However, this concept only pertains to the threat of a pre-war situation, and does not address the issue of what to do once a war has already begun. The threshold at which one side should respond to a nuclear attack with a full-scale retaliation or simply accept the damage and not retaliate is a difficult one to answer.

World War II, which saw the use of nuclear weapons in combat for the first time, remains a subject of debate. Was the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary, or could it have been avoided? The impact of nuclear weapons on society is undeniable, with entire nations now at risk of being wiped out in a matter of minutes.

The concept of nuclear deterrence relies on three key elements: a large and survivable enough nuclear force to strike back, an enemy that believes you will use it if necessary, and that the costs of a nuclear war would far outweigh any potential gains. However, this concept can be problematic, as it may also deter an enemy from defending themselves with nuclear weapons, potentially leading to devastating consequences.

The ongoing debate over the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons is a pressing issue. With more nations developing and possessing these weapons, the likelihood of a nuclear conflict or war increases. The 2017 UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons aimed to ban their use, but only countries without nuclear weapons voted in support of the measure. It is clear that nuclear weapons will likely remain with us, offering a powerful deterrent against invasion but also presenting a significant risk of catastrophic destruction.