better used elsewhere within a country’s budget. Though, many countries have realized this and have taken several steps to help mitigate the threat of radioactive waste worldwide. In a statement about the Partial Test Ban Treaty, The Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations wrote “The treaty was the first international agreement to regulate nuclear arms worldwide, and it has been recognized as an important instrument in reducing international tensions and decreasing radioactive pollution” (par. 51). Though nuclear weapons have serious drawbacks, most reasonable nations of the world have realized them and have thankfully taken steps to mitigate the risks.
	Beyond their risk of radiological attacks and radioactive waste, nuclear weapons have a far more serious flaw: if they are used for their intended purpose, then millions of people could die, entire nations could destabilize, and the world could be permanently scarred. In “Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals, and Law”, Jonathan Granoff believes that “Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the entire ecosystem of the planet” (par. 8). Furthermore, he believes that nuclear weapons are unique in their possibility of manmade armageddon. Nobody can deny the raw power of a modern thermonuclear weapon. Even with more primitive weapons in smaller numbers, the U.S. believed that in 1980, a mere 1% of the Soviet strategic arsenal could inflict millions of casualties and provide a serious threat to Federal control over the country. Though many proponents of nuclear arsenals will counter that they are not to be used, but instead they are to be held as a threat over the head of an enemy. Is it not unethical to use the potential deaths of millions of innocent civilians as a bargaining chip for geopolitical advantage? Some will also bring up the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent for smaller countries. A favorite example of these is Israel. Israel keeps its nuclear arsenal to prevent attacks from the several aggressive nations surrounding it on all sides. What gives one country the right to threaten another’s population in order to secure its borders? After this unethical use of civilian death as a bargaining tool, there is still the fact that nuclear weapons are primarily a weapon of aggression. Looking backwards to the nascent nuclear age, the Soviet Union believed that small, tactical nuclear strikes would be the future of war. Their entire conventional arms doctrine was built around war after nuclear saturation strikes. The U.S., however, focused more on using its conventional forces prior to nuclear war. While the Soviets used nuclear attack as an opening strike to support mechanized infantry and armored forces, the U.S. used it as a finishing blow to completely eliminate any resistance. The doctrine of U.S. and Soviet troops, while appearing to be opposites of eachother, still rely on one thing: use of nuclear weapons to support aggressive actions on non-nuclear countries. Anyone who analyzes the aftereffects of a nuclear blast could realize that they have minimal use in actual defensive action. No sane country would detonate a nuclear weapon on their own territory given the choice. By doing so, one would create a massive ecological disaster zone and risk killing many of its own people. Because they can only be practically used within the territory of another country, nuclear weapons are unilaterally tools of aggression and indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians. Unless the technology and effects of nuclear weapons dramatically change, they will always remain tools of an aggressive nation to bully smaller nations and support their own selfish imperialism. The nations with the largest nuclear arsenals currently are also the nations who are most guilty of exploitation of smaller or less developed countries. The United States, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China all have a history of imperialism, both militarily and economically. After using their weapons in selfish ways, they are also quite protective of membership to the so-called “Nuclear Club.” The U.S. shows this hypocrisy strikingly. Though it currently has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, it still takes the moral high ground when dealing with countries like Iran or North Korea. They say that nuclear weapons are unethical while at the same time possessing a stockpile of thousands of them. Hypocrisy like this shows clearly why the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral at its core.
	After the ecological disaster risk and morality of their actual use, it can be questioned if their existence is unethical. When a nation develops nuclear arms, they are putting the power to destroy cities, kill millions of people, and damage the Earth’s ecosystem into the power of a few people. It is not unreasonable to question whether any mortal man can truly be trusted with this much power. In “Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals, and Law,” Jonathan Granoff wrote “The recognition of the intrinsic sacredness of life and the duty of states and individuals to protect life is a fundamental characteristic of all human civilized values” (par. 6). As he says, every group of people that calls itself a country must first and foremost protect and value the life of its citizens. A country that possesses nuclear weapons not only violates the sacredness of life towards its own citizens, but towards the citizens of every other country. Any person who claims to be a humanitarian while simultaneously being a proponent of nuclear possession does not understand that the two viewpoints are diametrically opposed. Nuclear weapons are the fruit of dozens of years of science without morals or ethics to keep it in check. Unfortunately, the military leaders of world powers such as the United States, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China are still stuck in this outdated Cold War way of thinking that they must have nuclear weapons or they will instantly be destroyed by all of their “enemies.” In our modern world, there is simply no need for such weapons. There is no massive conflict like World War II raging, there is no imminent threat of war with another superpower, and there has not been a large scale conflict within the last 25 years. The United States’s continual justification of their nuclear arsenal is a sham. They do not keep them for “deterrence” or “protection.” As stated earlier, nuclear weapons are an aggressive tool used to bully smaller nations that lack the funds or technology to produce their own. This power gap only widens with the U.S. still discouraging the rest of the world while maintaining and sometimes even enlarging their own arsenal; however, it is not all bad. The world seems to have pulled itself back from falling into the abyss with the wave of disarmament and nonproliferation treaties after the fall of the Soviet Union. The people of the world must realize that though nuclear weapons have their benefits, it is not moral, ethical, or even prudent to risk an apocalyptic scenario that ends with the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and leaving a scarred and broken Earth for our descendants.
	To conclude these statements, the matter of nuclear weapons is one steeped in controversy. As is the case with any matter, there are both positives and negatives to the possession of nuclear weapons. One side believes that the unique benefits to geopolitical influence, conventional military, and the defense of our allies outweighs the negatives. They believe that America needs its arsenal of nuclear weapons to remain competitive both geopolitically and militarily with the other superpowers of the world. Even outside of America, the possession of nuclear weapons provides several benefits to any nation. On the other hand, there is a group of people who believe that the risks such as nuclear accidents, the moral problems associated with weapons of such power, and the ethics of investing such power in the hands of a small group of people are . Furthermore, this group believes that America does not need this arsenal because the expense, dangers, and morality of it outweigh the benefits. This debate is why the issue of nuclear weapons will remain a foreign policy debate for the foreseeable future.