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.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat." our enemies, as we would want to be treated. " If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified, and if you do provoke a nuclear war, you should be punished. That brings me into the second reason why countries retain nuclear weapons and that is a threat. It is a way of protecting your country, but you will protect yourself and retaliate if provoked.
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
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...
The chosen article for critical review is the Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Difficult but Not Impossible Policy Problem by Barry R. Posen. The author of the article is a Professor of Political Science at MIT who serves as the Director of the MIT Security Studies Program and on top of that accomplishment, he has written two previous works, Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks and The Sources of the Military Doctrine. Barry Posen contributes an extensive amount of knowledge on the subject of nuclear weapons. Posen is well versed in the field of Political Science furthermore he is represented at a very respectable university, and his previous works regarding nuclear arms displays that he is knowledge on the topic (MIT Political Science). Over the years, there have been consistent debates, but lack of development and action on how to progress against the possible productions of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians. This pessimistic view is not without proper concern because the leader of Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been recorded saying, 'death to Israel' so skeptics and general people alike share much concern with the development of nuclear energy in Iran. The technology would grant the opportunity to construct nuclear weapons. Which some may fear it can be used against neighbouring states in the Middle East. The state in danger of course is Israel, one of the cooperative Middle Eastern states that essentially acts in the interests of the western world, something Ahmadinejad accused them of doing, saying this is why both the UN and the United States are 'pro-israel' (YouTube Israel Off the Map). In this analysis, there may be a presence of realist biased.
... 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 today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
There are at least 17,300 nuclear weapons in existence, with North Korea at the least with less than 10, the US is in second place with 7,700 nuclear weapons and Russia has the most with 8,500, enough to wipe out the world’s population many times over and 2,500 (7%) of these weapons are ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Nuclear weapons today are much more powerful than ever before, but what are the real effects of these explosive killing machines? Nuclear weapons are Dangerous to the world’s population and should be eliminated from their use in global warfare. These weapons not only kill thousands on the initial explosion, but they also leave hazardous materials behind, killing just as many people from radiation poisoning for miles from the blast point. Though it would be impossible to completely remove these weapons, we should restrict their use in warfare and make sure no nation starts a nuclear war. Using just one weapon has never been enough and this could not just lead to a global war between countries but, a war between the most powerful countries in the world. I believe that weapons as powerful as these should be restricted from use, but should still be owned by countries.
Nuclear weapon is a new kind of technology that gives us an unprecedented power over nature and humanity. The technological decisions regarding nuclear weapons will have a huge impact upon all nations around the world and even future generations. “Of all the unprecedented powers in our hands, none is potentially more destructive than nuclear weapons. For forty years we lived with the threat of a nuclear holocaust that could wipe out a large part of humanity and other forms of life” (Barbour, 200). This technology increases the power of one nation, or a small group of nations, over other nations and nature. Corruption, a shadow of power, lurks around the corner where power is present. With the advancement of nuclear weapons technology, the chances of a “master race” wanting to dominate the world is not far fetch. The possibility of a second Adolph Hitler is high, and this time the existence of humanity is at risk. We need to approach this area of technology with caution and with modesty because these devices have incredible destructive power. As the technology advances and the devices become more powerful, we need to become more careful to use them wisely or the extinction of the human race and other life forms are at stake.
The arrival of nuclear weapons transformed the international playing field permanently and new threats such as non-state actors have immerged as a result. Initially, only superpowers with nuclear arsenals had a global role as was evident during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union, but nuclear proliferation triggered a race to possess this power in the last 60 years.
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.
From the creation of nuclear weapons at the start of the Cold War to today, the world has experienced struggles fueled by the want of nuclear power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s nuclear weapon program are some of the most important conflicts over nuclear weapons. Thanks to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 to end World War II, the world has come extremely close to a nuclear war, and more countries have began developing nuclear power. Unmistakably, many conflicts since the start of the Cold War have been caused by nuclear weapons, and there are many more to come.
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
It is a well-known fact that the dropping of the two atomic bombs near the end of World War II in 1945 ushered in the dawn of the Atomic Age. For the first time in human history, the world was introduced to the awesome power of nuclear weapons. Since that time, there have been several different nuclear threats to the world, and one of those threats can be found along the Pacific Rim, in the country of North Korea. Like the dropping of the atomic bombs, it is also known that the North Korean government has admitted to possessing nuclear weapons, and in doing so, it stands as a silent, potential nuclear danger to the rest of the world.