From historical data available to me, and with focus only in USA winning the war with Japan, it seems that the use of the atomic bomb in principle could have been been avoided. My impression, in the framework of the information that I have, is that Japan had the war lost before the bomb: it was a matter of some time and effort from USA.

The argument of saving a significant number of lives of US soldiers was used to justify the decision about dropping the bomb, but the complexities of the global scenario suggests that this was not the only reason.

There is a difficult problem, in my opinion, posed by major breakthroughs in weapons, like the atomic bombs were in that epoch, and future major breakthroughs using processes that are not known today.

Since the problem of who should command the world does not have a generally accepted answer, an arms race can be expected every time there is a significant advance in terms of massive-action military devices.

Of course, if the first to arrive does not successfully attempt to subdue the others.

Dr Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree that with individual countries seeking to command the world, arms races will be expected whenever there are significant advances in military technology.

It's absolutely unnecessary because at the end of the day, we will still go back to rebuild what we have deliberately destroyed out of the fear of "loosing control." And in the end, we do not have control; nature does.

Edwin Chigozie Nwokorie ,

Thank you for your answer. There are indeed historical examples of going back to rebuild what war has deliberately destroyed. What an expensive way to avoid "loosing control"! And when nature strikes in the form of tsunamis, cyclones, earthquakes, pandemics etc. we find ourselves not even half as prepared as we are to wage deadly wars.

Ademilade Olubambi ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you that we will never be able to settle our differences through wars. We are however too proud to accept this reality. We even encourage national chauvinism - an extreme form of national pride that can lead to warmongering and, if unchecked, to actual war.

I think yes

Hussein J. Hussein ,

Thank you for your answer. Would you like to share the reasons why you think so?

I am not in any way suggesting that the answer should be "no." I think it is actually important that both arguments for and against nuclear weapons are presented so that the question is discussed in its full complexity.

Nuclear weapons are not needed, I would like scientists to create life-saving technologies.

Waldemar Łasica and Noor Mahdi

Thank you for your answers. I agree with you that scientists should be devoting their intellectual prowess to creating life-saving and not life-destroying technologies.

I think that this is not acceptable in the modern world.

It has now been proven that nuclear weapons will have global consequences. Including the country itself that applied it will suffer. The world is already very fragile. Regards, Sergey Viktorovich Pushkin

Sergey Viktorovich Pushkin ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree that nuclear weapons will have global consequences. I have often wondered that if there can be accidents at nuclear power plants, isn't there also a possibility of accidents at nuclear munitions storage facilities? And is the world safe from an accidental nuclear war where one country fires nuclear missiles at another country believing that it is under attack on the basis of false intelligence?

I find the following quote to be relevant for educators:

"Far too many students go through their entire education, including college, without ever learning about the history of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the greater nuclear threat that has persisted since 1945. We must demand that curriculums across the country (read: world) dedicate more time to the nuclear arms race and the movement to stop nuclear war." - Vincent Intondi

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-07/features/reflections-injustice-racism-bomb

The world doesn't need the atomic weapon.

Gioacchino de Candia

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you that the world doesn't need the atomic weapon. The challenge is how to convince those who already have nuclear weapons, as well as those aspiring to acquire them.

Lilian Mboya ,

Thank you for your answer. I think nuclear weapons under the present global geo-political environment may indeed appear to offer the ultimate defence for a nation. However, if countries enjoyed good relations and did not have mutual distrust, they wouldn't need nuclear deterrents at all. Imagine, according to Wikipedia, the USA and Russia have approximately 6000 nuclear warheads each for deterrence!

I would add some comments related to the need to agree on the contents of a worldwide minimum morality.

It seems that there will be no possibility of survival in peace and justice in a globalized world without a new paradigm of international relations based on global ethical standards.

People of different cultures and religious, agnostic and atheistic confessions have come to the conclusion that a certain degree of consensus about a global ethic is a necessary condition to face the problems posed in a globalized world, world peace, relations between religions, economic inequalities, and the relationship between our species and the environment at the planetary level.

Existence of a unique moral basis, located above all cultures and civilizations, capable of originating value judgments, objective and as far as possible logically coherent, on the conduct of human groups, universally valid in every place and at all historical moments, seems to be an implicit budget in the diplomatic and war efforts. But it seems that base as such does not exist: it has to be elaborated and agreed upon.

Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Thank you for your answer and the link to "The moral background of the efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation." It is a very enlightening piece. I agree that there is an urgent need to revitalize multilateral organizations and instruments. At present it does seem that there is no serious effort to do so. Sometimes I wonder if the Cold War era of "deterrence through mutually assured destruction" really ended.

Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Could survival and peace in a globalized world perhaps be possible if ALL countries believed in and signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Meaghan Tobin, writing in THIS WEEK IN ASIA, says some countries such as 'India and Pakistan have refused to sign the agreement, claiming it discriminates by dividing the world into nuclear "haves and have-nots" and legitimising the possession of nuclear arsenals by the "big five"- China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - while prohibiting other states from acquiring them.' Do they have a point? Why can't there be a treaty banning ALL nuclear arsenals? The link to her article is:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/explained/article/2188958/explained-how-india-and-pakistan-became-nuclear-states

Climate change has been correctly identified as the defining issue of our time by the United Nations. Global climate change would reach gigantic proportions in the event of a nuclear war, even if it did not involve the two major nuclear powers. The mathematical models of possible scenarios are frightening. This is shown in the following link:

https://www.wired.com/story/even-a-small-nuclear-war-could-trigger-a-global-apocalypse/

Oswell Namasasu

Yes, I think that the plausibility of a relative peace in a globalized world could be reinforced if all countries believed in and sign the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

As far as there was an initial nuclear club whose members claimed certain prerogatives based on a de facto situation, and promised to the other countries, that in an indefinite future they were going to get rid of their nuclear arsenals. So, from one point of view what you said "Meaghan Tobin, writing in THIS WEEK IN ASIA, says some countries such as 'India and Pakistan have refused to sign the agreement, claiming it discriminates by dividing the world into nuclear "haves and have-nots" and legitimising the possession of nuclear arsenals by the "big five"- China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - while prohibiting other states from acquiring them.' Do they have a point? " can be answered yes they have a point. Another point of view starts from the assumption that makes a nuclear war more plausible the greater the number of countries with nuclear arsenals. Some add that the USA, England and France would be less irresponsible in their handling of a possible nuclear war (they are generally people who consider themselves members of the West and are supporters of open societies, in Popper's sense). Practice suggests that once a country crosses a threshold of military nuclear capacity, it can do certain things that were previously not allowed for it. If the society in that country is no longer something like an open society, Western advocates of the open society tend to lower the tone of their criticism a bit and they seem better willing to negotiate. So, yes, a treaty banning all nuclear arsenals would be necessary, although not sufficient to make a global peace more plausible. In fact in recent years it has been promoted by the initiative of well informed and well intentioned women's organizations.

Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Thank you for your answer.

Prof. Oswell Namasasu, my humble opinion is that strategic thermonuclear bombs must be used as persuasion or deterrent by some of those G7 countries that want to end oppressive regimes around the world.

The world balance has been broken---by a bug that does not measure microns--- and someone broke the game rules, but I am pretty sure that the actual disgrace cannot we induced by a thermonuclear device carried by a B1 or Tu-160.

I wonder if the "big five" show the responsible leadership they have been entrusted with as permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. There appears to be palpable animosity between NATO and Russia, and between China and the USA. As the joint guarantors of world peace, shouldn't they be showing smaller nations how to live in harmony?

Thank you Prof Pedro L. Contreras E. for your answer. The G7 also have impressive arsenals of conventional weapons. Couldn't these serve as sufficient deterrent to oppressive regimes around the world, if all major nuclear powers spoke with one voice? In my humble opinion, they need strategic thermonuclear bombs to intimidate each other and guarantee their veto power in the Security Council.

You´re right Prof. Oswell Namasasu, but my own experience in observing and living the Venezuelan-(situation and arsenal) is that conventional weapons (including portable missiles) end by obscure smuggling mechanisms in those oppressive regimes as mine :( I think is harder to smuggle a thermonuclear weapon.

Prof Pedro L. Contreras E. ,

I sincerely hope the people of Venezuela will be able to solve their problems and find peace without outside interference. The following link suggests that the "big five" are not speaking with one voice on the Venezuelan crisis:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/venezuela-could-trap-us-into-cold-war-position-against-russia-china.html

Yes, Dear Prof. Oswell Namasasu. Thank you, 5 years under hyperinflation without external relief. They do not agree, because there is a huge amount of money smuggled to some of the G7 countries from Venezuela. That is my guess. Meanwhile, more and more arsenal is brought by obscure hands to Venezuela.

It's really hard to have a large-scale war these days as everyone understand that war leads to nothing but pain, but the world needs nuclear weapons, I think. It's a useful tool for countries holding each other back. What would happen if North Korea didn't have any mass-destructive weapons?.

Tuan Nguyen ,

Thank you for your answer. I think the world would be much safer if ALL COUNTRIES did not have nuclear weapons at all. I agree that currently it may be "a useful tool for countries holding each other back." But at what cost and risk? Reduced standard of living, accidental wars, explosions or malfunctions! Imagine how much the standard of living of the people of North Korea (and indeed of the whole world) would improve if the billions of dollars spent on nuclear arms were directed to investment in health, education, agriculture, manufacturing and creation of civilian jobs!

I say, no nuclear weapons as deterrent. Humanity surviin peace and not in war

Mahender Singh ,

Thank you for your answer.

Not an expert here, but I decided to answer as I was surprised no one referred (yet) to the International Relations theories.

You ask two questions:

1. Was there no other way to end this war, and all future major wars?

2. Will the world become more unsafe if all nuclear weapons are outlawed?

I will only focus on question 2. I think that the answer lies not in the nuclear weapon, but in how we conceive the international system and, largely - but not exclusively - on how we explain the origin of states' behaviour (assuming, from your premise, that only state-actors have/can have nuclear weapons).

If we understand the nature of the international system to be anarchic and state-behaviour to be logical and self-interested (following neo-realist paradigms) then nuclear weapons are hardly an option to renounce to. This is the case both if we adopt a defensive realist perspective, where nuclear weapons are sought as a necessary mean to balance other states' threats, and an offensive realist perspective, in which case nuclear weapons can be also active tools of power-gain.

We may choose to understand the international system and states' beheaviour to not be anarchic and/or states' behaviour to not be merely self-interested, nor logical.

A structural constructivist (see Wendt, 1997) understanding may or may not find a place for nuclear weapons, since while the system is still understood as anarchic, such anarchy does not translate necessarily into self-interested competition (as neo-realists assert) but only plays a permissive role in shaping state-behaviour, understood to be morphed by identities of states (identities form by mutual understandings between state-actors, understandings themselves shaped by mutual interactions). From this perspective, again, the place of nuclear weapons is dependent on how their role and place is understood by the states, and how states understand each other (and the role of nuclear weapons in reacting to the perception of other states) - so they may or may not have a place. Admittedly, today, nuclear weapons have found their place.

(Neo)Liberalist theorists would probably reject the idea of nuclear weapons. Most would likely horrify at the idea of this, as nuclear weapons would perhaps hinder international cooperation - and besides they would reflect, and encourage, the use of power-politics over cooperation. I can see a neoliberal perspective though endorsing nuclear weapons as encouragement of cooperation, such as through nuclear sharing - admittedly reinforcing US and nuclear sharing allies (e.g. Italy, Germany, Turkey).

Thus, I think the best approach is to ask yourself how you think the international system is and how state-behaviour is shaped. Once an assumption on the previous two matters is made the answer tends to be clearer. Of course, no answer or understanding of the international system/state behaviour is inherently true, but this is just how IR is.

Will the world be more unsafe if nuclear weapons are outlawed? It is how you understand the world, not 'bomb,' which will provide the answer.

These are my two cents - and just an outline of theories which, of course, I have not invented (and thus I am sure many others before me came to a similar conclusion over nuclear weapons).

I hope it helped.

Cheers,

Mirco

P.S.

I only examined a few sample theories, there are of course others. See, for instance, Feminism, Radicalism, 'non-structural' Constructivist understandings or Normative theory for more perspectives and understandings.

Mirco Di Giacomo ,

Thank you for incorporating theories of International Relations into the discussion.

Oswell Namasasu

No worries. Hope it helped.

28 July MMXX

Who needs nuclear weapons when we have nuclear reactors?

Anthony St. John ,

Thank you for reminding contributors of another danger presented by nuclear energy: nuclear reactors. Dr P. Andrew Karam agrees with you. Here is the link to his professional opinion:

https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12228.html

28 July MMXX

Who can be sure that nuclear weapons really exist--at least, in the exorbitant numbers nations are supposed to have of them? I was a U S ARMY lieutenant who taught missilry-rocketry in a training battalion at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and I never saw a nuclear armament. Even one that could have been used to teach soldiers the way to transport such a potentially dangerous device. Further, so many US soldiers were always so drunk, I would never have wanted them to to be even around a nuclear missile or artillery projectile.

Cordially...

ASJ

Anthony St. John ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you on the possibility of exaggerating the actual sizes of nuclear arsenals. But what cannot be contested is that nuclear weapons do exist, and were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with such a devastating effect. The other "nuclear states" have all tested their weapons in deserts and oceans to show the world that they too have the nuclear bomb and no-one should dare wage war against them. Others like North Korea are still testing their nuclear weapons. I think it all started with an Arms Race as old as the phenomenon of war itself but which accelerated with scientific and technological advancement. Even before the Second World War began, some scientists, in collaboration with the military-industrial complex in their countries, were working tirelessly to develop the most powerful bomb the world had ever known. I understand some of them showed remorse after Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the damage had already been done.

Dear Prof. Oswell Namasasu, and all thread participants, in the 80s the world thought that nuclear warhead proliferation could be ended forever.

But now it seems that is not the case. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that required the US and the URSS to eliminate all of their nuclear ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles (ranges of 500 to 5,500 km) does not hold anymore.

You can check this link

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/russiaprofile

also interesting

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf

Remember last year August 2019, the Nyonoksa radiation accident in Arkhangelsk region. A test of a nuclear propellant fuelled Burevestnik missile, theoretically capable of penetrating any interceptor-based missile defence system.

No, they are bad business; once one has a stockpile - one can not use them so that they would have to be replaced, and if you did use them - you would most likely not be around to need new ones again. All in all, a bad idea.

Lou

Dear Prof Pedro L. Contreras E. ,

Thank you for your answer and links to sites on arms control and nuclear warhead proliferation.

Lou Schmitt ,

I agree with you that nuclear weapons are, after everything is considered, indeed bad business. However, I wonder if the military industry complex and the scientists with vested interests in nuclear weapons consider it bad business. After all, lucrative manufacturing contracts and research grants are offered in the nuclear weapons business.

My pleasure Prof. Oswell Namasasu, to be honest, I am not scared of Russian nuclear proliferation, but you can check the Wikipedia link to China's arsenal of mass destruction. I unquote for the thread:

"... The number of nuclear warheads in China's arsenal is a state secret....".

also

"...China has acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1984 and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

The world has seen enough devastation. Lets hope peace prevails and sustainable development with inclusive upliftment occurs keeping in mind the One Health Approach.

War never brings peace. Should establish the organization of humanitarian charity, instead of nuclear weapons.

I agree with @Sumanta Chakraborty

Prof Pedro L. Contreras E. ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree that China's arsenal of mass destruction is very frightening. I am also frightened of the arsenals of mass destruction of the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea as well as other countries that are secretly building their nuclear arsenals. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the destructive power of a single atomic bomb, let alone the numerous nuclear warheads that have proliferated in several nations since 1945.

Thank you.

Lou

Md. Abdur Razzak Choudhury ,

I agree with you that war (especially nuclear war) will never bring peace. As Mark Twain put it, "It is unjust and dishonourable, and there is no necessity for it." The first use of an atomic bomb created a huge demand for the "mother of all weapons of war." It formally announced that the era of nuclear weapons had begun. Nuclear armed nations are now in a permanent state of readiness for war. This is seen in military drills and exercises where their deadly nuclear arsenal is frequently displayed.

It is not just the use of nuclear weapons in war which is frightening. Nuclear weapons tests conducted underground, in oceans, and the atmosphere can lead to radioactive contamination of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the bioaccumulation of potentially cancer causing radioactive isotopes in living cells through the food chain.

Is the whole idea of nuclear deterrence even plausible? Not according to Joseph Rotblat, author of War No More: Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age. He says: "For a start, it won't work with unreasonable people, and even reasonable people behave irrationally in war, especially if they face defeat." Here is the relevant link:

https://cnduk.org/the-nuclear-scientist-who-tried-to-stop-hiroshima/

Decisions by scientists have consequences. Isn't it paradoxical that the idea of developing the atomic bomb was first suggested and encouraged by scientists who ought to have known better, and not by politicians? Here is the link to Albert Einstein's letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt which launched the nuclear arms race:

https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first

As the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6 approaches, it is worth recalling that "contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time - including six out of seven five-star officers - criticised the use of the atomic bomb" and that Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Joseph Rotblat, "three leading scientists whose earlier work involved them in significant ways with the creation of nuclear weapons," deeply regretted their involvement and towards the end of their lives "sought to eliminate not only nuclear weapons, but war as a human institution." The following links are relevant for Peace Studies:

origins.osu.edu/history-news/hiroshima-military-voices-dissent

https://www.wagingpeace.org/nuclear-weapons-and-the-responsibility-of-scientists

Having nuclear weapons by all countries of the world does not promote peace. There is always the possibility of misunderstanding between countries. Therefore, the next catastrophe in the world may happen at any moment. The use of nuclear weapons is tempting and catastrophic, even for democratic governments in times of cris

Ali Bagheri Dolatabadi ,

You are quite right. A nuclear war is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Democratic governments did not seek popular consent before embarking on nuclear weapons programmes in the past and neither will they seek it before using them in future. As we commemorate the Hiroshima nuclear inferno of August 1945, we recall that a city which had a huge civilian population was bombed despite opposition from six out of seven five-star generals, let alone the general American populace. In terms of the threat posed by nuclear weapons, democratic and authoritarian governments are therefore not that different.

ABOLITION 2000, the Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons has designated August 6 - August 9 as Nuclear Remembrance days. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be hosting commemoration ceremonies of the 75th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of the two cities. Peace-loving people around the world will also be marking the anniversary. Further information is available in the following link:

www.abolition2000.org/event/nuclear-remembrance-days-75th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-nuclear-bombings

Dear Oswell Namasasu,

Good question!

It is clear and the response self-evident… The animal behavior of humankind did not be disappeared… In every community exist such individuals who want to dominate all… (other community)… After reaching the current situation and social-political-economic behavior of the strong-rich states who have this weapon, cannot say that these weapons could be banned, it would be nice! Actually one thing we can do that do big efforts to make the politicians aware of the effect of using these weapons… We observe daily the mentioning the Holocaust in mainstream media. Why they are not doing do the same in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear László Attila Horváth ,

Thank you for response. I agree with you that the animal-like behaviour of Homo sapiens has not completely disappeared despite the species' high status in the evolution process. It still has "alpha" individuals (and countries) that seek to dominate all others by all means possible. I have also wondered why the Holocaust is highlighted more often in mainstream media and academic forums than Hiroshima and Nagasaki when both tragic events happened in the Second World War. Why the double standard?

In relation to what has been said previously, it may be of interest to compare some aspects of ape behavior with some aspects of human behavior.

Field observations indicate that apes self-organize in social systems. Prosocial behavior patterns have been identified that are interpreted as respect, friendship, cooperation, empathy and loyalty.

In the case of humans, secular (i.e. non-religious) explanations of the ontological basis of morality, based on an evolutionary view inspired by biology, generally start from the following assumption: the evolution that led to the current being Human was the result of an interaction between the brain, language and culture. Brain, language, and culture modified each other's potential in an emergency process of new mental capacities, social organization, and symbolic culture, across continents and millennia.

Thus, the supporters of what has been called emerging morality, maintain that the moral framework is not something instinctive, but something that each one of us builds on by amplifying and reconfiguring the social emotions of primates in the context of cultural stimuli and education. From this point of view, human morality does not imply a supernatural discontinuity like the one generally assumed in religions, but the emergence, in the framework of an evolutionary process, of an entity that expands the capacities and sensitivity of primates. It introduces qualitative modifications (innovations inherent in any emergency) that express a moral vision that evolves transcending the limited framework of the family and the tribe to encompass the whole of humanity, ecosystems and the biosphere itself. So, it is a process that tends to a progressive unification in diversity.

But on the other hand, apes exhibit asocial behaviors, especially when they are subjected to prolonged periods of stress: sometimes they hurt and kill their fellow monkeys, they are cruel and they show xenophobic behaviors. These behavior patterns always occur by default, in situations in which the organism's self-interest prevails.

The same is observed in human beings. So it would seem that it would be convenient to put emphasis on counteracting and, if possible, eliminating situations that lead people to feel physically and emotionally diminished, threatened, defeated, abused, humiliated, lonely and insecure.

If these frustrations are not avoided or at least significantly diminished, the ensuing reaction will lead to demonizing (and therefore dehumanizing) those who are supposed to be guilty of these situations, pushing people towards fundamentalism, whether religious or secular.

On a social level, patriotism, a feeling of affection for the homeland, for its ancestors, for its language and its history, can be transformed into nationalism, a passion that exalts everything that is considered as their own and in some way always superior to the foreign. In certain circumstances, nationalism can lead to hatred of what is considered foreign.

The moral vision involves and disarticulates progressively: from the biosphere to the whole of humanity, from humanity to the tribe and in the case of the tribe to the family and from the family to the individual. It is a process that tends to a progressive separation, opposed to the process of unification in the diversity of the moral vision mentioned previously.

So, although science cannot justify moral values, it could give an explanation of how they could appear in the course of evolution, postulating that moral judgments emerge from a deep innate structure common to all human beings, from processes of transformation that operate on that structure.

Dear Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Thank you very much for your erudite explanation of the ontological basis of morality. I believe that a strong global anti-nuclear weapons peace movement can contribute to "a moral vision that evolves transcending the limited framework of the family and the tribe (as well as the nation state) to encompass the whole of humanity, ecosystems and the biosphere itself." It however seems to me that the peace movement is no longer as vibrant as it was in the 60's and 70's. It is fragmented; its focus is blurred; and there appears to be a general acceptance that nuclear weapons are here to stay. We need to go back to the call for the abolition of all nuclear weapons and not just some of them.

"If everybody demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace" - John Lennon

Nuclear Remembrance days should also be a time to remember John Lennon - the legendary peace activist who sacrificed his fame for world peace. His "Give Peace a Chance" is one of the best anti-war songs ever recorded.

I don't think the atomic bombing ended WW2. More likely it was the Russian invasion, which was supposed to happen three months after the Nazis were defeated in Europe - and that is exactly what happened. The atom bombs gave a convenient excuse to surrender. Without them, the USSR would have conquered Japan after a short while.

As for their proliferation, the main danger is accidental use/misunderstanding. The world would be much safer without them. Conflicts might occur, but countries will need to win them conventionally - if a lot of their defence expenditure is diverted to nuclear weapons such that their conventional forces are easily overrun, this is a very dangerous situation. Combined with the possibility of accidental use and of theft, it becomes clear that we do really need to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons significantly.

Dear Indranil Banik ,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you on the danger of accidental use and theft of nuclear weapons and the need to significantly reduce nuclear weapons. If the technological revolution witnessed in information technology in the last decade occurs in nuclear technology, smaller and less easily detectable nuclear weapons could also be produced. I think if we managed to abolish nuclear weapons research and technology altogether, we would be a lot safer. Some of the modern weapons used by conventional forces in recent wars are weapons of mass destruction too. Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Joseph Rotblat were quite right to seek the eventual elimination of war itself as a legitimate human institution.

Kwame Nkrumah and Ali Mazrui were two pan-African giants who associated nuclear weapons with imperialism and racism. Professor Joelien Pretorius discusses the lessons we can learn from them on how to achieve genuine nuclear disarmament. The link to her article is:

https://theconversation.com/lessons-from-two-pan-african-giants-on-how-to-achieve-genuine-nuclear-disarmament-144009?

One observation of Professor Joelien Pretorius about the Ban Treaty of 2017 and the old Non Proliferation Treaty seems remarkable in the present context:

"Reconciling Nkrumah’s idealism and Mazrui’s realism helps us see these treaties for what they are: the Ban Treaty is based on humanitarian concerns and the equality of states; the Non Proliferation Treaty legalises a few states’ nuclear hegemony indefinitely."

it is generally admitted now that there are nine States possessing nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The treaty forbidding nuclear tests has not yet entered into force, while the possible use of nuclear weapons is contained in the strategies of the states possessing them.

The possible use of nuclear weapons is considered to compensate a possible inferiority in conventional weapons.

Ceteris paribus, the last nuclear arms treaty in force between the by now dominant militar nuclear powers, USA and Russia, will expire in February 2021.

Hypersonic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons seem to be ready soon.

Dear Roberto Suárez-Ántola ,

Thank you for your observations. You are right that the world currently does not have fair and dependable nuclear arms treaties. If four countries outside the UN Security Council can have nuclear arms, what will stop other countries in the UN General Assembly from seeking to emulate them? With hypersonic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons soon to be ready in the five big nuclear nations, the nuclear arms race is clearly far from over.

Not at all, war never brings peace it is reality and this is true.

Dear Md. Abdur Razzak Choudhury ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree with you that that war never brings peace. Unfortunately, humankind seems incapable of seeing this simple reality despite the abundant evidence available from previous wars.

Thank you so much dear Oswell Namasasu, happy to receive your recommendation.

Dear Aleš Kralj ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree that the atomic bombings left the Japanese with no choice but to surrender. After all, the destructive power of their foe had been amply demonstrated. However, there are two opposing narratives of the surrender; each accuses the other of being "simply untrue." In addition to the view that you have put forward, there are some who have argued that Japan would have surrendered quickly without the atomic bombings, and without an American invasion for their military capability had already been seriously weakened using conventional arms. They maintain that the opposing narrative of the necessity of the bombs to spare invasion is a lie intended to absolve America of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to absolve the Japanese leaders of lack of sound judgement in joining a senseless war they should have known was impossible to win in the first place.

Dear Aleš Kralj ,

Thank you for your answer. I agree with the historical facts you have presented. However, historical facts need further analysis of why, how and when they happened. The recording of history is not an objective science for "history is written by victors." Even the vanquished are often not free to write their own history. Conspiracy theories arise when the explanations given of historical events by victors are contested. However, as Daniel Cohnitz has pointed out, "there is nothing that makes conspiracy theories particularly irrational, doubtful or fishy, just because they are conspiracy theories." If anything, it is through refutation of orthodox explanations that knowledge and truth are established. The link to Professor Cohnitz's piece is:

https://philarchive.org/archive/COHACT-3

J. Samuel Walker, author of the book Prompt and Utter Destruction says:

"Historians argue about which is more important. Some say the atomic bomb wasn't important at all, that it was the Soviet invasion. Some say it was it was the atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion was not very important. Most scholars now say it's the combination of the two and you can't possibly sort out which was more important." Source: https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/j-samuel-walkers-interview

As we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is important to reflect on whether nuclear war can ever be morally justified. I found this piece by Richard Fisher to be relevant to our question.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200804-can-nuclear-war-ever-be-morally-justified

Nuclear weapons are no longer needed by anyone. We "have"

CoronaVirus 19.

Thank you Terekh Alexandr M. for your response. Yes the coronavirus outbreak is very devastating, but unlike nuclear weapons, it is not human-made unless, of course, it is proven to be a biological weapon.

Thank you Aleš Kralj for your response. I do express my personal opinions from time to time. But where I agree with views eloquently made by experts I credit my sources through quotes. The intention is to marshal all available arguments and evidence to address a given question, and not to present other people's views as one's own. Now returning to the question of whether nuclear war can ever be morally justified, Leo Szilard, an "insider" in the atomic bomb research project, succinctly expressed the moral argument against the bombings as follows:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Source: Leo Szilard, Interview President Truman did not Understand members.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

Albert Einstein once said that:

"The problem of our age is not the atomic bomb, but the human heart."

In these words, he expressed the essence of creating inventions that can be used for bad or good purposes, depending on intentions, on interpersonal and international relations, etc.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In my opinion, nuclear energy should be developed in modern energy technologies in order to diversify energy sources and develop renewable energy sources.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

On the other hand, nuclear weapons in the form of large ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear charges should be maintained and improved only in the event of a large meteorite or comet appearing in the vicinity of the planet Earth, which could hit the Earth and cause a cataclysm if it was not previously destroyed by the said rocket equipped with into a nuclear charge. It is highly probable that one day in the future such a risk of a global cataclysm, threatening the existence of many forms and species of living creatures, including for humans, will appear in the future. Such events have occurred many times in the past. For example, the end of the era of dinosaurs, including the destruction of dinosaurs, was caused by this type of cataclysm. This type of nuclear weapon, space nuclear weapon, should be developed and improved, but under strict control.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Thank you Dariusz Prokopowicz for your answers. You are right that nuclear energy can effectively be used to diversify energy sources. I agree too that scientific and technological revolutions should also be moral revolutions so that science and technological progress does not lead to nuclear bombing of cities. I was wondering though if the security and safety of large ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear charges to hit meteorites or comets approaching the Earth can be guaranteed. Will nations not be tempted to use them against each other? Or is this a risk we should be prepared to take?

Thank you Vadim S. Gorshkov

Thank you Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak

I think not, but the right to self-determination came to underpin self-defense across most developed economies. Unfortunately, this equally suggests greater misallocation of resources. Even as the U.S. and Britain have built and maintained worryingly large nuclear arsenals, their potential growth has rate has shrunk on average by 0.2% - 0.7% in the last 2 decades. I see little benefits in nuclear armaments; perhaps a silver lining for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e Iran Nuclear deal. Even as recent political and diplomatic rhetoric could occasion unprecedented uncertainty across the Middle East and Beyond.

Here's why I think the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action needs Saving.

https://medium.com/@henrikouam/how-to-save-the-iran-nuclear-deal-6f9f681bc39e

Theoretical, this situation can be explained by the game theory, particularly the prisoner's dilemma. Let's say A and B are rivalling countries. Without nuclear weapons they're actually better off. Nevertheless, A feels insecure when B has nuclear weapons. Likewise, B feels insecure when A has nuclear weapons. Both countries are indeed worse off when they have nuclear weapons aimed at each other. Insecurity which is initially abstract finally becomes a clear and present danger.

Thank you Henri Kouam for your answer. I agree with you that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action needs saving.

Thank you Yudhi Dharma Nauly for your use of the prisoner's dilemma to show how nuclear weapons increase, and do not decrease, the insecurity of rival countries.