There are lots of arguments circling around about keeping or destroying nuclear weapons, who should have them, and where or when they should be developed or used. If you want a solid argument against the production of these kinds of weapons and want to wipe them out completely, here are the most informed arguments that you can use to win any fight during your in-law’s tooth-and-nail dispute.
- The United States needs to fulfill their existing obligations, along with the rest of the world. Every nuclear weapons state has made explicit promises to negotiate towards nuclear disarmament. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China, was extended in 1995, and 2000. Even countries that are not a part of the NPT have sworn to destroy their own nuclear weapons (India and Pakistan) if others like them agree to do so as well. The only nuclear state that has not joined in is Israel. Your argument will come full circle when you remind your stubborn adversaries of the International Court of Justice’s obligation to nuclear disarmament that clearly reveals an obligation to reduce atomic weapons to zero: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”
- Why don’t we just stop nuclear weapons proliferation? If nations fail to eliminate their nuclear weapon arsenals, then it is likely to result in proliferation of nuclear weapons to dangerous countries. The argument that powerful nations should protect themselves with powerful weapons will surely lead to less powerful nations will make that argument as well. This will cause the Non-Proliferation Treaty to hang in a delicate balance when all parties meet for the next NPT Review Conference.
- Abolishing nuclear weapons helps avoids nuclear accidents. Miscommunication, miscalculation, misfiring, or malfunctioning can occur, considering the thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons that are already deployed or are on high alert status. This risk is especially high considering the short amount of time allowed for making decisions about if there is a state of emergency occurring or not. (For bonus points, you can even add on that the breakup of the USSR weakened the nuclear weapons early warning system, which renders the country at an increased likelihood of an attack.)
- If we destroy nuclear weapons, less nuclear terrorism will occur. (If you need to elaborate on this, here is what you could say just in case that is not enough of an argument.) Nuclear weapons and their production sites are vulnerable to terrorist attacks at any time. Because of their power and overall destructive potential, nuclear weapons are especially wanted by terrorists (seriously though, if you have to keep going here is what you can say). This threat is even greater when you consider Russia’s early warning system has been vulnerable since the Cold War, so their ability to sense a terror attack is weakened as well. Also, if you think about it a little more, and your audience needs more convincing, you can tell them that in a world where terrorists are hard to find, and nuclear weapons need a steady target; therefore, it will be near impossible to attack terrorists with nuclear weapons since they are hiding beneath the sand.