Should nuclear weapons be totally banned?

Answer 1

Answer 1

This is an extremely difficult question to answer, from any number of positions (practical, political, moral, military, and even philosophical).

To determine a plausible framework for discussing this question, we first must look at what has come before: that is, when looking at whether to ban nukes, we should see what other weapons are banned, and why, then try to see if nuclear weapons have some analogous reasoning applicable to them.

The Hague Conventions, several of the Geneva Conventions, Ottawa Treaty (Landmines), and Convention on Cluster Bombs have generally banned several types of weapons right now (specifically, we're talking about weapons whose USE has been banned): explosive bullets, chemical weapons, biological weapons, toxin weapons, weapons causing fragments no detectable by X-Rays, blinding lasers, certain incendiary weapons, "stupid" anti-personnel landmines, and small-scale cluster weapons.

Looking at what we have banned so far, there seems to be several characteristics which lead to a weapon's banning. All of the weapons above have at least one of the following characteristics (and, many have more than one):

• Infliction of excessively painful wounds, beyond that necessary for incapacitation.
• The military utility is significantly less than the threat to nearby civilians
• Their effect is to cause permanent, rather than temporary, injury.
• Use causes indiscriminate damage, death, or injury not reasonably controllable or targetable by the weapon's user
• Injury to civilian populations is likely to occur long after their military use

In addition, and unstated, but nonetheless very important aspect of banning a weapon is that other more "humane" weapons are available to perform a similar (though not identical) function. For example: regular solid bullets instead of explosive ones, mass bombing or artillery instead of chemical or biological weapons, and "smart" (e.g. time deactivated, or command-detonated only) landmines rather than "stupid" ones. That is, humanity seems to be OK with banning weapons which are generally not unique in their utility.

Looking at the above criteria, we can see that nuclear weapons certainly have the following characteristics which are similar to certain banned weapons:

• Indiscriminate effects (inability of the user to reasonably restrict effects to military targets when civilian ones are in the vicinity) - compare to chemical or toxin weapons
• After effects of the nuke's use linger for a substantial time and are difficult to neutralize - compare to biological weapons or landmines
• Injuries are commonly permanent in nature, and many are disfiguring or severely painful - compare to incendiary or chemical weapons

However, the first case above also applies to very-large-scale conventional weapons, and is more a matter of size than anything else (which, nonetheless, is important to consider). The second case is also signficantly less important than originally thought - residual radiation left by nuclear weapons is very short-term, and what does remain as long-term radiation has been shown to be much less harmful than expected (indeed, many experts now discount any real long-term impact of radiation in the immediate vicinity). However, fallout is still a huge problem, so while long-term effects nearby the nuclear explosion are unlikely to be noticeable around the detonation zone, fallout contamination can very likely impact a huge area outside the target zone.

Overall, there does seem to be a real good argument for the banning of nuclear weapons, based on historical precedents. However, there is a major, practical reason they aren't right now: they are currently the weapon of last resort, one which no other weapon can take the place of.

That is, nuclear weapons provide a failsafe, and a check on those acting in bad faith with respect to abiding by weapons ban. Should nuclear weapons themselves be banned, there will be very significant pressure on nations to secretly "cheat" and eventually to use banned weapons, particularly other weapons of mass destruction. To put it more clearly, if nuclear weapons are banned, then there is a very big advantage to be had by one nation into secretly creating chemical, biological, toxin, or even nuclear weapons, and then use them, as the military advantage of being the ONLY user of such a weapon far outweighs any sanction other nations may impose.

Until some mechanism can be developed to remove the cheating incentive, the utility of nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort will remain, and indeed, be sorely needed.

Sadly, for now, I'd say that nuclear weapons cannot be banned.

Answer 2

All weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, ... etc) should be banned and eliminated completely. All faiths and religions ban mass destruction weapons. How do you allow a military force to use a weapon of mass destruction that kills children, women, old people, and animals that have no choice and never participated in a war? How do you allow use of weapons of mass destruction that destroys in moments hundreds and thousands of homes, plants, factories, and institutions? There is no logic; in our civilized world; in using weapons of mass destruction in any war.

Per human rights and peace arguments, all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons should be banned and eliminated.