As of late, my life has been filled with conversations surrounding nuclear technology and nuclear weapons. From class discussions on the Cold War to personal discourse on the contemporary political and scientific realities of society, I just had to write about it; especially since the world was reminded once again of the reality of nuclear technology and its military capabilities this past summer with the release of “Oppenheimer.”
Nuclear weapons are not the problem of yesterday. They still remain one of the greatest threats to humanity’s existence—and almost all life as we know it. Omnicide, the destruction of human life through the means of nuclear annihilation, is as great a concern as it ever has been, but it seems to have disappeared in the rear-view mirror for many, and does not evoke as much of a public outcry as it did, say, during the 1960s.
We live in an incredibly worrying time. The climate crisis, most notably recognized as an emergency among young people, is a threat to our well-being due to the actions of the generations before us. Furthermore, international governments are unable to take proper action. The sharply dividing and systemic inequalities that exist alongside deadly conflicts and human rights abuses have placed us in an unprecedented period of human history.
It is important to continue the dialogue surrounding the ongoing issues that plague humanity, but it is still important to recognize that the existential threat of nuclear omnicide looms over us at every moment. We need to reamplify the dialogue surrounding the management of nuclear technology and how to harness it for purely benevolent reasons, while working toward eliminating nuclear weapons altogether.
As per the findings of the 2020 Chicago Council Survey, two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe that no country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. More specifically in regard to political affiliation, 54% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats and 64% of independents hold this sentiment. While it might be assumed that this could be a partisan issue, given how the approach to foreign policy generally diverges greatly across party lines, the nuclear threat is not nearly the same political issue as it was previously.
It is as much of a threat to our existence as it ever has been. However, the nuclear threat, one of the most previously important political issues in the United States and the international community is not being talked about nearly as much as it had been during the Cold War, nor is it registering on the public level like it had.
There is no justification for the usage of nuclear weapons in any conflict, which can be easily proved by the two times they were used by the United States at the end of World War II on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any scenario justifying the deployment of nuclear weapons would inherently lack morality and legitimacy, as the unparalleled devastation and loss of innocent lives stand as stark reminders of the ethical abyss inherent in their utilization.
The notion of preventing “rogue states” or “terrorist groups” from obtaining nuclear weapons that is prevalent in American foreign policy is misleading and frankly unrealistic. While it is true that keeping nuclear arms away from extremist groups would be ideal for the safety of the international community, they actually, and more importantly, need to be kept away from the United States and other nuclear-armed countries that would have the capacity for the nuclear destruction of humanity.
Within the discourse of who has access to weapons of mass destruction, there is a striking dichotomy of “governmental terrorism” juxtaposed against “non-governmental terrorism.” There is, of course, no universal definition of terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation might define it one way, while the United Nations defines it another. With that being said, terrorism generally has been associated with the actions of non-governmental organizations (NGO). However, I would argue that what the United States did in Japan to end World War II absolutely constitutes terrorism. Nation-states, who have committed numerous acts of terrorism, should be held accountable; not just NGOs.
Terrorism is, I think, the use of intentional violence specifically against civilians to advance political aims. The United States committed mass violence against the civilian population of two major Japanese cities to force a surrender and prevent the need for further deployment of troops. Because of the “unlawfulness” associated with actions by terrorist organizations, as portrayed by the United States and frequently depicted in the media, countries engage in terrorist violence without facing consequences, leading to a cycle of continuous aggression.
As a result, the United States and other countries that have a nuclear arsenal justify maintaining their collection of always-at-the-ready weapons to protect their people from not only non-governmental threats, but also each other.
The persistent threat that is the existence of nuclear weapons demands a greater and renewed attention. Recognizing the immorality of their use, as seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is reason for an absolute discernment and global recognition of terrorism applying to state-sponsored violence. Despite a shortage of conversation, it is imperative to intensify the discourse on the management of nuclear technology, focusing on its constructive utilization for benevolent purposes, while simultaneously striving for the complete eradication of nuclear weapons.