**TL;DR: Since nuclear weapons have been used the number of conflicts has decreased and they have not been needed again** Since the USA dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 there have been no major world conflicts. Japan surrendered on August 15th bringing an end to one of histories most destructive and costliest wars. Without the use of nuclear weapons, the war could have been prolonged for much longer and put the lives and prosperity of millions of people at risk. [Mutually Assured Destruction] (https://www.thoughtco.com/mutually-assured-destruction-1221190) ensures that no side will ever go to all out war with the other. As with nuclear war, there will never be a winner so war is not likely therefore making the world a safer place. [It is clear to see] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5OsDWYJmQ) the reduction in the number of conflicts since 1945. More conflicts have arisen in countries that do not possess nuclear weapons. It could be argued then that wider access to nuclear weapons would further the security of the world.

**TL;DR – Whilst the presence of nuclear weapons reduces the possibility of physical warfare, the mere _existence_ of such destructive weapons arguably makes the world a much more dangerous place than before.** The answer to this question ultimately depends on one's definition of “safer”: • From one perspective, the presence of nuclear weapons reduces the chance of a “hot war” because of the concept known as [Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)](https://www.thoughtco.com/mutually-assured-destruction-1221190). States are aware of the devastating consequences of nuclear attacks, as witnessed in the 1945 bombings of Fukushima and Nagasaki. Consequently, the threat of reciprocation means that states are more willing to negotiate peacefully if tensions rise, as seen in the events of the [1962 Cuban Missile Crisis](https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis). • However, the very fact that nuclear weapons are so destructive suggests they do _not_ make the world a safer place. Surely, the fact that states now possess weapons that can annihilate whole cities in an instant implies that the world has become more dangerous, rather than safe. The threat of another nuclear attack occurring again is more than enough to keep people on the edge…

**A ticking bomb or effective deterrent?** • Nuclear weapons are regarded as the [most dangerous](https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/) type of all weapons, due to the scale of their impact and long-term consequences. One nuclear bomb has the power to destroy an entire city in one explosion, killing millions. Once detonated, nuclear warfare releases [ionizing radiation](https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm) that causes diseases and genetic damage to people exposed to it, and harms the surrounding environment. This radiation can spread over great distances, affecting many. • Due to the catastrophic scale of destruction that nuclear weapons are capable of causing, many believe that the existence of nuclear weapons makes the world significantly [more dangerous](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/world-more-dangerous-now-than-during-cold-war/1550729). Countries without their own nuclear weapons feel threatened by countries who do have nuclear weapons, and so begin to invest in creating their own. Now that nuclear weapons are becoming more widely available, it is not impossible that terrorist groups might be able to access them and cause great harm to the world. • Others argue that nuclear weapons _do_ make the world a safer place, and reason that since the introduction of nuclear weapons, there have been more periods of peace and fewer major wars. During [the Cold War](https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/have-nuclear-weapons-helped-to-maintain-global-peace/), it was the existence of nuclear weapons that prevented a “hot war” with physical fighting: they created a stalemate between the Soviet Union and the Western Block, which averted many deaths.

**The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, how can we justifiably say the world is a safer place when such weapons exist.** - August 2020 marked the 75 year anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. This took the lives of approximately [140,000 people.]( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-53648572) Just three days later this was followed by another bomb in the city of Nagasaki. Which is estimated to have taken the lives of another [74,000 people.]( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-53648572) - However, to those who survived the blast. Many went on to feel the effects of the bombs throughout the rest of their lives. [‘In the years that followed, many of the survivors would face leukaemia, cancer, or other terrible side effects from the radiation.’]( https://www.icanw.org/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_bombings) The rates of miscarriages also went up in women who were pregnant at the time of the bombings. - If we were to experience an atomic bomb today there would be no way that we could assist or aid the victims. Not only would those caught up in the bomb be doctors’ nurses and first responders but there would be an unimaginable number of victims that it would simply be too overwhelming. Entering the area itself would be life-threatening due to the high levels of radiation. As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) point out [‘There is no way to really help victims of a nuclear attack’]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTAAjfvEXA&t=82s) following up with [‘These weapons should never be used’]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTAAjfvEXA&t=82s) This was the very case with the Hiroshima bombing. Around 90% of physicians and nurses were killed or injured and 42 out of the 45 hospitals in the city were affected by the blast. This meant they only had two hospitals they could efficiently use at their disposal to cater for the mass injuries. - I don’t know how one can justifiably argue that one deserves this fate, nor do I know how the use of such weapons could ever be morally acceptable. The effects are just too overwhelmingly devastating. As Antonio Guterres the UN Secretary General stated ["The only way to totally eliminate nuclear risk is to totally eliminate nuclear weapons.”](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53660059)

**Nuclear weapons are unbelievably dangerous, destructive and should not exist in this world.** • What I don’t understand, is how a weapon with the capability and intention of wiping out _millions_ of humans, could possibly make the world any safer a place. Many people hold the argument that everyone having nuclear weapons prevents or deters nations from using theirs at fear of retaliation. But I don’t agree. • By simply existing, nuclear weapons have the potential to take and destroy an unimaginable number of lives, and I just can’t contemplate why or how this would ever be ok or justifiable. The threat posed to humanity is just incomprehensible and especially in the times we’re currently living in, frighteningly possible. • _Trump vs. North Korea_ - in a series of outbursts projected by Donald Trump into the twitter verse, talk of nuclear weapons was unnervingly colloquial. After North Korea’s leader admitted that his country’s nuclear weapons could reach anywhere in the US and signalled the nuclear weapon he keeps on his desk, the 45th President of the United States responded with a tweet describing his nuclear button as [‘bigger and more powerful’](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687). I found this terrifying. No human should ever possess this amount of power. • We should _learn from history_: namely the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities and ultimately killed between [129,000 and 226,000 people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) - most of whom were civilians. Pictures of those scenes are horrifying. Completely horrifying.