argumentative essay on nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons: Why reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation

The consequences of nuclear war would be devastating. much more should – and can – be done to reduce the risk that humanity will ever fight such a war..

The shockwave and heat that the detonation of a single nuclear weapon creates can end the lives of millions of people immediately.

But even larger is the devastation that would follow a nuclear war.

The first reason for this is nuclear fallout. Radioactive dust from the detonating bombs rises up into the atmosphere and spreads out over large areas of the world from where it falls down and causes deadly levels of radiation.

The second reason is less widely known. But this consequence – 'nuclear winter' and the worldwide famine that would follow – is now believed to be the most serious consequence of nuclear war.

Cities that are attacked by nuclear missiles burn at such an intensity that they create their own wind system, a firestorm: hot air above the burning city ascends and is replaced by air that rushes in from all directions. The storm-force winds fan the flames and create immense heat.

From this firestorm, large columns of smoke and soot rise up above the burning cities and travel all the way up to the stratosphere. There it spreads around the planet and blocks the sun’s light. At that great height – far above the clouds – it cannot be rained out, meaning that it will remain there for years, darkening the sky and thereby drying and chilling the planet.

The nuclear winter that would follow a large-scale nuclear war is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celsius (60–86° F) in many of the world’s agricultural regions – including much of Eurasia and North America. Nuclear winter would cause a 'nuclear famine'. The world’s food production would fail and billions of people would starve. 1

These consequences – nuclear fallout and nuclear winter leading to famine – mean that the destruction caused by nuclear weapons is not contained to the battlefield. It would not just harm the attacked country. Nuclear war would devastate all countries, including the attacker.

The possibility of global devastation is what makes the prospect of nuclear war so very terrifying. And it is also why nuclear weapons are so unattractive for warfare. A weapon that can lead to self-destruction is not a weapon that can be used strategically.

US President Reagan put it in clear words at the height of the Cold War: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” 2

Nuclear stockpiles have been reduced, but the risk remains high

40 years after Reagan’s words, the Cold War is over and nuclear stockpiles have been reduced considerably, as the chart shows.

The world has learned that nuclear armament is not the one-way street that it was once believed to be. Disarmament is possible.

But the chart also shows that there are still almost ten thousand nuclear weapons distributed among nine countries on our planet, at least. 3 Each of these weapons can cause enormous destruction; many are much larger than the ones that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 4

Collectively these weapons are immensely destructive. The nuclear winter scenario outlined above would kill billions of people— billions— in the years that follow a large-scale nuclear war, even if it was fought “only” with today’s reduced stockpiles. 5

It is unclear whether humanity as a species could possibly survive a full-scale nuclear war with the current stockpiles. 6 A nuclear war might well be humanity’s final war.

Close Calls: Instances that threatened to push the ‘balance of terror’ out of balance and into war

The ‘balance of terror’ is the idea that all involved political leaders are so scared of nuclear war that they never launch a nuclear attack.

If this is achievable at all, it can only be achieved if all nuclear powers keep their weapons in check. This is because the balance is vulnerable to accidents: a nuclear bomb that detonates accidentally – or even just a false alarm, with no weapons even involved – can trigger nuclear retaliation because several countries keep their nuclear weapons on ‘launch on warning’; in response to a warning, their leaders can decide within minutes whether they want to launch a retaliatory strike.

For the balance of terror to be a balance, all parties need to be in control at all times. This however is not the case.

In the timeline, you can read through some of the close calls during the past decades.

The risk of nuclear war might well be low – because neither side would want to fight such a war that would have such awful consequences for everyone on the planet. But there is a risk that the kinds of technical errors and accidents listed here could lead accidentally to the use of nuclear weapons, as a nuclear power can incorrectly come to believe that they are under attack.

This is why false alarms, errors, and close calls are so crucial to monitor: they are the incidents that can push the ‘balance of terror’ out of balance and into war.

Accidents and errors are of course not the only possible path that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. There is the risk of a terribly irresponsible person leading a country possessing nuclear weapons. There is the risk of nuclear terrorism, possibly after a terrorist organization steals weapons. There is the possibility that hackers can take control of the nuclear chain of command. And there is the possibility that several of these factors play a role at the same time.

A timeline of nuclear weapons ‘close calls’ 7

Below this post, you find additional lists of close calls, where you find much more information on each of these incidents.

How to reduce the risk of nuclear war?

An escalating conflict between nuclear powers – but also an accident, a hacker, a terrorist, or an irresponsible leader – could lead to the detonation of nuclear weapons.

Those risks only go to zero if all nuclear weapons are removed from the world. I believe this is what humanity should work towards, but it is exceedingly hard to achieve, at least in the short term. It is therefore important to see that there are additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war. 8

A more peaceful world : Many world regions in which our ancestors fought merciless wars over countless generations are extraordinarily peaceful in our times. The rise of democracy, international trade, diplomacy, and a cultural attitude shift against the glorification of war are some of the drivers credited for this development. 9

Making the world a more peaceful place will reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation. Efforts that reduce the chance of any war reduce the chance of nuclear war.

Nuclear treaties : Several non-proliferation treaties have been key in achieving the large reduction of nuclear stockpiles. However, key treaties – like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the US and Russia – have been suspended and additional agreements could be reached.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which became effective in 2021, is a recent development in this direction.

Smaller nuclear stockpiles : Reducing the stockpiles further is seen as an important and achievable goal by experts.

It is considered achievable because smaller stockpiles would still provide the deterrence benefits from nuclear weapons. And it is important as it reduces the risk of accidents and the chance that a possible nuclear war would end civilization.

Better monitoring, better control: The risk can be further reduced by efforts to better control nuclear weapons – so that close calls occur less frequently. Similarly better monitoring systems would reduce the chance of false alarms.

Taking nuclear weapons off ‘hair-trigger alert’ would reduce the risk that any accident that does occur can rapidly spiral out of control. And a well-resourced International Atomic Energy Agency can verify that the agreements in the treaties are met.

Better public understanding, global relations, and culture : Finally I also believe that it will help to see clearly that billions of us share the same goal. None of us wants to live through a nuclear war, none of us wants to die in one. As Reagan said, a nuclear war cannot be won and it would be better to do away with these weapons entirely.

A generation ago a broad and highly visible societal movement pursued the goal of nuclear disarmament. These efforts were to a good extent successful. But since then, this goal has unfortunately lost much of the attention it once received – and this is despite the fact that things have not fundamentally changed: the world still possesses weapons that could kill billions. 10 I wish it was a more prominent concern in our generation so that more young people would set themselves the goal to make the world safe from nuclear weapons.

Below this post you find resources on where you can get engaged or donate, to help reduce the danger from nuclear weapons.

I believe some dangers are exaggerated – for example, I believe that the fear of terrorist attacks is often wildly out of proportion with the actual risk. But when it comes to nuclear weapons I believe the opposite is true.

There are many today who hardly give nuclear conflict a thought and I think this is a big mistake.

For eight decades, people have been producing nuclear weapons. Several countries have dedicated vast sums of money to their construction. And now we live in a world in which these weapons endanger our entire civilization and our future.

These destructive weapons are perhaps the clearest example that technology and innovation are not only forces for good, they can also enable catastrophic destruction.

Without the Second World War and the Cold War, the world might have never developed these weapons and we might find the idea that anyone could possibly build such weapons unimaginable. But this is not the world we live in. We live in a world with weapons of enormous destructiveness and we have to see the risks that they pose to all of us and find ways to reduce them.

I hope that there are many in the world today who take on the challenge to make the world more peaceful and to reduce the risk from nuclear weapons. The goal has to be that humanity never ends up using this most destructive technology that we ever developed.

Resources to continue reading and finding ways to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons

• Hiroshima : John Hersey’s report for the New Yorker about the bombing of Hiroshima, published in August 1946.
• ’80,000 Hours’ profile on Nuclear Security : an article focusing on the question of how to choose a career that makes the world safer from nuclear weapons.
• The ‘Future of Life Institute’ on Nuclear Weapons : this page includes an extensive list of additional references – including videos, research papers, and many organizations that are dedicated to reducing the risk from nuclear weapons.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Charlie Giattino, Hannah Ritchie, and Edouard Mathieu for reading drafts of this and for their very helpful comments and ideas.

Additional lists of close calls with nuclear weapons

* Future of Life Institute – Accidental nuclear war: A timeline of close calls .

* Alan F. Philips, M.D. – 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War , published on Nuclear Files

* Josh Harkinson (2014) – That Time We Almost Nuked North Carolina

* Union of Concerned Scientists (2015) – Close Calls with Nuclear Weapons

* Chatham House Report (2014) – Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy authored by Patricia Lewis, Heather Williams, Benoît Pelopidas, and Sasan Aghlani

* Wikipedia – List of Nuclear Close Calls

On Nuclear Winter see:

* Jägermeyr, Jonas, Alan Robock, Joshua Elliott, Christoph Müller, Lili Xia, Nikolay Khabarov, Christian Folberth, et al. (2020) – ‘ A Regional Nuclear Conflict Would Compromise Global Food Security’ . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 13 (31 March 2020): 7071–81.

* Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. L. Stenchikov (2007) – Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences , J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008235.

* Alan Robock & Owen Brian Toon (2012) – Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war . In Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68, 66–74.

* Alan Robock & Owen Brian Toon (2016) – Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter , In the New York Times, Feb. 11, 2016.

Some additional points:

* The risk of nuclear winter (initially termed ‘nuclear twilight’) was only discovered in the early 1980s, more than 3 decades after the bombs were first used.

* The main mechanism by which a nuclear winter is expected to cause a decline in global food production is by reducing the growing season, the days in a row without frost. See Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007).

* Robock estimates that the smoke and soot would rise as high as 40 kilometers (25 miles) into the atmosphere. See Robock and Toon (2016).

* Before the nuclear famine kills people from hunger, many will die from hypothermia.

* In addition to the impact on the climate, the ozone layer is expected to get depleted in such a scenario. This would allow more ultraviolet radiation to reach our planet’s surface, harming plant and animal life.

* In general there is only relatively little scientific work that focuses on nuclear winter and additional, good research could be useful to provide a better understanding. Due to the lack of research there remains uncertainty about how devastating a nuclear winter would be. In particular there is disagreement on how likely it is that all of humanity would die in a nuclear winter.

* The paper by Jägermeyr et al (2020) shows that among the countries with the largest food production losses would be the US and Russia, those countries that have the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

For anyone who interested in the impact of nuclear winter on food production and famine, Ord (2020) cites the following:

* Cropper, W. P., and Harwell, M. A. (1986) – “Food Availability after Nuclear War,” in M. A. Harwell and T. C. Hutchinson (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War (SCOPE 28), vol. 2: Ecological, Agricultural, and Human Effects. John Wiley and Sons.

* Helfand, I. (2013) – Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk? Physicians for Social Responsibility.

* Xia, L., Robock, A., Mills, M., Stenke, A., and Helfand, I. (2015) – Decadal Reduction of Chinese Agriculture after a Regional Nuclear War . Earth’s Future, 3(2), 37–48.

Reagan in his State of the Union address in 1984, quoted in the New York Times: Bernard Gwertzman (1984) – Reagan reassures Russians on war . In the New York Times January 26, 1984.

There are nine countries that are known to possess nuclear weapons: Russia, United States, France, China, United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. South Africa once possessed nuclear weapons and is the first state to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons.

The explosive power of a nuclear weapon is called the yield of a nuclear weapon. It is the amount of energy released when that weapon is detonated. It is usually measured in ‘TNT equivalents’.

The bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13–18 kilotons of TNT. (one kiloton are 1000 tonnes)

The largest bomb that was ever detonated is the ‘Tsar Bomba’ built by the USSR and detonated in October 1961. Its yield was about 50 megatons of TNT. That’s 50,000 kilotons of TNT or about 3,333-times the yield of the bomb in Hiroshima.

The scenario in Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) is based on the nuclear stockpiles after the large reduction that was achieved after the end of the Cold War. It shows that the world still retains enough weapons to produce “a large, long-lasting, unprecedented global climate change,” as the authors put it. Since the publication of this study, the stockpiles have been reduced further, as the chart shows, but not very strongly so.

For a recent discussion of this question see Ord (2020) – The Precipice.

This list is largely based on Toby Ord’s 2020 book The Precipice . His list can be found in Chapter 4 and Appendix C of his book.

Ord in turn relies mostly on a document from the US Department of Defense from 1981: Narrative Summaries of Accidents Involving US Nuclear Weapons (1950–1980) .

This list is mostly based on the ’80,000 Hours’ profile on Nuclear Security and Toby Ord (2020) – The Precipice.

For big overviews of this literature see the forthcoming book Christopher Blattman (2022) – Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace and Steven Pinker (2011) – The Better Angels of our Nature for a big overview

Lawrence S. Wittner – Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement . Stanford University Press.

One indication for the declining interest in the last generation: Mentions of “nuclear war” in books and newspapers peaked in 1985 and declined strongly since then (see Google Ngram for ‘nuclear war’ ).

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nuclear weapon topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy nuclear weapon essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on nuclear weapon, ❓ research questions about nuclear weapons.

• Was the US Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb? In addition to unleashing catastrophic damage upon the people of Japan, the dropping of the bombs was the beginning of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
• Means of Destruction & Atomic Bomb Use Politics This information relates to the slide concerning atomic energy, which also advocates for the participation of the Manhattan Project’s researchers and policy-makers in the decision to atomic bombing during World War II. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Truman’s Decision the Dropping an Atomic Bomb The operations planned for late 1945 and early 1946 were to be on mainland Japan, and the military fatalities on both sides, as well as civilian deaths, would have very certainly outweighed the losses caused […]
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb? The fact is that a nuclear reactor is not designed in the same way as an atomic bomb, as such, despite the abundance of material that could cause a nuclear explosion, the means by which […]
• Ethics and Sustainability. Iran’s Nuclear Weapon The opponents of Iran’s nuclear program explain that the country’s nuclear power is a threat for the peace in the world especially with regards to the fact that Iran is a Muslim country, and its […]
• The Decision to Drop the Atom Bomb President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision of unprecedented complexity and gravity and, without a doubt, the most difficult decision of his life.
• E. B. Sledge’s Views on Dropping the A-Bomb There is a pointed effort to present to the reader the reality of war in all its starkness and raw horror. However, in the case of a war veteran like E.B.
• The Atomic Bomb of Hiroshima The effects of the bombing were devastating; the explosion had a blast equivalent to approximately 13 kilotons of TNT. Sasaki says that hospitals were teaming with the wounded people, those who managed to survive the […]
• Middle East: Begin Doctrine and Nuclear Weapon Free Zone This happens to be the case despite the fact that many countries and different members of the UN have always been opposed to the validity and applicability of this foreign doctrine or policy.
• Atomic Bomb as a Necessary Evil to End WWII Maddox argued that by releasing the deadly power of the A-bomb on Japanese soil, the Japanese people, and their leaders could visualize the utter senselessness of the war.
• Nuclear Weapon Associated Dangers and Solutions The launch of a nuclear weapon will not only destroy the infrastructure but also lead to severe casualties that will be greater than those during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
• Why the US Decided to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan? One of the most notable stains on America’s reputation, as the ‘beacon of democracy,’ has to do with the fact that the US is the only country in the world that had used the Atomic […]
• The Marshallese and Nuclear Weapon Testing The other effects that the Marshallese people suffered as a result of nuclear weapon testing had to do with the high levels of radiations that were released.
• Was the American Use of the Atomic Bomb Against Japan in 1945 the Final Act of WW2 or the Signal That the Cold War Was About to Begin Therefore, to evaluate the reasons that guided the American government in their successful attempt at mass genocide of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one must consider not only the political implications behind the actions […]
• Leo Szilard’s Petition on the Atomic Bomb The group of scientists who created the weapon of mass destruction tried to prevent the usage of atomic bombs with the help of providing the petition to the President.
• Atomic Audit: Nuclear Posture Review Michael notes that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear bombs, tends to qualify the infiltration of security threats in the United States and across the world.
• Why the US used the atomic bomb against Japan? There are two main reasons that prompted the United States to use the atomic bomb against Japan; the refusal to surrender by Japan and the need for the US to assert itself.
• The Use of Atomic Bomb in Japan: Causes and Consequences The reason why the United States was compelled to employ the use of a more lethal weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan has been at the heart of many scholarly writings.
• The Tradition of Non Use of Nuclear Weapon It is worth noting that since 1945 the concept of non use of nuclear weapons have occupied the minds of scholars, the general public and have remain the most and single important issues in the […]
• Was it Necessary for the US to Drop the Atomic Bomb? When it comes to discussing whether it was necessary to drop atomic bombs on Japan’s cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, it is important to take into account the specifics of geopolitical […]
• Iran and Nuclear Weapon However, whether world leaders take action or not, Iran is about to get the nukes, and the first target will be Israel followed by American and the rest of the world.
• An Analysis of the United States’ Nuclear Weapon and the Natural Resources Used to Maintain it
• The Rise Of The Nuclear Weapon Into A Political Weapon
• Iran: Nuclear Weapon and United States
• Military And Nuclear Weapon Development During The Cold War
• Nuclear Weapons And Responsibility Of A Nuclear Weapon
• The Trinity Project: Testing The Effects of a Nuclear Weapon
• An Analysis of the First Nuclear Weapon Built in 1945
• The Problem With Nuclear Weapons Essay – Nuclear weapon
• The Soviet Union Tested A Nuclear Weapon
• An Argument in Favor of Nuclear Weapon Abolition
• An Analysis of the Major Problem in Nuclear Weapon in World Today
• WWII and the Lack of Nuclear Weapon Security
• The Controversy Of Indivisible Weapons Composition – Cold War, Nuclear weapon
• The Never Ending Genocide : A Nuclear Weapon, Stirring Debate
• Nuclear Weapon Should Be Destroyed from All Countries
• Atomic Dragon: Chinese Nuclear Weapon Development and the Risk of Nuclear War
• The Nuclear Weapon Of Mass Destruction
• Nuclear Weapon Programmes of India and Pakistan: A Comparative Assessment
• Use of Hydroelectric Dams and the Indian Nuclear Weapon Problem
• Detente: Nuclear Weapon And Cuban Missile Crisis
• The Danger Of Indivisible Weapons – Nuclear weapon, Cool War
• Terrorism: Nuclear Weapon and Pretty High Likelihood
• The United States and Nuclear Weapon
• Nuclear Weapon And Foreign Policy
• The Environmental and Health Issues of Nuclear Weapon in Ex-Soviet Bloc’s Environmental Crisis
• Science: Nuclear Weapon and Supersonic Air Crafts
• Justified Or Unjustified: America Builds The First Nuclear Weapon
• The Controversial Issue of the Justification for the Use of Nuclear Weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to End World War II
• Using Of Nuclear Weapon In Cold War Period
• Nuclear Weapon Funding In US Defense Budget
• Nuclear Weapon: Issues, Threat and Consequence Management
• An Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantage of Nuclear Weapon
• The Repercussion Of The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon Threat On Globe
• A History of the SALT I and SALT II in Nuclear Weapon Treaties
• Free Hiroshima And Nagasaki: The Development And Usage Of The Nuclear Weapon
• The World ‘s First Nuclear Weapon
• The Effects Of Nuclear Weapon Development On Iran
• What Nuclear Weapons and How It Works?
• Can Nuclear Weapons Destroy the World?
• What Happens if a Nuclear Bomb Goes Off?
• Why Do Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?
• What Food Would Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why North Korea Should Stop It Nuclear Weapons Program?
• How Far Underground Do You Need to Be to Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned?
• Why Is There Such Focus on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as Opposed to Other Kinds of Weapons?
• How Long Would It Take for Earth to Be Livable After a Nuclear War?
• What Are the Problems With Nuclear Weapons?
• How Have the Threats Posed by Nuclear Weapons Evolved Over Time?
• How Would the World Be Different if Nuclear Weapons Were Small Enough and Easy Enough to Make to Be Sold on the Black Market?
• How Big Is the Probability of Nuclear Weapons During Terrorism?
• Why Are Nuclear Weapons Important?
• Why Have Some Countries Chosen to Pursue Nuclear Weapons While Others Have Not?
• How Far Do You Need to Be From a Nuclear Explosion?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Keep Peace?
• Can a Nuclear Weapon Be Stopped?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Expire?
• What Do Nuclear Weapons Do to Humans?
• What Does the Case of South Africa Tell Us About What Motivates Countries to Develop or Relinquish Nuclear Weapons?
• Should One Person Have the Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons?
• Does the World Need Nuclear Weapons at All, Even as a Deterrent?
• Will Most Countries Have Nuclear Weapons One Day?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/

"83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

• Nuclear Energy Essay Titles
• Atmosphere Questions
• Pollution Essay Ideas
• Hiroshima Topics
• Air Pollution Research Ideas
• Water Pollution Research Topics
• Conflict Research Topics
• North Korea Titles
• Global Issues Essay Topics
• Third World Countries Research Ideas
• US History Topics
• Cold War Topics
• Evacuation Essay Topics
• Hazardous Waste Essay Topics

Home — Essay Samples — War — Nuclear Weapon

Essays on Nuclear Weapon

Nuclear weapon essay topics for college students.

As a college student, choosing the right essay topic is crucial to the success of your assignment. This webpage is designed to provide you with a variety of nuclear weapon essay topics to spark your creativity and personal interest. By selecting a topic that resonates with you, you can produce a compelling and engaging essay that showcases your unique perspective and critical thinking skills.

Essay Types and Topics

Argumentative essay topics.

• The Ethical Implications of Nuclear Weapons
• Nuclear Proliferation and International Relations
• The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Modern Warfare

Example Paragraph: The development and use of nuclear weapons has been a controversial topic for decades. As the world grapples with the ethical considerations surrounding these powerful weapons, it is essential to explore the implications and consequences of their existence.

Example Paragraph: The ethical implications of nuclear weapons are complex and multifaceted. It is crucial for policymakers and global leaders to consider the long-term effects of nuclear proliferation on international relations and the future of warfare.

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• Nuclear Weapons vs. Conventional Weapons: A Comparative Analysis
• The Cold War and Modern Nuclear Threats: A Comparative Study
• Nuclear Weapons in Fiction vs. Reality

Example Paragraph: The comparison of nuclear weapons and conventional weapons reveals significant differences in their destructive capabilities and strategic implications. By examining these differences, we can gain a deeper understanding of the impact of nuclear weaponry on global security.

Example Paragraph: In comparing nuclear weapons to conventional weapons, it becomes evident that the unique characteristics of nuclear arms pose distinct challenges and risks in modern warfare. Understanding these differences is essential for shaping effective international security policies.

Engagement and Creativity

Essay writing is not only an academic exercise but also an opportunity for you to engage with topics that interest you and develop your critical thinking and writing skills. As you explore the diverse essay topics provided, consider how you can infuse your personal creativity and perspective into your writing to make your essay compelling and thought-provoking.

Educational Value

Each essay type offers unique learning opportunities. Argumentative essays allow you to develop your analytical thinking and persuasive writing skills, while compare and contrast essays help you hone your ability to critically analyze and draw meaningful connections between different subjects. By exploring these essay topics, you can cultivate a versatile set of skills that will serve you well in your academic and professional endeavors.

The Dangers and Moral Implications of Nuclear Weapons

The threat of global nuclear war, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Movement Against Nuclear Weapon and Power Plants

The role of nuclear non-proliferation in determining world affairs, discussion of whether hiroshima and nagasaki bombing is justifiable, weapons of mass destruction, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Race of Nuclear Weapons Continues Today

Japan after hiroshima and nagasaki bombing in 1945: economical and political effects, treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons: a mirage, the consequences nuclear war, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Communist Threat: Atomic Bomb & Cold War

Great inventions of the world war ii, nuclear technology developments and its impact on warfare, the continuity and change of nuclear policy, changes in the world: the atomic bomb, nuclear industry: history of invention & consequences, the issue of north korea's denuclearization, anticommunist ideology in american history: "duck and cover", us-russia nuclear modernization – possible threat to security, the creation of the first atomic bomb, nato and its members' economic stance on weapons of mass destruction, the possibility of iran to start a nuclear war by getting nuclear weapons, how the atomic bomb invention contributed to the ww2 and the cold war, iran nuclear negotiation, what does the nature of the cnd us about the pressures of cold war, sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals, self-victimisation' of japan during world war ii, the atomic bomb, the atomic bomb's impression on scientific history, building the atomic bomb: history of atomic warfare, relevant topics.

• Vietnam War
• The Spanish American War
• Syrian Civil War
• Israeli Palestinian Conflict
• Atomic Bomb
• Treaty of Versailles

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Javascript Required!

Javascript is required for this site.

The Nuclear Debate

(Updated May 2022)

• The underlying question is how electricity is best produced now and in the years to come.
• Between 1990 and 2019 electricity demand doubled. It is expected to roughly double again by 2050.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that at least 80% of the world's electricity must be low carbon by 2050 to keep warming within 2 °C of pre-industrial levels.
• At present, about two-thirds of electricity is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. 
• Nuclear is proven, scalable and reliable, and its expanded use will be essential for many countries to achieve their decarbonization goals.

Notes & references

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),  Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report  – Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (2015) [ Back ] 2. International Energy Agency,  Data and Statistics   [ Back ] 3. IPCC, Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation – Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary , Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Annex II, Table A.II.4 (2011, reprinted 2012) [ Back ] 4. OECD International Energy Agency and OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity , 2015 Edition (September 2015) [ Back ] 5. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources , 2010 [ Back ] 6. UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation, Report to the UN General Assembly , 2008 [ Back ] 7. World Health Organization, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes , Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health" , 2006 [ Back ] 8. American Cancer Society, Thyroid Cancer Survival Rates, by Type and Stage (revised 9 January 2020) [ Back ] 9. United Nations, No Immediate Health Risks from Fukishima Nuclear Accident Says UN Export Science Panel , 2013 [ Back ] 10. UK Government press release, Government confirms Hinkley Point C project following new agreement in principle with EDF (15 September 2016) [ Back ] 11. Ørsted website, Renewable energy record achieved at London Array (1 August 2016) [ Back ] 12. Kharechi and Hansen, Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power , 2013 [ Back ] 13. UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation , 2010 [ Back ]

You may also be interested in

New Zealand

USA: Nuclear Power Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Should nuclear weapons be banned

Related Papers

Christopher D

Recent Russian-Western tension has been of much focus. Following the annexation of Crimea, increased interests in the causes of division between Russia and the West have resulted in numerous explanations. This paper aims to add to the debate by explaining the impact of the termination of the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the role of ballistic missile defense in the American-Russian strategic relationship. After reviewing relevant the role of strategic deterrence and missile deference, it then surveys a chronology of key events involving the AMB Treaty; including the Cuban missile crisis, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Strategic Defense Initiative, and the emerging debates and threats following the Cold War that led to its dismissal. By highlighting defining moments of crisis and cooperation, it attempts to show the historic importance of the Treaty in defining and stabilizing the behavior between these two states. To further demonstrate the Treaty’s weight this study then reviews recent areas of cooperation following its dissolution like that of the NATO-Russian Council and how these efforts have been complicated by Russian objections to American-led missile defense programs like that of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). In doing so, it hopes to add a new layer in the debate concerning explanations for the current crisis in relations by reviewing the Georgian and Ukrainian conflicts. It contends that the strategic implications of the ABM Treaty’s abandonment have been underestimated, and that the EPAA contributes greatly to the bifurcation of European security. The hope is that by identifying key areas of contention and their role in state relations, future areas of cooperation can be illuminated to mitigate the current crisis between Russia and the West.

Anyanwu Michael

Joe Majerus

Amadeus Quiaoit

Dismantled paperwork.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Bock

Israel and the US are currently balancing against Iran because both perceive a nucleararmed Iran as a threat to regional and world security. But does balancing really work? Does it reduce threat and provide security? I will use Stephan M. Walt’s “Balance of Threat” theory to address these questions. In addition to Walt’s theory, I assume that perceiving a state’s intention(s) as aggressive is decisive for that state being (perceived as) a threat. I hypothesise that balancing fails and likely backfires in that it exacerbates the security dilemma and reinforces the threat perceived by the balancing states (Israel und the US). The use of balancing strategies in the current Iranian nuclear crisis would be futile and, if anything, would only strengthen the belief in Tehran that Iranian nuclear weapons are a necessary means of deterrence and self-defence.

George P. Shultz & James E. Goodby (edt.) The War That Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence

Katarzyna Kubiak

Chapter 6 is a comparative analysis of German and Polish thinking about managing nuclear issues. The two countries have viewed security negotiations with Russia through different lenses, but the authors find important areas of consensus. They suggest promising ways to create a cooperative security regime in Europe.

Benoit Pelopidas

In this paper, I address three of the most frequently used arguments for maintaining a significant measure of dependence for international security on nuclear deterrence both globally and regionally: Nuclear weapons have deterred great powers from waging war against each other, so a world without nuclear weapons will lead to, or at least might encourage, great-power war. The US nuclear umbrella has deterred nuclear proliferation, so the reduction of the US nuclear arsenal will undermine the credibility of US extended deterrence and create additional incentives for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons have deterred other powers from invading the territory of those states that possess nuclear weapons and thus leaders of countries with relatively weak conventional capabilities will keep their weapons as an equalizer. A version of this argument focuses on dictatorial regimes or “rogue states” whose very existence depends on their having nuclear weapons. After showing that these arguments are not as convincing as their frequency suggests, I delineate opportunities that advocates for a nuclear-free world or a world with few nuclear weapons should exploit on their way to advancing their goal, based on the decoupling of nuclear weapons and deterrence.

Pedro Fernandes

Vera Stofer

Seventy-three years after the first nuclear bomb was detonated, the debate of nuclear proliferation does not appear to have come close in providing a clear-cut answer. There are two theoretical schools which have dominated the debate of the spread of nuclear weapons among both scholars and policymakers circles. Nuclear optimism is proposed by the realist and neorealist school of international relations whereas nuclear pessimists is put forward by organizational theorists. Neo-realists use rational deterrence theory to support their view of the world should welcome the spread of nuclear weapons and argue the existence of the nuclear weapons have promoted international peace and stability under the assumption that states behave in absolute rational when it comes to states survival (Waltz, 1981). On the contrary, organizational theorists shield light on flaws of organizations, such as the internal power struggle, rigid routine and standard operation procedures, which limit the rationality of states and military establishments. They argue organization behaviors are likely to lead to deterrence failure, preventive war, deliberate and accident use (Sagan, 1996). Though structural realism and neorealism offer some notable insights to nuclear proliferation, the arguments presented show logical contradiction and fail to justify why states wager our thousands year of civilizations on the logically flawed theory of nuclear deterrence to support nuclear proliferation and therefore is unconvincing. Yet, the organizational theory addresses and exposes the majority of the pressing and catastrophic nuclear issues in reality (Sagan, 1994). In the landscape of neorealism, Waltz views that states are rational, unitary and self-interested entities. (Waltz, 1981). Survival is the ultimate concern of states operating within the anarchical international environment. Neorealists agree slow spread of nuclear weapons is the major contribution of international peace and stability as peace preservation and war avoidance are the key goals in the nuclear world. In the book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Waltz argues that the world has enjoyed over seven decades of peace and have avoided World War III largely due to the existence of nuclear weapons which deterred two superpower Russia and the United States to go to a full-scale war in Cold War era. He believes there is a correlation between possession of weapons and reduced probability of war with the adversaries. "The presence of nuclear weapons makes states exceedingly cautious" as states fully aware the war between nuclear weapon states can escalate from conventional war to a nuclear war. He argues "in a conventional world, one is uncertain about winning or losing (Waltz, 1981). In a nuclear world, one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated." Waltz sees nuclear weapons is the ultimate weapon which serves as the most effective form of balancing of power in the international politics. Rational deterrence is theorized by Waltz that if more states possess nuclear weapons, more would benefit from the

RELATED PAPERS

Adérito Vicente

Roland Popp

Sam Edgington

Jasen Castillo

ahmed ash , Ashfaq Ahmed

Torbjørn Knutsen

Carl P Watts

Roberto Maria Sciarra

Jordan McAvoy

Ahmed Elgen

Christopher Twomey

Pratama Putra

Tsotne Tchanturia , Dionysios Dragonas

Jack Cunningham

BIISS Journal

Nazmul Arifeen , A. S. M. Tarek Hassan Semul

Emilio Galeano

Tom Bradshaw

Yusrah Tooreea

Critical Sociology. Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 785-798.

Marek Hrubec

Yitayal Gelaw

Békés, Csaba, Melinda Kamár (Ed.): Students on the Cold War. New Findings and Interpretations. Budapest

Torben Gülstorff

Ashfaq Ahmed , Ahmad Khan

Stephen Palley

Strategic Studies Quarterly

𝗘𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁 "𝗗𝗼𝗰" 𝗚𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗸𝗮𝗿𝗮-𝗥𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹

NoOr Ul Hudha

International Security

Ijcem Journal

Cuban Missile Crisis: The Essential Reference Guide

Priscilla Roberts

Wazeer Murtala

Murtala wazeer

Melanie Altanian

Neola Prayogo

European Journal of International Security

MrßilAl Tahir

Communication Theory

Robert Craig

Journal of Social Issues

Richard Lebow

MD MAHAMUDUL HASAN

Proliferation Papers IFRI

James J Wirtz

Kenechukwu Udibe

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Science

Argumentative Essay on Nuclear Proliferation

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Science , Nuclear Weapon , Atomic Bomb , Disaster , Nuclear , Nuclear Weapons , Technology , James

Published: 10/03/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Nuclear proliferation basically is the haphazard distribution of nuclear weapons or spread of nuclear related technology to countries or states which do not have the nuclear technology and are not recognized by the Nucleus Non-proliferative Treaty.

I am proposing for nuclear proliferation. This is because, possession of these nuclear weapons is considered as a symbol of prestige and superiority in the current world we live in. To be realistic, nations like America and Russia are considered super powers because of the nuclear technology (James 402).

Also, nuclear technology has sparked or flickered scientific revolution. Actually, radioactive materials such as uranium have greatly contributed to the scientific revolution. In addition, nuclear reactors have been lately utilized in the generation of electric power in the developed world. Therefore, I feel that nations which still do not have the technology should acquire it for scientific purposes (Yehoshafat, Alan, and Derek 136).

In addition, nuclear proliferation might cause international stability and security. Nations like Iraq, Iran and Syria highly harbor terrorists who only use their nuclear weapons to terrorize mainly inferior nations which cannot fight back. Therefore, they will be scared of war or terrorism incase each nation had the power to fight back (James 402).

Finally, James argues that nations like America will never stop or control production of nuclear weapons even if it advocates others to surrender like Russia (402). Therefore, I greatly support nuclear proliferation since this will prevent dictatorship, dominion or control of other inferior nations.

Works Cited

James, Kitfield. “The Pros and Cons of New Nuclear Weapons”. American Defense Policy . Eds. Paul, 2005.

Bolt, Damon V. Coretta, Collins G. Shackelford. Baltimore: JHU Press, 2005. 402-403.

Yehoshafat H., Alan D., and Derek O. Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace . New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2008.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 639

This paper is created by writer with

ID 280578413

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Good project management culture course work example, example of essay on a fathers plea, free essay on reflective journal, free research paper on a biased system, three problem solutions of bus transportation essay examples, essay on lysistrata aristophanes midsummer nights dream shakespeare, example of patient and family centered care essay, russia case study case study, good essay on george washington miniature, organizational sustainability and the leaders role essay example, good example of the beatles essay, collaboration with health bodies would allow more people to access essential medicines essay samples, rectal bleeding case studies example, rapoport essays, ricci essays, ophelia essays, scientific management theory essays, henri fayol essays, morden essays, misunderstandings essays, purchasing department essays, power imbalance essays, tamils essays, northern ireland essays, michael collins essays, fein essays, sinn fein essays, de valera essays, adler essays, afterlives essays, victorian society essays, trails essays, sleuth essays, fires essays, principles dissertations, nation dissertations, time dissertations, reading dissertations, observation dissertations, hypothesis dissertations, expectations dissertations, correlation dissertations, understanding dissertations.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Why Did U.S. Planes Defend Israel but Not Ukraine?

There are lessons for other nations in the events of the past few days.

On April 13, the Islamic Republic of Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel. Also on April 13, as well as on April 12, 14, and 15, the Russian Federation launched missiles and drones at Ukraine—including some designed in Iran.

Few of the weapons launched by Iran hit their mark. Instead, American and European airplanes, alongside Israeli and even Jordanian airplanes, knocked the drones and missiles out of the sky.

By contrast, some of the attacks launched by Russia did destroy their targets. Ukraine, acting alone, and—thanks to the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives—running short on defensive ammunition, was unable to knock all of the drones and missiles out of the sky. On April 12 Russian strikes badly damaged an energy facility in Dnipropetrovsk. On April 13, a 61-year-old woman and 68-year-old man were killed by a Russian strike in Kharkiv. On April 14, an aerial bomb hit an apartment building in Ocheretyne, killing one and injuring two. On April 15, a Russian guided missile hit a school and killed at least two more people in the Kharkiv region.

Eliot A. Cohen: The ‘Israel model’ won’t work for Ukraine

Why the difference in reaction? Why did American and European jets scramble to help Israel, but not Ukraine? Why doesn’t Ukraine have enough matériel to defend itself? One difference is the balance of nuclear power. Russia has nuclear weapons, and its propagandists periodically threaten to use them. That has made the U.S. and Europe reluctant to enter the skies over Ukraine. Israel also has nuclear weapons, but that affects the calculus in a different way: It means that the U.S., Europe, and even some Arab states are eager to make sure that Israel is never provoked enough to use them, or indeed to use any serious conventional weapons, against Iran.

A second difference between the two conflicts is that the Republican Party remains staunchly resistant to propaganda coming from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Leading Republicans do not sympathize with the mullahs, do not repeat their talking points, and do not seek to appease them when they make outrageous claims about other countries. That enables the Biden administration to rush to the aid of Israel, because no serious opposition will follow.

By contrast, a part of the Republican Party, including its presidential candidate, does sympathize with the Russian dictatorship, does repeat its talking points, and does seek to appease Russia when it invades and occupies other countries. The absence of bipartisan solidarity around Ukraine means that the Republican congressional leadership has prevented the Biden administration from sending even defensive weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. The Biden administration appears to feel constrained and unable to provide Ukraine with the spontaneous assistance that it just provided to Israel.

Open sympathy for the war aims of the Russian state is rarely stated out loud. Instead, some leading Republicans have begun, in the past few months, to argue that Ukraine should “shift to a defensive war,” to give up any hope of retaining its occupied territory, or else stop fighting altogether. Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio, in a New York Times essay written in what can only be described as extraordinary bad faith, made exactly this argument just last week. So too, for example, did Republican Representative Eli Crane of Arizona, who has said that military aid for Ukraine “should be totally off the table and replaced with a push for peace talks.”

Eliot A. Cohen: The war is not going well for Ukraine

But Ukraine is already fighting a defensive war. The materiel that the Republicans are refusing to send includes—let me repeat it again—defensive munitions. There is no evidence whatsoever that cutting off any further aid to Ukraine would end the fighting or bring peace talks. On the contrary, all of the evidence indicates that blocking aid would allow Russia to advance faster, take more territory, and eventually murder far more Ukrainians, as Vance and Crane surely know. Without wanting to put it that boldly, they seem already to see themselves in some kind of alliance with Russia, and therefore they want Ukraine to be defeated. They do not see themselves in alliance with Iran, despite the fact that Iran and Russia would regard one another as partners.

For the rest of the world, there are some lessons here. Plenty of countries, perhaps including Ukraine and Iran, will draw the first and most obvious conclusion: Nuclear weapons make you much safer. Not only can you deter attacks with a nuclear shield, and not only can you attack other countries with comparative impunity, but you can also, under certain circumstances, expect others to join in your defense.

Perhaps others will draw the other obvious conclusion: A part of the Republican Party—one large enough to matter—can be co-opted, lobbied, or purchased outright. Not only can you get it to repeat your propaganda; you can get it to act directly in your interests. This probably doesn’t cost even a fraction of the price of tanks and artillery, and it can be far more effective.

No doubt many will make use of both of these lessons in the future.

Advertisement

Supported by

Miscalculation Led to Escalation in Clash Between Israel and Iran

Israeli officials say they didn’t see a strike on a high-level Iranian target in Syria as a provocation, and did not give Washington a heads-up about it until right before it happened.

• Share full article

By Ronen Bergman ,  Farnaz Fassihi ,  Eric Schmitt ,  Adam Entous and Richard Pérez-Peña

Ronen Bergman reported from Tel Aviv, Farnaz Fassihi and Richard Pérez-Peña from New York, and Eric Schmitt and Adam Entous from Washington.

Israel was mere moments away from an airstrike on April 1 that killed several senior Iranian commanders at Iran’s embassy complex in Syria when it told the United States what was about to happen.

Israel’s closest ally had just been caught off guard.

Aides quickly alerted Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser; Jon Finer, the deputy national security adviser; Brett McGurk, Mr. Biden’s Middle East coordinator; and others, who saw that the strike could have serious consequences, a U.S. official said. Publicly, U.S. officials voiced support for Israel, but privately, they expressed anger that it would take such aggressive action against Iran without consulting Washington.

The Israelis had badly miscalculated, thinking that Iran would not react strongly, according to multiple American officials who were involved in high-level discussions after the attack, a view shared by a senior Israeli official. On Saturday, Iran launched a retaliatory barrage of more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel, an unexpectedly large-scale response, if one that did minimal damage.

The events made clear that the unwritten rules of engagement in the long-simmering conflict between Israel and Iran have changed drastically in recent months, making it harder than ever for each side to gauge the other’s intentions and reactions.

Since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, an Iranian ally, and Israel’s subsequent bombardment of the Gaza Strip, there has been escalation after escalation and miscalculation after miscalculation, raising fears of a retribution cycle that could potentially become an all-out war.

Even after it became clear that Iran would retaliate, U.S. and Israeli officials initially thought the scale of the response would be fairly limited, before scrambling to revise their assessment again and again. Now the focus is on what Israel will do next — and how Iran might respond.

“We are in a situation where basically everybody can claim victory,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director of the International Crisis Group. “Iran can say that it took revenge, Israel can say it defeated the Iranian attack and the United States can say it successfully deterred Iran and defended Israel.”

But Mr. Vaez said: “If we get into another round of tit for tat, it can easily spiral out of control, not just for Iran and Israel, but for the rest of the region and the entire world.”

This account of these tense weeks is gleaned from interviews with U.S. officials, as well as officials from Israel, Iran and other Middle Eastern states. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters they were not authorized to reveal publicly.

Planning for the Israeli strike in Syria started two months earlier, two Israeli officials said. The target was Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the commander for Syria and Lebanon of Iran’s elite Quds Force, a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

About a week beforehand, on March 22, the Israeli war cabinet approved the operation, according to internal Israeli defense records that summarized preparations for the strike and were viewed by The New York Times. The Israeli military did not comment on the internal assessment.

Those records also outlined the range of responses from Iran that the Israeli government expected, among them small-scale attacks by proxies and a small-scale attack from Iran. None of the assessments predicted the ferocity of the Iranian response that actually occurred.

From the day of the strike, Iran vowed retaliation , both publicly and through diplomatic channels. But it also sent messages privately that it did not want outright war with Israel — and even less so with the United States — and it waited 12 days to attack.

American officials found themselves in an odd and uncomfortable position: They had been kept in the dark about an important action by a close ally, Israel, even as Iran, a longtime adversary, telegraphed its intentions well in advance. The United States and its allies have spent weeks engaged in intensive diplomacy, trying to tamp down first the expected Iranian counterattack, and now the temptation for Israel to reply in kind.

When it came this past Saturday night, Iran’s show of force was significant, but Israel, the United States and other allies intercepted nearly all of the missiles and drones. The few that reached their targets had little effect. Iranian officials say the attack was designed to inflict limited damage.

U.S. officials have been telling Israeli leaders to see their successful defense as a victory, suggesting that little or no further reply is needed. But despite international calls for de-escalation , Israeli officials argue that Iran’s attack requires yet another response, which Iran says it would answer with still more force, making the situation more volatile.

“The question now is how does Israel respond in a way to prevent Iran from rewriting the rules of the game without provoking a new cycle of state-on-state violence,” said Dana Stroul, a former top Middle East policy official at the Pentagon who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In fact, Israeli leaders came close to ordering widespread strikes in Iran on the night Iran attacked, according to Israeli officials.

Israeli officials say the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, which caught them by surprise, changed the ground rules of regional conflict. To its enemies, it was Israel’s bombing and invasion of Gaza that did that, and it led to increased rocket fire by Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. That in turn drew heavy fire from Israel.

The Israeli airstrike in Damascus killed seven Iranian officers, three of them generals, including Mr. Zahedi. In the past, Israel had repeatedly killed Iranian fighters, commanders and nuclear scientists, but no single strike had wiped out so much of Iran’s military leadership.

By March, the relationship between the Biden administration and Israel had grown increasingly fraught, as Washington criticized the Israeli assault in Gaza as needlessly deadly and destructive — “over the top,” as President Biden put it.

Then came the Israeli strike in Damascus. Not only did the Israelis wait until the last minute to give word of it to the United States, but when they did so, it was a relatively low-level notification, U.S. officials said. Nor was there any indication how sensitive the target would be.

The Israelis later acknowledged that they had badly misjudged the consequences of the strike, U.S. officials and an Israeli official said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III complained directly to Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, in a call on April 3, U.S. officials said, confirming an earlier report by The Washington Post. Mr. Austin said that the attack put U.S. forces in the region at risk, and that the lack of warning had left no time to ratchet up their defenses. Mr. Gallant had no immediate comment.

The vulnerability of thousands of U.S. troops deployed in the Middle East became all too clear earlier in the Israel-Hamas war, when Iranian-backed militias fired on them repeatedly, killing three and injuring more than 100. Those attacks stopped in early February only after retaliation by the United States and ominous warnings to Iran.

The night of the Damascus strike, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Swiss ambassador in Tehran to convey Iran’s outrage to Washington, along with the message that it viewed the United States, Israel’s primary backer, as accountable for the attack.

Using Oman, Turkey and Switzerland as intermediaries — Iran and the United States do not have formal diplomatic relations — the United States made clear to Iran that it had not been involved and that it did not want war.

The Iranian government went on an unusually open and broad diplomatic campaign, spreading the word that it saw the attack as a violation of its sovereignty that required retaliation.

The government publicized that it was exchanging messages with the United States and that Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian was speaking with representatives of countries in the region, high-level European officials and leaders of the United Nations.

On April 7, Mr. Abdollahian met in Muscat, Oman, with his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi. Oman is one of the main intermediaries between Tehran and the West. The Iranian message at that meeting, according to a diplomat briefed on it, was that Iran had to strike back but that it would keep its attack contained, and that it was not seeking a regional war.

Before and after that meeting there was a whirlwind of phone calls between Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken; Mr. Biden; Mr. Austin; Mr. Sullivan; their counterparts in Israel, China, India and Iraq; NATO allies; and others, officials said.

The Biden administration did not think it could dissuade Iran from attacking at all, a U.S. official said, but hoped to limit the scale .

Mr. Blinken talked to senior Israeli cabinet members, assuring them that the United States would help defend against an Iranian attack, and urging them not to mount a rash counterstrike without weighing all considerations.

American and Israeli intelligence agencies worked closely together, with help from Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries, to learn what they could about Iran’s intentions.

Intermediaries and allies told the United States and Israel that Iran planned to hit military sites and not civilian targets, U.S. and Israeli officials said.

Iran’s message was that it would temper its attack so as not to elicit an Israeli counterstrike, Israeli and Iranian officials said. But in reality, the Israelis said, Iran was expanding its attack plans, and wanted at least some of its weapons to penetrate Israel’s defenses.

Initially, Israel’s military and intelligence services expected Iran to launch no more than 10 surface-to-surface missiles at Israel, an attack they code-named “Late Foliage.” By the middle of last week, they realized Iran had something much bigger in mind, and the Israelis increased their estimate to 60 to 70 surface-to-surface missiles. Even that turned out to be too low.

On Wednesday, Mr. Biden publicly reinforced what he and his aides had repeatedly said: Despite friction with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the American commitment to defending Israel from attacks was “ ironclad .”

Still, the Biden administration also redoubled its diplomatic efforts to head off a confrontation, and Iranian officials said their government fielded calls last week urging restraint from countries across Asia, Europe and Africa — an effort they described as frantic.

Turkey, relaying an Iranian message, told the United States that Iran’s attack would be proportionate to the Damascus strike, according to a Turkish diplomatic source. Mr. Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, told state television the day after the Iranian barrage that Iran had given its neighbors 72 hours’ notice of the attack, though the specifics of that warning are unclear.

Israeli officials say that, thanks in part to international cooperation, they had a good idea in advance of Iran’s targets and weapons. The Israel Defense Forces evacuated families from some air bases and moved aircraft out of harm’s way.

The U.S. military coordinated aerial defense efforts with Israeli, British and French forces as well as — crucially — those of Jordan, which lies between Iran and Israel. The United States and Israel had been working quietly for years with friendly Arab countries to develop a regional air defense system with shared detection and alerts. The effort picked up steam after several drone attacks against Saudi Arabian oil facilities in 2019.

News of the first wave of the Iranian attack on Saturday, consisting of 185 relatively slow drones, spread worldwide hours before any of them reached Israel. The three dozen cruise missiles Iran launched later were much faster, but the biggest challenge was Iran’s ballistic missiles, which traveled several times as fast as the speed of sound. Iran fired 110 of them, posing the first major test of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile defense system.

American, British, French, Israeli and Jordanian warplanes and air defense systems shot down most of the drones and missiles before they reached Israel. Only 75 entered Israeli airspace, where most of those were shot down, too, Israeli officials said. The attack did only minor damage to one air base, and only one serious injury was reported.

Throughout the strike, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and the Revolutionary Guards kept open a hotline to Oman’s government, to pass messages back and forth with the United States, Iranian officials said.

At 3 a.m., the Swiss ambassador in Tehran was summoned again — not to the Foreign Ministry, the usual practice, but to a Revolutionary Guards base, according to an Iranian and a U.S. official. She was asked to convey a message that the United States should stay out of the fight, and that if Israel retaliated, Iran would strike again, harder and without warning.

Iran cast its barrage against Israel as a measured, justified act that should not lead to escalation.

“We carried out a limited operation, at the same level and proportion to the evil actions of the Zionist regime,” Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards, said on state television. “These operations could have been a lot larger.”

Mr. Biden told Mr. Netanyahu in a call that Israel’s successful defense had demonstrated its technical superiority, according to John F. Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

“The president urged the prime minister to think about what that success says all by itself to the rest of the region,” Mr. Kirby said on Monday.

But in interviews, Israeli officials described the attack in far more dire terms, in part because of its sheer scale. They emphasized that this was a sovereign nation, from its own soil, attacking Israel directly, and not through proxies abroad.

Israel’s war cabinet had ordered the military to draw up plans for a wide-ranging set of strikes against targets in Iran in the event of a large-scale Iranian attack. After news came of the Iranian launches on Saturday, some leaders argued behind closed doors that Israel should retaliate immediately.

Waiting, they said, would allow international pressure for Israeli restraint to build, and could let Iran think that it had set new ground rules for the conflict, which Israel considered unacceptable. Among the leaders making that argument, according to three Israeli officials, were Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, former military chiefs of staff who were in the Parliamentary opposition to Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government and are usually considered less hawkish, but who joined the war cabinet last fall.

The Israeli Air Force was ready to carry out the order, but it never came. On Saturday night, after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with Mr. Biden, and because the damage was limited, the war cabinet postponed a decision, and more postponements followed.

The world is still waiting to see what Israel will do.

Reporting was contributed by Sheera Frenkel , Isabel Kershner , Michael Crowley , Vivian Nereim and Safak Timur .

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv. His latest book is “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations,” published by Random House. More about Ronen Bergman

Farnaz Fassihi is the United Nations bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of the organization, and also covers Iran and the shadow war between Iran and Israel. She is based in New York. More about Farnaz Fassihi

Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times, focusing on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism issues overseas, topics he has reported on for more than three decades. More about Eric Schmitt

Adam Entous is a Washington-based investigative correspondent and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. Before joining the Washington bureau of The Times, he covered intelligence, national security and foreign policy for The New Yorker magazine, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. More about Adam Entous

Richard Pérez-Peña is an editor for international news at The Times, based in New York. More about Richard Pérez-Peña