There used be a time when Americans, and much of the world lived in constant fear of Nuclear annihilation. In the 1950 the U.S Government would release propaganda videos that would instruct Americans to “duck and cover” in case of a nuclear blast. Because that reasoning is sound right? Ducking under a picnic table or covering your head with your hands is enough to withstand millions of pounds of force and deathly radiation. In today’s day and age we don’t really consider the dangers of a nuclear explosion; we live oblivious to the fact that we still have, according to the U.S Department of State over 4,000 nuclear warheads ready to be fired at a moment's notice. With this excess of weapons we also face an excess of problems, which is what …show more content…
In reality, over the years there have been countless close calls where we’ve accidentally dropped nukes on Americans soil. In 1961, according to CNN, a B-51 bomber accidentally dropped 2 armed nuclear bombs, that thankfully did not detonate. If that seems like ancient history consider the case of a 2007 mishap. 6 nuclear warheads were loaded onto a b-52 bomber, flown across the country, and left unguarded in a warehouse for 36 hours before someone came to the realization what they were. It’s obvious that we can’t take care of 4,800 nuclear warheads, so why not reduce them. According to the Federation of American Scientists since Obama became president only 309 have been dismantled. According to the Congressional Budget Office we are spending $355 billion dollars to stock something we don’t really need. If America was a T-rex, the nuclear weapons would be its arms. Completely useless and the t-rex is plenty scary without them. This leads me to my conclusion, yes some people feel that it is necessary to continue to stock some nuclear weapons, but shouldn’t we at least hire qualified people that won’t cheat on a test, forget they left weapons on the tarmac, or get too drunk for the russians. Thank
The United States is currently spending $35 Billion a year; which is 14% of the defense budget, or it is $96 million a day, because of the nuclear efforts of which about $25 million goes for operation and maintenance for the nuclear arsenal. The rest of the money is spent on cleanup, arms control verification, and ballistic missile research, which all of that, just adds to the cost greatly. President Obama revealed a budget that includes more than $220 million in cuts for nuclear security programs in the next fiscal year. One of the largest reductions is going to come to the International Material Protection and Cooperation program, and which it works to secure and eliminate the vulnerable nuclear weapons and materials. President Obama asked for $ 3.5 million or $114 million less than was appropriated in the 2014 budget. President Obama has also requested $108 million less than was appropriated last year for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative; this is a program that actually plays a key part in the “Energy Department’s effort at preventing terrorist from obtaining nuclear and radiological materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction” (Silverberg). Should the U.S. Congress amend the D.O.D. Appropriations Act of 2015 to eliminate funding for nuclear weapons production?
Together with the Soviet Union we have made the crucial breakthroughs that have begun the process of limiting nuclear arms. But we must set as our goal not just limiting but reducing and finally destroying these terrible weapons so that they cannot destroy civilization and so that the threat of nuclear war will no longer hang over the world and the people.
With the emergence of nuclear weapons, and the threat of atomic annihilation becoming a real outcome of war for the first time, the American public was understandably nervous. In 1950, 61 percent of those polled thought that the United States should use the atom bomb if there was another world war, and 53 percent believed there was a good or fair chance that their community would be bombed in the next war, further nearly three-fourths assumed that American cities would be bombed with atomic weapons. By 1956, nearly two-thirds of those polled believed that in the event of another war that the hydrogen bomb would be used against the United States. American politicians of the age fed off of this fear, and many used it to great effect in their
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.
The debate over if humans can survive a nuclear war or not is an interesting topic. The article, “Let’s Be Clear. There is No Surviving a Nuclear War,” is written by James E. Doyle and Ira Helfand. The article was posted on Newsweek.com on August 20, 2015. This article was written to challenge the argument that people can survive a nuclear war. The authors are hoping that the audience will carry out action to prevent nuclear wars all together. An unfamiliar audience, or an audience who is mildly opposed to their views, are the type of audience that Doyle and Helfand are writing this article for. The main claim of this article is that the devastating
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.
Also today is the danger that life is extinguished on earth through such a horrible weapon , not over. Many states are in possession of nuclear bombs , because that means for them power. Even dictatorships and unjust regime like China and North Korea have nuclear weapons.
...t said, Iran can really be a threat to us with their nuclear weapons if they are thinking about using it or testing it.
The development and usage of the first atomic bombs has caused a change in military, political, and public functionality of the world today. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revolutionized warfare by killing large masses of civilian population with a single strike. The bombs’ effects from the blast, extreme heat, and radiation left an estimated 140,000 people dead. The bombs created a temporary resolution that lead to another conflict. The Cold War was a political standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States that again created a new worldwide nuclear threat. The destructive potential of nuclear weapons had created a global sweep of fear as to what might happen if these terrible forces where unleashed again. The technology involved in building the first atomic bombs has grown into the creation of nuclear weapons that are potentially 40 times more powerful than the original bombs used. However, a military change in strategy has came to promote nuclear disarmament and prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. The technology of building the atomic bomb has spurred some useful innovations that can be applied through the use of nuclear power. The fear of a potential nuclear attack had been heightened by the media and its release of movies impacting on public opinion and fear of nuclear devastation. The lives lost after the detonation of the atomic bombs have become warning signs that changed global thinking and caused preventative actions.
...knows the United States has the power to use fission bombs. “It was not the bomb itself that caused surrender but it was the experience of what an atomic bomb does” (Stimson).
The world’s conflict over nuclear weapons all began with President Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. World War II was coming to a close but Japan would not surrender. So, on August 6, 1945, the bomb Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. It was triggered by a gun mechanism where a small piece of uranium-235 was fired down a barrel into a larger piece. This caused an explosion of 15 kilotons, or 15,000 tons of TNT, killing 90,000 to 166,000 people. Surprisingly, Japan did not surrender, so on August 9, 1945, the bomb Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. It was triggered when shock waves from high explosives set off the plutonium-239 core. It caused an explosion of 20 kilotons, or 20,000 tons of TNT, and killed 60,000 to 80,000 people. This second attack really sent the message to Japan, and they finally surrendered on August 15, 1945. World War II was finally over, but the Cold War began with the reveal of the United States’ nuclear power. It is believed that dropping the bombs saved both Japanese and American lives by ending the w...
“The half-life of a radioisotope is the time required for half the atoms in a given sample to undergo radioactive decay; for any particular radioisotope, the half-life is independent of the initial amount of...
All over the world, every nation and country have nuclear weapons at hand. Nuclear weapons help protect those countries and nations, they provide global defense. If nuclear weapons were to be outlawed and were no longer able to use then it would decrease the amount of jobs in the nuclear field. Although these weapons of mass destruction can be extremely dangerous and cause harm for billions of people; nuclear weapons provide jobs for many people across the nation. Not only does banning nuclear weapons take away the amount of occupations, but it goes against the right to bear arms. The second
The society may devote less to produce nuclear weapons because the majority expect a peaceful world without wars. However, that does not mean the society should totally stop making those; it just means that society should spend less effort. In the long term, all countries still need them as a “security blank” in case of any future problems (Nautilus Institute 2013). It is also possible for the global society to devote less on education and poverty. These are two tough issues in current world. It takes a long time to improve these, but they still need to be solved. Nevertheless, preventing the environment from any future destroy seems to be more urgent.
The Industrial Revolution sparked a need for large sources of energy. Human and animal labor could not provide the power necessary to power industrial machinery, railroads, and ships. The steam engine and later the internal combustion engine provided the bulk of the energy required by the industrial age. Today most nations are still heavily reliant on energy that comes from combustion. Usually coal, petrolium, and natural gas are used. Some hydroelectric, wind power, and nuclear fission sources are used, but in the US they accounted for less than 20% of the total energy consumption in 1997 (1). Many experts are worried that natural resources such as coal and petrolium are being depleted faster than they are being replenished, which could result in an energy crisis. Nuclear fission produces highly radioactive waste that is expensive to dispose of properly. Nuclear fusion reactors would produce much less radioactive waste and would be more efficient than nuclear fission, but to date there have been no nuclear fusion reactors that have generated usable energy output. Why is fusion power, which could be very beneficial, so hard to come by?