Morgan Silva
Professor Shirk
International
Politics
17 October 2017
The Faces of Peace
Recently in the course, we have had ample discussion regarding the
pros and cons of nuclear weapons. Surprisingly, there have been many theorists
such as Kenneth Waltz, who believe that it would be safer if significant
countries had nuclear weapons and had developed convincing theories such as
Mutual Assured Destruction. While many theorists advocate for the disbursement
of weapons of mass destruction, I believe that the world would be much safer
without chemical weapons. We live in a world where it is plausible to argue
that the more weapons of mass destruction we have, the “safer” we feel; this is
a world plagued with violence [as means of solutions], domination and scare
tactics. What kind of a world is this, where we must live in constant fear and
anguish, careful not to push a [seemingly] crazy leader too far that he may
push the big red button. Imagine a world, where that button and those weapons
did not even exist.As someone who was born in Russia, I have found the Cold War
primarily interesting. For those who may not be aware, the Cold War was a time
where both Russians, as well as Americans, lived in a permanent state of
tension, waiting for a nuclear war to break out. When learning about this, I believe too much
attention is given to the realist leaders, instead of the faces of peace
[during that time]. It was efforts from Samantha Smith, a little girl from
America who wrote to the Tzar begging for peace and Soviet officer Stanislav
Petrov, a man remembered for “single-handedly saving the world.” These are just
two of the many across the entire world who advocated for peace.
I understand your point about how destructive nuclear weapons are and how the use of them can never be positive. While yes, the world would be much more stable without the threat of nuclear weapons, I believe that since nuclear power exists we must focus on how to deal with it instead of arguing how to get rid of them. The world must come to terms with the presence of nuclear weapons and must figure out how to solve conflicts while acknowledging the existence of the weapons because nuclear information has been around since WWII and I cannot see a time where nuclear weapons will just disappear. Also, I do not think that we should blame scientists for the creation of the weapons. It is their job to make them, and they cannot just not do it, so instead of saying that scientists are in the wrong, I think it’s best to focus on the situations surrounding the reason as to why a leader or country found it necessary to call upon scientists to develop the weapon. Lastly, the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat was at the end of WWII, and I think that proves that leaders understand just how destructive the weapons are and how they would rather have peace than war.
ReplyDeleteHi Taylor, thanks for the response! I understand all of your points, but I'd like to discuss one in particular. You said that "because nuclear weapons exist, we should focus on what to do about them". To be completely honest, I don't agree at all with this statement. We've seen, time and time again that leaders won't use nuclear weapons for various reasons- if this is the case, why don't we just get rid of them anyway instead of dangling them over everyone's heads during a time of conflict.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the world would be a much better place without nuclear weapons but I do not see a world without them. Since the beginning of time humans have been trying to find the best way to kill each other. Because of this I do not think that people will go without these weapons. I believe that the best we can do is limit their production so one country does not have the ability to end the world. I also agree with your statement about how most leader are not rational and I believe that leaders could do much worse than a nuclear bomb in terms of death. I believe that no matter what happens we will have to have some way of keeping countries in check and I do not believe that getting rid of nuclear bombs will end all.
ReplyDeleteHi Theo, thanks for the response. Similar to my response to Taylor above, I think that we've seen that nuclear weapons ARENT used, therefore, why do we still even have and make them? It just seems like a waste of anxiety and money to create something that we don't and may never use.
DeleteI thought this blog was very insightful and takes an approach that I may not have thought of. However, I personally think along the lines of what Theo and Taylor wrote earlier. Yes, a world without nuclear weapons would be great to ensure no nuclear destruction but it's just not going to happen. Nuclear weapons are here and here to stay so we must accept this reality, whether we agree or disagree about there purpose. Finally. your comment about the leaders going to their bunkers doesn't appeal to me. While yes they may survive the initial bombing the fallouts of nuclear winter would effect them. A nuclear winter which would kill all sources of food and would eventually kill them too. Also, if the majority of the world was dead than these leaders would have nothing to do as they would just be humans in a state of anarchy. Leaders may survive the initial bomb but its not like they won't succumb to the consequences eventually, sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan, thanks for the response! What I think you all are doing is completely misunderstanding my post in general. Overall you all are giving reasons why the world will never be without nuclear weapons and thinking you're being realistic; therefore implying I'm being too idealist. I truly believe that we talk so much about why we DONT use nuclear weapons [due to fear] that it wouldn't be absurd to suggest we get rid of them all together. Would it be extremely hard and very unlikely ? Yes. However I do believe every great idea at one point was "unlikely" and "crazy".
Delete