The Threat of Nuclear Weapons Maintains World Peace - IELTS Task 2 Sample Essay

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 1

Advocates claim that nuclear weapons deter war and that reactors deliver abundant, low-carbon electricity, so the benefits decisively trump the risks. I strongly disagree. Although nuclear technology has sometimes restrained major-power conflict and decarbonised select grids, its “peace” is precarious and its “cheap energy” is often illusory. This essay argues that nuclear deterrence relies on brittle assumptions, while civilian nuclear power entails systemic costs, delays, and externalities that undercut the claim of overwhelming net benefit.

Deterrence is not synonymous with peace; it is a high-stakes stalemate contingent on perfect rationality and faultless systems. History is replete with near-catastrophes—false alarms, misread radar signals, and brinkmanship—where luck, not doctrine, averted disaster. Moreover, the stability–instability paradox encourages lower-level wars and proxy conflicts under a nuclear umbrella, as seen in South Asia’s crises despite both sides possessing the bomb. Proliferation further multiplies failure points: more actors, uneven command-and-control, cyber vulnerabilities, and the risk that domestic turmoil hands doomsday capabilities to reckless leaders. Even without a launch, the enormous diversion of resources into arsenals fosters arms races, corrodes trust, and normalises existential risk. A “peace” that depends on perpetual readiness to commit planetary suicide is not a peace whose benefits clearly outweigh its disadvantages.

Civilian nuclear power, while impressively low in operational emissions, is rarely straightforwardly “cheap” when full life-cycle costs are considered. New builds in many liberalised markets arrive late and over budget, locking capital into decade-long projects while the climate clock ticks. Decommissioning, long-term waste stewardship, and accident insurance represent burdens shifted to future taxpayers. Catastrophic failures, though infrequent, impose transboundary costs that no tariff can internalise. By contrast, utility-scale wind and solar, paired with storage and smarter grids, now deploy faster and at falling marginal cost, delivering larger near-term emissions cuts per dollar invested. Nuclear can play a role—particularly in legacy fleets or specific baseload niches—but calling it broadly “cheap and clean” overlooks opportunity costs and unresolved waste and proliferation linkages between civilian fuel cycles and military capability.

In sum, nuclear weapons create a fragile equilibrium, not genuine peace, and nuclear power’s advantages are conditional and context-bound. Given the compounded risks of deterrence failure, proliferation, waste, and slow, capital-intensive energy deployment, the benefits of nuclear technology do not, on balance, far outweigh the disadvantages.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Sample Essay 2

Supporters argue that nuclear deterrence has prevented catastrophic wars and that nuclear energy remains among the most efficient, low-carbon power sources available. I fully agree. The presence of nuclear arsenals discourages aggression between major states, while civilian nuclear reactors provide a sustainable solution to mounting energy demands. This essay will argue that nuclear weapons function as guardians of global stability and that nuclear energy is indispensable for affordable and clean electricity.

Nuclear weapons serve as the ultimate deterrent by raising the cost of war to unimaginable levels. Unlike conventional arms, their destructive capacity ensures that rational governments avoid escalation, as seen in the decades-long absence of direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Historical rivalries that once triggered world wars have since been managed through diplomacy precisely because military options became unthinkable. Furthermore, the concept of “mutually assured destruction” is not merely theoretical; it has embedded a culture of restraint in international relations. Critics fear accidental launches, yet technological safeguards, multiple verification layers, and sophisticated command systems significantly reduce such risks. In practice, nuclear capability has created a balance of terror that paradoxically guarantees peace, as nations realise that survival depends on maintaining stability rather than provoking confrontation.

Equally compelling is the case for nuclear energy as a cornerstone of clean development. While fossil fuels continue to choke the planet with greenhouse gases, nuclear power generates vast amounts of electricity without releasing carbon dioxide during operation. France, for example, has achieved some of the lowest emissions in Europe by relying heavily on nuclear reactors. Contrary to arguments about cost, once built, reactors provide decades of steady, inexpensive supply, insulated from volatile fuel markets. Issues of waste management, though often cited, are increasingly being addressed through advanced reprocessing and deep geological storage solutions. Moreover, renewables like wind and solar, though vital, remain intermittent and dependent on weather conditions, making them less reliable as sole energy sources. Nuclear, by contrast, guarantees round-the-clock baseload power, ensuring both environmental responsibility and economic competitiveness.

In conclusion, nuclear deterrence prevents wars by forcing nations into rational restraint, while nuclear energy secures low-carbon prosperity through dependable, affordable power. Far from being outweighed by risks, the advantages of nuclear technology—in both military and civilian spheres—are pivotal to peace and progress in the modern world.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!