Nuclear Weapons

The severe involvement of the U.S. and the minimal involvement by the U.N.’s posed a serious threat to the Iraq’s well-being. If Iraq provoked the U.S. enough, we might have turned to nuclear arms and solv... ... middle of paper ... ...the U.N. as the sole authority for the weapons would subvert peace. Nothing would get done because the one country desperately trying to get the nuclear “prize” would undermine the whole idea of the U.N. and peacekeeping. The resentment brought by the lack of the “prize” would cause one of the nuclear “team” to go againist the ideas of the U.N. solely because they no longer have the nuclear weapons. As seen as a tool for peace, even though it is a weapon of mass destruction, the nuclear bomb can exist in the world peaceably.

Have you ever felt like nuclear weapons were always a useless and dangerous invention by the human race. Around the world, nuclear war heads are becoming more and more common throughout many countries, when are people going to become more aware and cautious of the problems we face with these useless inventions. Without abolition, there is always the danger that nuclear weapons will proliferate, that more and more countries will obtain them. Knowing this makes you realize that all nuclear weapons should be disarmed & that the creation of them do not promote peace nor does it benefit anyone on this planet. As we explore deeper into the topic, we realize that nuclear weapons do not benefit us in anyway, to cover everything that is bad about the nuclear warheads could simply start off with they cause conflicts between countries around the world, nuclear weapons provide global issues, more complexe reasons why they should be abolished, if it were possible to do a global scale, outlawing nuclear weapons would be ideal and finally, the weapons have a long term effect in the aftermath.

They have never been recovered. If agencies and governments are finding it hard to keep track of their materials now, think of how impossible it would be if every country had their own stash of nuclear weapons? If these lost bombs are in the hands of terrorists right now I can guarantee that they will not think twice about using them. To conclude, the fact is that if every country were to have the right to posses nuclear weapons we would all be living in fear of an attack. Our lives would be very different; we would continually be insecure with regards to our safety.

The more nuclear weapons or devices there are, the easier it will be for one or more of them to get into the hands of terrorists. We have all witnessed the devastating impact terrorism has on our society. From the 9/11 attacks, which saw the twin towers crumble at the hands of Al-Qaeda, to the bombings on the Oklahoma Federal building in 1995 which claimed more than 168 lives. Terrorism has provoked a high sense of fear in the very communities we live in. However, these terrorist attacks would mean nothing compared to what would happen if a terrorist organisation had captured a nuclear bomb.

The development of nuclear weapons started rather innocently as a physical wonder but has become a basis of constant fear among many nations. It is understandable how some countries believe that it is necessary to continue with nuclear proliferation. Basing the security of one’s country on the threat of killing tons of millions of innocent people perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization. This reliance has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation. Nuclear proliferation is the distribution of nuclear weapons, nuclear technology and information to states not acknowledged as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Would WWII have ended shortly afterwards without nuclear arms-not likely. Secondly we must consider the Japanese people’s extreme dedication to their country and emperor, willing to give up their own lives without thinking to stop the enemy. Lastly the morality of nuclear bombing must be explored. While many may argue against the use of such a seemingly cruel form of attack was unnecessary, it is obvious that the atomic bomb was the only means to an end of WWII. What would have happened had the A-bomb not been used?

The idea of relying only on cooperation to secure the materials required to build nuclear weapons is outrageous, and the only program that would eliminate all threats would be by disarming all countries of their nuclear programs. Although it would be very nice and beneficial to everyone if we could simply trust other nations in believing that they did not have motives in developing a nuclear arsenal, it is simply not possible. Although, Rhodes discusses the reasons why some of these countries cannot be trusted, he still believes that something can be worked out despite our differences. Rhodes also fails to disclose to his readers what a significant risk that Pakistan is. Rhodes did well briefly describing what took place after the Cold War and how the U.S.S.R. was broken up into many different countries.

This anxious political situation among United States, Russia and their allies, made the world to introduce for the first time with the destructive weapons that man has ever encountered. As Jim McCluskey argues that there are not any weapons that can homicide millions of people for a short period of time apart from nuclear weapons (McCluskey 1). Indeed, the proliferation and the usage of nuclear weapons have changed the world political leadership's, in order to get the world safer for people and the environment in which they live and function. McCluskey goes on to allege that the peace and security in the world would not prevail if nuclear weapons are existing (McCluskey 2). However, such individuals should be set to throwaway the usage of nuclear weapons, in order that life in this planet will continue even after our death, enabling other generations to live in a safety world.

The atomic bombing of Japan sparked the mad arms race as international governments scrambled to acquire nuclear weapons. National leaders were overwhelmed with a contradictory sense of security and fear after viewing the powerful magnitude and horrific effects of the bomb. Nuclear weapons brought status and security to a country, but possession of such weapons also brought the prospect of nuclear war. 1 The scramble for nuclear weapons has waned and accelerated since the 1940s, while nuclear disarmament efforts have remained as persistent as ever. The overriding influence on this is that the detonation of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have impacted nuclear disarmament efforts more than the creation of the bomb itself.

Nuclear weapons were both the good and the bad of the Cold War. The production of Nuclear Weapons created vagueness, doubt, and skepticism between countries because they never knew when the Cold War would go into action. Furthermore, they always had to be aware of their position because things could be mistaken as a gathering of ammunition in attempt to soon start a war. They were good however because of the advancement that it created in weapons and technology we have presently. Nuclear Weapons were an influential part of warfare that altered the way wars would be fought from the end of the Cold War on.