The debate over whether nuclear weapons stabilize the international system or make it more dangerous has accompanied the atomic age from its very beginning. Both sides of the argument can sound persuasive. Yet recent discussions in Western Europe suggest something more troubling than disagreement: a growing frivolity toward weapons whose sole historical purpose has been mass annihilation.
Supporters of nuclear proliferation argue that atomic weapons are, above all, instruments of deterrence. In their view, nuclear arms protect weaker states from coercion and force stronger powers to replace military pressure with diplomacy. Many scientists and strategists have long believed that nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of major wars, since no rational state would knowingly risk escalation to mutual destruction.
The Cold War confrontation between the USSR and the United States is often cited as proof. Despite intense rivalry, neither side crossed the threshold into direct conflict. The same logic is applied today to India and Pakistan, whose acquisition of nuclear weapons is widely believed to have prevented large-scale war between them.
Opponents of this view counter that nuclear weapons should remain in the hands of a limited number of states with the institutional capacity to manage them responsibly. Most countries, they argue, lack the political culture, experience, and control mechanisms required to handle such weapons without catastrophic error. In this reading, nuclear arms resemble fire: powerful, useful in specific contexts, but never a toy. The familiar rule applies, matches are not for children.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: rt.com
