Nuclear deterrence does increase security?
Im using the example of coldwar, indo-pak crisis, HIroshima etc...
BUT i need a counter argument for this argumet
Many people criticise the strategy of nuclear deterrence based on the psychology behind it....in other words, the opponent country has to be WILLING to deter for the deterrence strategy to work..it is fundamentally dangerous to assume a similar outcome in deterrent situations when there is variation in the thinking of every leader of a country
I need a COUNTER-argument for the above statement
PLEASE ADD anything that will help me SUPPORT my thesis...
(some ppl earlier gave me answers that DO NOT support my thesis)
THANKS A LOT FOR EVERYONE'S HELP :)
- thesurferLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
Hello there I am the surfer!
Nuclear deterrence does not increase security
Small arms from the second part of the 20th century has caused more deaths than the whole combined casualties from the two nuclear bombs of japan
Civil strife provide good examples, small arms like the us rifle R 15 the soviet AK 47, the israeli UZI sub machine gun and pistols for common felonies like murder and robbery had caused many victims
drug dealers arm themselves with uzi sub - machine guns!
The cost of an AK47 is 75 us dollars it´s the silent massive assassin!
In mozambique children are named after the AK rifle: Kalashnikov!
The ak47 is the national emblem of Mozambique. it´s depicted on the national flag and national shield
Countries with civil strife
Algeria 1991 - 2002
Chinese civil war 1945 - 1949
Greece 1946 - 1949
Guatemala 1969 - 1996
Colombia 1948 - present day
Lebanon 1975 - 1990
Liberia 1990 - 1997
Mozambique 1975 - 1992
Nigeria 1967 - 1970
Peru 1980 - 2000
Rwanda 1990 - 1994
El salvador 1979 - 1991
Vietnam, 1974 - 1975
Somalia 1991 present day
Small arms and civil strife cause land distribution distortion, break up of families due to forced enlistment into private armies, the end of education for enlisted children, the use by force of fertile soil to grow drugs
Effects of small arms trade and civil strife
Political fractionating of a society
The end of effective governance
The end of foreign investment
The upsurge of crime like kidnapping and murder
The illicit trade of people : human trafficking!
The end of development and the decline towards underdevelopment
The decline of tourism
The surge of drug economies to replace legal economies
The distortion of natural resources markets like diamonds and oil blackmail to fund civil wars!
Few countries engage in nuclear programs worldwide, MANY others engage in civil strife!
The commerce of small arms provide excellent profits a lot of people are involved, few people got into trading nuclear materials
Countries with nuclear power go to war with conventional armed forces! because MAD Mutual Assured Destruction!
Countries with nuclear power got excellent intelligence services to asses enemy capabilities and not make nuclear mistakes like The Cuban Missile Crisis!
Few countries got the money to fund nuclear programs! civil strife is
From the surfer!