Why nuclear is a threat?

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on Earth. An entire city can be destroyed, potentially killing millions of people and endangering the natural environment and the lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. The dangers of these weapons arise from their very existence. Experts predict that the danger of a massive strategic nuclear attack against the United States will be less likely today.

However, terrorism, by nature, is unpredictable. Of course, accidents and errors are not the only possible path that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. There is a risk that a terribly irresponsible person will lead a country that possesses nuclear weapons. There is a risk of nuclear terrorism, possibly after a terrorist organization steals weapons.

There is a possibility that hackers could take control of the nuclear chain of command. And there is a possibility that several of these factors play a role at the same time. The same escalation dynamic can occur after nuclear weapons have been used, when one or both (or more) adversaries decide to increase nuclear attacks to force the others to desist from continuing the war. Regional tensions, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to be manufactured, together with terrorism and new technologies such as cybernetics, mean that the risk of a nuclear weapon or device being used increases.

First, unlike when the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945, today the adversary will also possess nuclear weapons in any conflict in which the United States would possibly use them. This risk has been increased by access to technologies that allow nuclear newcomers to create smaller, more easily transportable weapons, called battlefield weapons, and by the worrying increase in military doctrines that lower the threshold for the actual use of nuclear weapons. It must also maintain advanced intelligence collection and recognition capabilities to detect threats that may require nuclear or other responses. Moniz and Sam Nunn applaud the Joint Declaration of the leaders of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States who pledge to prevent nuclear war and prevent arms races, in particular applauding their assertion that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

Only strategic deterrent forces, armed with conventional capabilities (offensive attack and aerospace defense), non-strategic nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons, are effective deterrents in regional and large-scale wars. Some analysts and officials immediately conclude that nuclear weapons of newer types or greater numbers will be needed to deter or defeat these potential new threats. Both countries also threaten the use of nuclear energy to prevent an adversary's attack, perhaps by cyber means, against critical nuclear command and control infrastructure. The state department document on the low-performance option of the W76-2 says: “There is no such thing as safe nuclear war or low-risk nuclear attack, regardless of its magnitude.

South Africa once possessed nuclear weapons and is the first state to voluntarily renounce nuclear weapons. In any case, to avoid situations of nuclear escalation, a realistic and prudent nuclear policy requires serious planning of diplomatic signage and non-nuclear military options to seek the end of the war. But there is a risk that the types of technical errors and accidents listed here could accidentally lead to the use of nuclear weapons, since a nuclear power may incorrectly come to believe that it is being attacked. Although the United States and Russia have greatly reduced their stockpiles of nuclear weapons over the past three decades, there is still the persistent and growing threat of nuclear annihilation.


Bradford Tutwiler
Bradford Tutwiler

Devoted internet fanatic. General twitter aficionado. Total tv buff. General travel lover. Hardcore pop culture evangelist. Award-winning food nerd.

Leave a Comment

All fileds with * are required