Nuclear Deterrence Theory
Nuclear Weapons, usually in the form of bombs or warheads, have long been recognized as a catastrophic force of mass destruction. As an ultra-impactful mean to alter the outcome of wars, captured by the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the technology/information on building Nuclear Weapons had become an essential matter of interest for numerous countries(e.g. the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China) ever since the end of WWII. Such interest(which eventually led to a series of campaign of Nuclear proliferation among countries)not only attributes to the formidability of Nuclear power, but more importantly the potential stability and order that could have been provided to the globe, as proposed by the American Economist Thomas Schelling’s “Nuclear Deterrence Theory”—the idea that multiple countries simultaneously possessing the ruinous nuke force would actually deter the use of Nuclear Weapons among Nuclear-owned countries, backed up by an explicit mismatch between, intuitively, “a conceivable defense system” and “the speed with which nuclear weapons can be deployed”, according to Schelling.
As for now, “Nuclear Deterrence Theory” is adopted by most countries that have acquired the capability of building nuke weapons(i.e., Nine nations have developed the intelligence to create and possess nuclear weapons, and hence the ethical issues associated with these weapons become increasingly critical and relevant to mankind’s interest.
Is using Nuclear Weapons permissible under certain circumstances(e.g., Japanese Fascism and Militarism invaded U.S.) ? Is it ethical to implement nuclear deterrence (threatening to use atomic weapons) as a self-defense strategy(e.g., Nuclear tension between the U.S. and North Korea) ?
