Arguments Against Nuclear Deterrence

On the other hand, one could produce an equally valid argument against the use of nuclear deterrence. While nuclear deterrence helps with reducing the chance of nuclear war, it is by no means a guaranteed barrier. It is easily seen that nuclear weapons hold the potential for the loss of innocent life; around 150,000 were lost in the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In addition to the loss of life, the loss of large sums of government money is a second argument against nuclear deterrence. It is estimated that between 1940 and 2000, $5.5 trillion were spent on nuclear weapons programs, and nearly $350 billion is estimated to be spent in the next ten years. It can easily be argued this money would be better spent on government projects
with clear moral benefit, such as improving welfare, healthcare, and education nationwide. Those against the use of nuclear deterrence may also argue that being a weapons scientists or engineer is not an ethical career. While this poses an extensive ethical argument in itself, working as a defense engineer comes with a unique set of ethical dilemmas as one could say their goal is only to design “killing machines”. As a result, some engineers choose to voluntarily leave the profession due to contradictions with their personal ethics