Introduction
The possibility of a country using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) is a terrifying prospect that has loomed over the world for decades. A single nuclear strike is bound to cause chaos and worsen global relations between all countries for decades. By comparing the situation during the Cold War with the current state of military affairs, it is feasible to predict the rising risks of the weaponization of atomic energy. As the number of available WMDs continues to increase, the possibility of them being used also grows.
The Post-WWII Restraint: Why Nuclear Weapons Have Not Been Used
Since World War II, there have been no nuclear attacks due to the global superpower’s ability to suppress others’ advances in this research field and relatively few reasons for such actions. Progress in nuclear missile development was limited by Western civilizations that were ahead of other countries in terms of military technologies (Bracken, 2000). The largest nations competed between themselves in a technological race, which was fueled by a potential threat they posed to each other.
Simultaneously, these entities had no direct cause to launch a nuclear attack first. The involved sides held the delicate balance out of fear of severe retaliation for one’s military advantages. After World War II, few nations possessed the capability to match the investments of the Soviet Union or the United States into nuclear weapons (Bracken, 2000). Global advancement was put on hold by restrictions placed by the most influential players. However, during the Cold War, Asian and Middle Eastern countries put a significant priority on the research and development of WMDs that threatened the established balance of power (Bracken, 2000).
While the US and the USSR were focused on their competition, they were forced to share their resources with less powerful nations to boost their production or innovative capabilities. Gradually, economic advantages gained from this cooperation allowed Eastern countries to start similar projects (Bracken, 2000). While these actions were provoking, no nuclear weapons have been used since World War II out of the same fear of retaliation.
Despite the lack of targets for actual strikes, nations continued to create and upgrade weapons of mass destruction and countermeasures against them, effectively preventing the use of such weapons. During the late twentieth century, the situation began to shift toward lesser global stability. The United States and the Soviet Union had no cause to apply their research against each other or other nations. However, hostilities occurred between countries that held a deep grudge against each other, such as India, Pakistan, China, Korea, and Taiwan (Bracken, 2000). Although no major cause had been given to either state, the past bindings no longer hold the world in relative peace.
Assessing Nuclear Risk: Then Versus Now
I agree with the assertion that the risk of a nuclear attack is on the rise. The situation might change at any time, as there are precursory signs of looming danger. Since World War II, many countries have amassed a significant amount of WMDs (Bracken, 2000). Research of new ways to gain a military advantage over dominating nations is a non-stop process that is not always overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency and similar organizations that monitor these activities.
In an attempt to claim independence from foreign military doctrines and general influence, Asian and Middle Eastern countries produce nuclear weapons (Narang & Sagan, 2022). Many sides now possess weapons of mass destruction, making it difficult for others to control the actions of individual nations that have nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
While it is rational not to use nuclear weapons against others due to the possibility of severe retaliation, their mere existence creates a risk of such an event happening regardless of logical reasons. The existence of this notion pushes the countries to relaunch their nuclear modernization programs and keep developing better systems for both offense and defense against WMDs (Narang & Sagan, 2022).
However, due to numerous changes in the geopolitical climate, old doctrines may fail to work partially or entirely. As has been said, some countries hold lasting grudges against their neighbors fueled by decades of mutual hatred. Unlike during the Cold War, it is more probable than before that these nations will use nuclear weapons based on an emotional rather than rational basis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, due to the greater availability of both materials and relevant research on nuclear weapons, the possibility of the use of such weapons of mass destruction is higher. The worsening diplomatic relationships between countries that possess WMDs, including nuclear weapons, indicate a risk of a major conflict outbreak in which WMDs may be applied by either side, triggering a mass panic among nations. Such a scenario ensures the involvement of global powers that feel threatened by the actions of a single state in a conflict to prevent further escalation or prove their position. Therefore, I think that the danger of nuclear strikes grows higher with each new military campaign during this century. Without sufficient effort taken by all nations to de-escalate such situations, the world is bound to see the loss of lives from WMDs shortly.
References
Bracken, P. (2000). The second nuclear age. Foreign Affairs, 79(1), 146–156. Web.
Narang, V., & Sagan, S. D. (2022). The fragile balance of terror: Deterrence in the new nuclear age. Cornell University Press.