Why Do Countries Possess Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) are arsenals or weapon systems capable of indiscriminate devastation, resulting in large-scale loss of life and substantial destruction. The term has been in use since at least 1937, initially applied to large-scale bomber formations and later to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Although the use of biological and most chemical weapons is now proscribed, the term is predominantly associated with nuclear weapons and other explosive devices.

Advantages and Countermeasures

WMDs provide a significant strategic advantage to the nations that possess them. The only way to effectively counter WMDs is through even more potent WMDs. This principle explains why countries like the United States maintain a powerful arsenal and why nations that do not possess such weapons rely on alliances with those that do for protection.

The Numinous Appeal of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons have been part of the global landscape since the end of World War II. Their popularity surged from 1945 to 1990, a period often referred to as the Cold War era. However, their prominent role diminished in the post-Cold War era. The situation appears to be changing again, with countries like Iran, Japan, and Germany considering or pursuing nuclear capabilities, which is worrisome. If all these nations were to deploy their nuclear warheads, the entire human race might cease to exist as we know it.

Risk of Activation

Not all nuclear warheads are active, but it wouldn't take many to make a significant impact. The primary reason nations possess nuclear warheads is to serve as a deterrent. However, the paradox of nuclear weapons is that their global removal would render the concept of deterrence obsolete. In their absence, nations would need other forms of protection or deterrents.

Nuclear Weapons as a Deterrent

Take the example of North Korea. With its nuclear arsenal, the nation is not subjected to invasion, as evidenced by its unprovoked missile strikes against the U.S.-allied South Korea. In contrast, nations without nuclear deterrents like Iraq have historically faced more aggressive and invasive actions, with their natural resources being plundered.

Safety and Protection

The presence of nuclear weapons enhances the security of nations like North Korea, as it deters potential adversaries from launching attacks. Conversely, less powerful nations without such capabilities may find themselves targets of quick and destructive invasions, similar to what happened with Iraq.

In conclusion, the possession of weapons of mass destruction is a double-edged sword. While they offer a measure of security and protection against potential threats, the ethical and practical implications of their existence cannot be overlooked. As the debate about the proliferation of WMDs continues, nations must weigh the benefits and risks carefully and strive for a safer and more peaceful global environment.