Introduction
Taking care of the environment is a critical topic for research and implementation of new initiatives. The deterioration of this condition is often affected by harmful industrial and human activities. However, nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to individuals and the environment. In the history of humanity, this method of mass destruction has been used only a few times, while its consequences have been thoroughly investigated and analyzed by many scientists. Therefore, this argumentative paper supports the view that nuclear weapons have a significantly adverse and detrimental effect on the environment of the planet Earth.
Discussion
First of all, it is worth gaining an understanding of what nuclear weapons are and what they are used for. Thus, it represents the world’s most dangerous weapon of mass destruction, based on the explosion of nuclear and thermonuclear substances. There are many different types of these weapons, and the degree of destruction depends on “whether the detonation occurs at or near ground-level, substantially below-ground, underwater, in the
comparatively dense troposphere, the less dense although more ozone-rich stratosphere, or in the very rarified upper atmosphere” (Westing, 1981, p. 270). Countries use their stocks of this type of weapon as an advantage over others.
Further, this paper will look at the detrimental environmental contribution that nuclear weapons can have. The main arguments will be based on several scientific evidence-based sources to gain the most valuable and reliable substantiation of points of view. Thus, Westing (1985) wrote in the article “Nuclear war and the environment” that “it is noted that major nuclear war can lead to serious environmental (atmospheric) disruption of hemispheric
dimensions for some months” (p. 6). This impact has been called “nuclear winter,” which will be characterized by a sharp decrease in temperatures and cause the death of many people and animals. Research stated that “these temperature drops and associated losses in production would, by themselves, be unlikely to put the population at risk of starvation” (Green, 1989, p. 405). The reasons that concern environmental concerns are one of the main reasons for not using the studied form of weapons of mass destruction.
Of particular importance for the environment is the increased level of radiation that is released into the atmosphere when nuclear weapons explode. It becomes one of the leading causes of malaise, deaths of people and animals, and possible genetic mutations. For example, “the nuclear radiation from a 20-kT atomic bomb airburst would be lethal to at least 50% of all mammals and birds present in an area of 540” (Westing, 1981, p. 270). Moreover, it penetrates all food products, crops, water, and other sources of vital activity on Earth. The increased level of radiation released into the atmosphere when nuclear weapons explode is also critical in this discussion. It becomes one of the leading causes of malaise, deaths of people and animals, and possible genetic mutations. For example, “the nuclear radiation from a 20-kT atomic bomb airburst would be lethal to at least 50% of all mammals and birds present in an area of 540” (Westing, 1981, p. 270). Moreover, it penetrates all food products, crops, water, and other sources of vital activity on Earth.
The complexity of the situation is that there has been a nuclear race between countries for many years. Moreover, the deterioration of relations between Russia (the former USSR) and the United States is causing concern among scientists. Thus, this tension is reflected in the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by the giant countries when the peak of the conflict situation is reached. However, as Pittock (1989) noted in “The environmental impact of nuclear war: Policy implications,” the threat to the environment and the population of the planet has a more excellent value and becomes a critical part of the development of political strategies of the state. Moreover, the author considers the use of nuclear weapons a suicidal act, which, in addition to the global effect, will affect the destruction of one of the conflicting countries.
At the same time, despite the impossibility of using it shortly, countries should be involved in developing safety strategies for the population and the environment. It is because nuclear weapons can cover and hit an extensive area since the product of combustion and soot with toxic particles can spread through the wind and water. Thus, it will affect the death of animals, fish, and birds and negatively affect neighboring countries’ inhabitants. That is why the United States should be well prepared for possible undesirable actions regardless of their status regarding involvement in the nuclear race.
Toon et al. speculate on the harmful and detrimental effects of nuclear weapons on the environment. Therefore, the authors emphasize that “the direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, would cause most accidents” (Toon et al., 2007, p. 1124). In addition, a nuclear explosion, unlike a conventional one, has long-lasting consequences since long-lived radionuclides can cause long-term environmental pollution. In addition, carbonaceous smoke particles can spread in the atmosphere, darkening the sky and causing damage to the atmosphere (Toon et al., 2007). Thus, this article also confirms that nuclear weapons, regardless of size, type and quantity, can negatively affect the environment and people. Moreover, it has a long-term impact.
It allows to state that the possession and the potential ability to use nuclear weapons are closely connected with the political factor. Currently, the most significant number of warfare have countries like Russia, Great Britain, China, and the United States of America (Pittock, 1989). It is regarded as the guarantee of peace and stability because no single hegemonic possessor of nuclear weapons exists in this situation (Pittock, 1989). For instance, the United States might not use this weapon against Russia because a similar response will follow suit. As a result of the nuclear war between these states, the chances for humanity to disappear are high, which is a restrictive factor in political affairs (Pittock, 1989). Though, the fact that countries have nuclear weapons and can potentially use them leads to the radicalization of the political discourse in the international context. In other words, the escalation of the political conflict between these states might lead to severe damage to humanity and the planet.
The main concern in this situation is whether the politicians understand the price of the military escalation of the conflicts between the countries that possess nuclear weapons. At this moment, the tension between the United States and Russia is comparatively high, and it is impossible to talk about the most severe escalation of the nuclear race from the 1980s. International confrontation leads to the situation when the leaders of the countries that possess nuclear weapons start mentioning them in their discussions of the possible solutions to the existing political controversies. It is possible to hypothesize that the politicians understand the destructive consequences of using nuclear arms, but they cannot reduce the level of radicalism in their speeches. It is a rather depressing situation because it endangers the existence of the planet and all living species on it.
Conclusion
Extensive and long-term research on nuclear weapons shows that it is impossible to deny the extreme undesirability of its use. Thus, scientists support the argument put at the center of this work. The main argument for the point of view about the harm of nuclear weapons is the cause of such a severe deterioration of the environment and atmosphere that a nuclear winter may come, characterized by low solid temperatures. Moreover, the type of weapons of mass destruction under study has a long-lasting effect, which implies long implying explosion products in the air and the environment. For all countries, there is a need to develop measures that will concern the protection of nature and all people. It is worth noting that the negative impact of nuclear weapons on the environment is one of the reasons why countries do not attempt to use them against each other.
References
Green, W. (1989). Nuclear war impacts on noncombatant societies: An important research task. Ambio, 402-406.
Pittock, A. B. (1989). The environmental impact of nuclear war: Policy implications. Ambio, 18, 367-371.
Toon, O.B., Robock, A., Turco, R.P., Bardeen, C., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G.L. (2007). Consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts. Science, 315(5816), 1224-1225. Web.
Westing, A. H. (1981). Environmental impact of nuclear warfare. Environmental Conservation, 8(4), 269-273. Web.
Westing, A. H. (1985). Nuclear war and the environment. Environmental Conservation, 12(1), 5-6. Web.