Should the US expand its Nuclear Arsenal? Pro

Nuclear weapons represent far more than a mere threat to human existence. In the modern intricacies of world diplomacy, nuclear capabilities have become a means through which to advance ideologies and agenda, for better or worse.

It is not by coincidence that the five members of the United Nations’ Security Council have nuclear weapons, and it is for exactly these reasons that nations seek out nuclear weapons. Countries like North Korea and Iran have sought out to become contenders on the world stage by researching and developing their nuclear armament. Possession gives states a voice.

It was for a time that nuclear agreements for non-proliferation were starting to take hold and the world could relax from the edge of destruction. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty sought to limit the amount of deployable nuclear weapons between the biggest powers of the age— Russia and the United States.

However, times have changed. Under the New START program, begun in 2011 when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Russia actually began to proliferate once again, according to an April posting on FactCheck.org.

The Putin regime has not only increased the total amount of deployable nuclear weapons, but has developed newer and more destructive forms of it, as well as moved its arsenal to strategic points across the Russian homeland as a veiled threat and reminder of what could become of the situation at hand.

At a time when relations between Russia, China and North Korea are so very volatile, advancing the United States’ nuclear arsenal is essential. Now is not the time for non-proliferation.

Owning and developing nuclear weapons does not mean nations will use them.

Nukes give countries negotiating powers and with the threat of ultimate destruction looming, the prospect of nuclear war forces cooler heads to prevail.

In a 2016 article, CNN reported that after an attack on a military base in the Kashmir region of India, the Pakistani-Indian conflict was once again at the front of the news.

Each side blamed the other, with India blaming Pakistan for sponsoring terrorists to storm the base, while Pakistan blamed India for attacks on the wrong side of the border.

It looked like a decades old conflict was about to boil over again. India maintains a clear no-first-use policy on nukes, but Pakistan has never committed themselves to such a policy and the existence of tactical nukes made many in the international community worry about what would happen.

However, the fission between the two powers softened as the reality of what nuclear warfare might entail forced both sides to reevaluate possible actions against each other.

Nukes have become a staple in the international diet, and for those who come to rely on them, going without can lead to weakness. The world has seen this first hand when, during the Cold War, the United States claimed to have the technology for a Strategic Defense Initiative, a system of satellites that could destroy incoming nuclear weapons.

When the then USSR heard about this development, the country was up in arms and complained about imbalance of technology between the two countries. This renewed the arms race between the two countries and some credit this move to the eventual collapse of the USSR.

The nuclear threat was a mainstay of international relations and diplomacy in the 20th century, and when, in the 21st century, it seemed nuclear warfare was a relic from the Cold War, it seems the looming nuclear apocalypse has entered into the national dialogue once again. Now is not the time to falter on the issue of national defense.