The Case for Nuclear Disarmament: The Cost of Mutually Assured Destruction

Evan Kielar

The Case for Nuclear Disarmament: The Cost of Mutually Assured Destruction 

Nuclear weapons have no purpose in the modern foreign relations.  Nuclear weapons are not only functionally useless as a deterrent they may fall in the hands of irrational actors and they cost a lot to maintain.  The ideal move for all countries would be a simultaneous disarmament but the U.S can start the process by reducing their arsenal.

The justification for the continued existence of nuclear weapons is deterrence. Very few states actually like the idea of nuclear weapons but they feel defenseless without it. If all states have nuclear weapons and all more importantly have second-strike capabilities, the ability to retaliate before they are hit, no one will use them. If deterrence were the true goal the strongest method would be to disarm and destroy all nuclear weapons in the world, though sadly this is easier said than done. The only way any singular country would disarm is if they knew all other countries with nuclear weapons were similarly disarming, which will likely never occur. There would always be actors like North Korea who would never agree to such a plan causing it to all fall apart it. The U.S can start this process by reducing their arsenal. Currently we have over five thousand nuclear warheads clearly way more than we need for deterrence. Reducing our stockpile by a couple thousand seems like a reasonable start. Luckily no nuclear weapons have been used against another country since World War Two. If nuclear weapons were just pointless they would not be such a problem but there is a risk that comes with increased nuclear proliferation.

Mutually assured destruction only works on the assumption that all actors are rational. If an irrational actor was ever able to steal even a single nuclear warhead, they could cause untold destruction. Terrorist organizations such as Al- Qaeda and ISIS would set off a nuke if they were able to because they do not fear for life. Since they believe they will be rewarded in the after-life for their deeds they are will willing to sacrifice anything included their life for their doctrine. The more nuclear weapons that we create and especially when countries like Pakistan, that are hot-beds of terrorist activities, create more nuclear weapons terrorist organizations are more likely to acquire the weapons. Even if they never fall into the wrong hands nuclear weapons still come at a cost to the host nations.

Nuclear weapons are very high maintenance tools of war that have devastating consequences if not taken care of properly. If they are not refitted every couple of decades they will begin to leak nuclear fuel which can lead to lethal levels of radiation poisoning to the crew working at the nuclear facilities. These refits cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per nuclear warhead, leading to a price tag of trillions of dollars every couple of decades for weapons we do not even use. By reducing out stockpile we can at least reduce the price tag that we pay for these useless weapons. 

While nuclear weapons will not disappear tomorrow we can begin the process of disarming. By reducing our nuclear capacity the U.S legitimizes the claims that nuclear weapons are functionally useless, can fall into the wrong hands and cost the host countries trillions of dollars. It always takes one to start a movement.