ATOMIC WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
2 videos • 180 views • by BanditRants Atomic Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence - Part One _________________________________________________________________ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/BanditRants Twitter: https://twitter.com/BanditRants The world as we know it has unremittingly endured wars across the globe, across time and across a wide array of ideologies. But the second member of this trifecta is a phenomenon that encompasses a multitude of developments, one of which is the advancements of technologies which have played a great role in their involvement in wars and conflicts. But of all the innumerable technologies developed along the spectrum of time, there is one that humanity has constructed, that terrifyingly has given mortal man destructive powers resembling any religious entity ordained to bring about the divine coming of an apocalyptic Armageddon. The Nuclear Bomb. “maybe a quote - the destroyer of worlds” On July 3 2017, The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute launched an annual nuclear data program which highlighted the current trends and developments in the contemporary world’s nuclear arsenals. Their data showed a total of 9 countries possessing nuclear arsenals, with the UNITED STATES & RUSSIA COLLECTIVE NUCLEAR ARMS possessing collectively 93% of all nuclear warheads, with a grand total of 13 800. After World War II, the United Nations was set up as a body to promote and maintain international peace and security, but it didn’t seem to alleviate all tensions between nations, nor cease the production of nuclear weapons. Since 1946 there have been nearly 11 incidences of a near nuclear apocalyptic event, with many coming so close that the decision of one person may have changed the course of history. One of those men, was Vasili Arkhipov. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet patrol submarine B-59 almost launched a nuclear-tipped torpedo while under harassment by American naval forces. The B-59 was one of several vessels surrounded by American destroyers near Cuba, the Russian B-59 dove to avoid detection and was unable to communicate with Moscow for a number of days. The USS Beale began dropping practice depth charges left and right into the water to signal the B-59 to surface, however the Soviet submarine took these to be real depth charges - powerful and destructive hydraulic shockwaves designed to destroy submarines. With low batteries affecting the submarine's life support systems and without orders from Moscow, the commander of the B-59 believed that war may have already begun and ordered the use of a 10 kiloton nuclear torpedo against the American fleet. The submarine’s political officer agreed, but the commander of the sub-flotilla Vasili Arkhipov persuaded the captain to surface and await orders. This effectively averted all out nuclear warfare which probably would have ensued if the nuclear weapon had been fired by the Soviet submarine. With far too many close calls to an apocalyptic event, has the international community been able to forge a path to resolve such a potentially devastating scenario? Well maybe the deterrence of an all out nuclear war is in the possession of the nuclear weapons themselves. With respect to diplomatic relations, a theory emerged called Nuclear Peace which argues that under some circumstances nuclear weapons can induce stability and decrease the chances of crisis escalation. In particular, nuclear weapons are said to have induced stability during the Cold War, when both the US and the USSR possessed mutual second strike retaliation capability, eliminating the possibility of nuclear victory for either side. Proponents of nuclear peace argue that controlled nuclear proliferation may be beneficial for inducing stability. Critics of nuclear peace argue that nuclear proliferation not only increases the chance of interstate nuclear conflict, but increases the chances of nuclear material falling into the hands of violent non-state groups The major debate on this issue has been between Kenneth Waltz, the founder of neorealist theory in international relations, and Scott Sagan, a leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics. Waltz generally argues that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Sagan, on the other hand, argues that "more will be worse", since, which makes for a high risk of either deliberate or accidental nuclear war, or theft of nuclear material by terrorists to perpetuate nuclear terrorism.