Be it resolved that no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons damage the environment greatly. The damage can be long lasting. One may argue that the damage to the environment can be justified by the fact that they can end wars quickly and reduce the number of deaths, but when they are used to end wars quickly, they will still kill many civilians indiscriminately. Radiation can kill many innocent people. However, the people most likely to be harmed by the radiation are the enemy country’s people, so therefore they are not innocent. But many civilians who die from radiation may not agree with what their government is doing and just because they live in an enemy country, doesn’t mean they are enemies or pose any danger to us. We shouldn’t kill people based on where they live. Many countries want to join “Nuclear Club.” They view it as prestigious. Keeping nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them, either for protection or prestige. Nevertheless, many countries will not have the means to develop weapons and there are many countries will not develop nuclear weapons just to get into a “club.” Countries would need to have other, stronger motives to develop the weapons. But, if some countries have nuclear weapons, others will feel the need to develop them for protection. Protection and safety would be a strong motive. If volatile nations develop nuclear weapons, they will pose a worldwide threat to everyone. Nonetheless, their activities can be detected and then promptly stopped. It would be quite difficult to develop nuclear weapons without detection. The volatile nations most likely will work in a secretive place. By the time they are detected, they may have already developed the weapons. T... ... middle of paper ... ...p them and declare war on the country. Therefore, the number of deaths isn’t reduced and their use is unethical. By keeping nuclear weapons, a nuclear war is more likely to happen. Nevertheless, a nuclear war will not happen because countries will know that there are other countries that have these weapons and it would be unwise to engage with the weapons. Volatile nations would be kept in check by fear of nuclear weapons. But, all it would take would be one nuclear missile to trigger a war. The war would be massive and devastating to everyone. For some countries, nuclear weapons will lull them into a false sense of invulnerability and they will not make wise decisions and engage in war anyways, resulting in deaths that could have been prevented. In conclusion, no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons. They are dangerous and should not be tampered with.
Nuclear weapons are a problem that the world is facing today as countries want to have their
When it comes to nuclear war, most people will have mixed feelings on it. Nuclear war is a difficult area to touch on. Whether or not someone sees it as ethically right or wrong, all depends on the person and their moral values. The reason I chose this was because I don’t think it is necessarily right to engage in nuclear warfare even if it is the only means to end war. Just-war theory, utilitarianism, and Virtue ethics all help show a different perspective on nuclear warfare. There are many solutions to it, however. Some solutions are getting other nations to place embargos on the country and forcing peace talks without resorting to military action. Significantly, it is important that nuclear war is addressed in the world so that nations
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
But before we get to the whys and why not’s about nuclear weapons, it is important to understand how Nuclear weapons work, how they are so deadly and why countries want them. Nuclear weapons get their power from harnessing the power of nature. According to atomicarchive.com a nuclear weapon gains it’s lethality from certain isotopes of Uranium or Plutonium which can cause a nuclear chain reaction. In a nuclear reaction an atom of either Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, attracts a neutron that when it bonds with the atom it makes the atom explode and send out two more neutrons. Then the two neutrons released by the first reaction makes two...
... both themselves and the nation or nations victimized. Radical governments are far less likely to suffer the consequences of their actions, simply because of the cowardly nature of the leaders. The citizens of these countries would be the ones to pay the price for the horrendous actions of their leaders. The danger involved in widespread knowledge of production of nuclear weapons is the likelihood of attack by extremists who would use this knowledge for selfish and ambitious purposes rather than for the common good.
In the late summer of 1945 the decision was made to vaporize over 70,000 Japanese civilians with a single nuclear payload dropped on a city possessing virtually no strategic value. It is estimated over 100,000 more civilians died as a direct result of this bombing in the years that followed. The rationalizations and excuses made to justify the act are myriad. Some say that it saved lives, that it shortened the war. Others say it was justified revenge for the Japanese attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor. The truth is that the United States felt a need to showcase its nuclear dominance to the world. There will never be a legitimate justification for this bombing, which to this day remains the most destructive singular act carried out by human beings against other human beings. The most evil invention in history is nuclear weaponry, a shockingly destructive force that has the capacity to level an entire city, and reduce its population to ash and bone. Nuclear warfare has not taken place since the last days of World War II, yet this is not for lack of nuclear capabilities. In the decades following there has been a proliferation of nuclear capability despite the knowledge that if one nuclear device were to be used, the consequences and implications would be likely irreparable. Nuclear war has the potential for extinction of the human race, yet no genuine attempts at moving towards a complete nuclear disarmament are being made. The amount of nations with nuclear capabilities is unconscionable; yet the number will only increase with the greatest of these nations unwilling to consider a complete nuclear disarmament. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Nuclear weapons are the safest defense mechanism in the world. Although nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction and the loss of thousands of lives when detonated, they are the optimal solution to the conflicts between countries in the future. The actual use of the nuclear weapon is not the deterrent, but rather just the mere fact that a country could use it against another country which avoids the large scale conflict. Thus, nuclear deterrence presents itself as a preferred security option. Firstly, based on deterrence theory, nuclear weapons will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that if nuclear weapons are used in warfare, either side will not be able to succeed in winning, as the destruction caused by the weapons will be too much for either side to recuperate from. Since the detonation of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare again. The world saw the destruction which a nuclear bomb could have. Ever since, this has driven fear to never use nuclear weapons. Although many countries possess nuclear weapons today, they have yet to engage in a nuclear war. This has so far maintained “a tense but global peace” (Mutual Assured Destruction, 2014). As the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the ultimate destruction of humankind, nuclear deterrence is a viable security option as shown by the MAD principles, the application of the MAD doctrine throughout history and the current global stability.
Nuclear weapons are a key device to show off to the world that their nation has the capabilities of economic stability and money to produce weaponry to hold against the world. These devices guarantee security as it is the final stage of veto towards of aggression (Miller 1). A country that is able to provide security, guarantees the ability to ally with other countries, protecting a non-nuclear state giving the ability to provide economic and military assistance. To own nuclear weapons shows that a nuclear-armed state has some value of economic stability. For example, if the Pakistani State were to crumble, the worst series of development imaginable would be terrorists abducting nuclear arsenals. As the terrorists would use to threaten other countries instigating chaos; however, safety is assured to the people that nuclear arsenals are easily disabled. Including the constant checkups, an arsenal needs require excessive knowledge about it. Thus, if one were to steal one from a manufacturing site, would be difficult to go unnoticed (Tepperman 2). Therefore, economic stability is necessary for a nuclear state like Pakistan or North Korea because when stability is lost, control of weapons is lost as
Throughout the entirety of the twentieth century, the most disputed topic of discussion has perhaps been that of nuclear weapons. Some people argue these weapons of mass destruction are vital to the survival of order and decency in the world, while others contend that nuclear weapons will bring an end to civilization as we now know it. Regardless of both of these arguments, there are two things that just about nobody can deny – nuclear weapons are extremely expensive and enormously destructive.
Humanity has reached a point where they now wield weapons that they aren’t capable of controlling. History has proven their potential power of causing massive murders. Today countries bicker over their weapons like kids and their toys. It’s obvious nukes need to be banned, otherwise the result will be beyond our control.
The question “what is, or should be, the function of nuclear weapons?” for me is an easy question to answer, there should be no function for them. I find no need for nuclear weapons in the post-cold war era; they are massive genocide machines that have no use in today’s time. During the cold war I can easily find reasons for them to be used but the cold war is now over. But in reality it’s known that this is a huge dream and most likely will never be accomplished to rid the world of nuclear weapons, so in a realist point of view and for the purpose of this paper I’ll say that the only logical (yet not truly logical) means of using a nuclear weapon is through deterrence. In this paper I will talk about how I believe it should be done and what opponents to my view believe. I will also talk about how there are many complexities to nuclear strategy and it’s not as easy as just removing weapons. But the main focus on this paper is what should the function of a nuclear weapon be and that’s deterrence.
The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.
Nuclear weapons are the most powerful and destructive technology ever created. From the first notion that nuclear technology could be harnessed to create a bomb, massive amounts of time and energy (as well as government funding) have been invested in further increasing the destructive yield of nuclear weapons. The process of development was carried out independently by governments worldwide. Despite the segregation of groups of scientists and secrecy surrounding their discoveries, design strategies and problems remained basically the same in all development projects with similar solutions being realized more or less concurrently. The first and most basic fission bomb quickly evolved to produce higher and higher yields. Through discoveries and modifications, nuclear technology evolved to eventually produce fission-fusion weapons, which are what compose most of the nuclear arsenal today. Further development, ironic as it may seem, is highly unnecessary and unlikely (except, perhaps, to increase efficiency) due to the ridiculous power wielded in every modern thermonuclear weapon. The popular modern threat of nuclear weapons is the possibility of terrorist groups acquiring the materials to produce bombs. 'Lo-tech' nuclear weapons are feasible and would seem highly desirable for such groups to possess. The home enthusiast might even flirt with the idea of creating his or her own nuclear arsenal. Assuming one could obtain 10-20kg of highly enriched fissionable material, this may not be such a romantic idea after all. There are a number of things anyone must know about nuclear weapons, however, before declaring themselves a nuclear power.
Nuclear weapons should be destroyed because the world court banned their use. If they were abolished the whole world would be secured for future generations, and if they were used their effects would be catastrophic. Nuclear weapons are a mix between to types of weapons; fission weapons and fusion weapons. When they are used a extremely radiant blast comes from the spot of the explosion. Also every bomb costs roughly around twenty million dollars.
Governments from other countries should be able to work things out and settle business without fearing that someone will be threatened with a nuclear war. These weapons have a very high percent of total destruction, other countries do not think about when they use these fatal weapons as an excuse, of what they will really do when sending the bombs off. They are only thinking of defending themselves no matter what the consequences are, little do they know that it could come back and bite them in the butt. Nuclear weapons will not only cause destruction to one country but all of them. Banning these dangerous weapons will make sure that these excuses will no longer be a problem to the world, countries and nations will not have to fear if they are putting the entire world in