The Truth About Nuclear Bombs
Some people think that having nuclear bombs can protect a country from being attacked. But real-life events show that having a strong economy and a good regular army might actually be more helpful in a war.
Recently, there was fighting between Israel and Iran. Both sides said the other had attacked. The United States also got involved and bombed places in Iran where it believed nuclear work was going on. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, even though in 2023, scientists found uranium that was almost as pure as what was used in the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II. Iran said this was just an accident or someone trying to make them look bad.
Let's say Israel and the U.S. are right, and Iran really is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Why would they want one? Probably to scare other countries so they won't attack Iran — that's called 'nuclear deterrence.' Many countries like the U.S., Russia, China, India, and North Korea already have nuclear weapons, and the idea has been popular for 80 years.
But here's the thing: a study of 348 fights over land between countries showed that having nuclear weapons didn't actually help. A professor named David Barash even wrote that the U.S., even with all its nuclear weapons, couldn't stop revolutions or wars in places like China, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Russia (which used to be part of the Soviet Union) had the same problem in Afghanistan.
Even during the Cold War — when the U.S. and the Soviet Union didn't trust each other and both had tons of nukes — they never actually fought a war. So maybe nuclear weapons weren't what kept the peace.
Today, bombs and missiles are so smart and accurate that they could destroy a country's nukes before they even launch. So, having nukes may not be such great protection after all.
Iran, whether it was building bombs or not, has suffered a lot. It's under heavy sanctions — meaning other countries don't trade with it much — so its economy has stayed weak. In 1979, Iran and Saudi Arabia were at the same economic level. Now, Iran's economy is only about 40% the size of Saudi Arabia's. Also, in this short war, Iran's weak air force and defenses made a big difference.
In the end, while some leaders chase nuclear weapons hoping to stay safe, it looks like having a strong economy and good military might be a smarter choice.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
NATO leaders meet for what could be a historic summit or a divided one
The two-day summit has been overshadowed by Trump's decision to order the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. A short summit, decades of mutual security The summit in The Hague involved an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance. Asked again on Tuesday whether he would abide by NATO's security guarantee, Trump said: 'There's numerous definitions of Article 5, you know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends.' He added only that he is 'committed to life and safety.' A civilian runs NATO, but the U.S. and its military hold power The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defense spending, Ukraine's role has been downgraded, compared to previous summits. Zelenskyy attended a royal dinner that Trump also attended Tuesday. He will not have a seat at NATO's table for its one working session. But nor will any other non-NATO leader. More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only nonlethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
U.K. to purchase weapon-capable aircraft under NATO
The British government said on Tuesday (June 24, 2025) that it would purchase a dozen F-35A fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons in what it described as the biggest expansion of its nuclear deterrent in a generation. The purchase of the Lockheed Martin jets would allow Britain's air force to carry nuclear weapons for the first time since the end of the Cold War, Downing Street said. "In an era of radical uncertainty, we can no longer take peace for granted, which is why my government is investing in our national security," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. Britain is increasing defence spending and upgrading its military forces, including its submarine fleet, as it faces increasing hostility from Russia and as the United States retrenches from its traditional role as a defender of European security. The British government said the purchase of the jets would allow it to contribute so-called dual-capable aircraft to NATO to carry nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said "this is yet another robust British contribution to NATO". Britain's nuclear deterrent currently rests solely on the Trident submarine-based system, which misfired during a test last year, the second successive test failure after one veered off course in 2016. The last time Britain possessed an independent air-launched nuclear capability was in 1998 when the WE-177 free fall bomb was withdrawn from service, according to Britain's parliament. Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for battlefield use, as opposed to strategic weapons designed to be fired across vast distances. By purchasing the F-35A fighter jets, Britain would be able to diversify its military options and align more closely with NATO allies such as France, and the United States, which maintains land, sea, and air-based nuclear capabilities. The F-35A fighter jets are capable of carrying U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons. Britain would likely need the United States to supply those weapons for use on the planes, said one British official who declined to be named. The United States withdrew its last nuclear weapons from Britain in 2008, in a sign at that time that the threat of conflict following the end of the Cold War was receding. Downing Street said buying the new jets would support about 20,000 jobs in Britain and underline its commitment to NATO. The government has pledged to boost overall defence and security spending to 5% of economic output by 2035 to meet a NATO target and said on Tuesday (June 24, 2025) it must "actively prepare" for war at home for the first time in years.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
Nato leaders to meet for what could be historic summit or divided one
US President Donald Trump and his Nato counterparts will meet formally Wednesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organisation around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new Nato target for each country to spend 5 per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, calling it unreasonable. Trump insists on that figure, but doesn't say it should apply to America. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. Trump has since lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Snchez's government, saying: Nato is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticised Canada as a low payer. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. The two-day summit has been overshadowed by Trump's decision to order the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided Nato, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. A short summit, decades of mutual security The summit in The Hague involved an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this Nato summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong US presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. Nato's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. Nato's collective security guarantee Article 5 of the treaty underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the US intends to remain a member of the alliance. Asked again on Tuesday whether he would abide by Nato's security guarantee, Trump said: There's numerous definitions of Article 5, you know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends. He added only that he is committed to life and safety. A civilian runs Nato, but the US and its military hold power The United States is Nato's most powerful member. It spends much more on defence than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The US nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. Nato's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other NACs at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs Nato headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. Nato's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defence spending, Ukraine's role has been downgraded, compared to previous summits. Zelenskyy attended a royal dinner that Trump also attended Tuesday. He will not have a seat at Nato's table for its one working session. But nor will any other non-Nato leader. More broadly, Nato itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organisation, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only nonlethal support fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armour, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60 per cent of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. Nato coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organise training for Ukrainian troops. Nato's troop plans A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined Nato recently because of this concern. Under Nato's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge Nato if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against US allies including imposing tariffs on them has weakened that deterrence. The US is carrying the biggest military burden Due to high US defence spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, Nato members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Nato allies agreed to make 2 per cent of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5 per cent, plus a further 1.5 per cent for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts.
