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.
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.
Many countries don’t want to give up their biggest weapon and who could blame them. Some countries need that weapon as a way of defense against an aggressive nation. Since the only true solution to nuclear weapons will not realistically happen in today’s world, I think that we should attempt to make the best of the situation and if we are going to use them we should use them fairly. Therefore, I offer a counter solution. Instead of ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons we should use them to our advantage.
During the Cold War, countries having nuclear weapons meant that they will think rationally and not start a war since they know the reality which is that they are dealing with weapons of mass destruction. Today, it is a different situation. Some countries are more powerful and there is a lot of hatred as there is war. Iran’s hatred for Israel is extreme and known worldwide. Having nuclear weapons might give them the chance to use them against their enemy Israel and wipe it out.
When we have people like Sadam Hussain in the world, which we always will, we need the protection that only nuclear weapons can provide. If people think that trying to bargain with a man like Hussain without safety net is plausible then they are hugely mistaken. It would be like using a typewriter instead of using a computer because we have an abundance of typewriters. “It would be wrong to assume that a broader conception of international security makes it easier to achieve the goal of nuclear abolition” (Cowen-Karp 6).
However, there have been significant facts and examples showing threats of terrorism infiltrating their nuclear system, and potentially running the government. Corruption has continued to loiter despite Pakistan’s claimed screening and security measures. Also, continued attacks on the stability of government remain active and extremism continues to create a presence outside of the government. The solution to this complex problem should favor the side of U.S. intervention, rather than waiting for Pakistan to take control of the problem. Pakistan had proven incapable in solving their nuclear weapons issues and has instead created a situation detrimental to the peace of the world and in particular the safely of the United States and their allies.
This is a successful logic and motivational proof that encourages the audience to have increased awareness of the ultimate dangers of a nuclear war and begin using steps to prevent them. Another exceptional example of the use of logic is how the authors claim that even using all of the money from the U.S. defense budget to build a Nuclear Global Health Workforce would be useless (Doyle and Helfand). The writers back up this claim by stating a source named “Medical Implications of Nuclear
She explains very clearly and very passionately about the dangers of using nuclear weapons in a war. There may be people who disagrees with the author’s views in this article, but it makes everyone think. She also takes on the reasons why India decided to build its nuclear arsenal. And none of those she believes are good enough to take such a risky step. The author speaks about nuclear tests as a hazardous process which may eventually bring disasters to the coming generations.
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.
The United States and the Soviet Union are two key players in this race. These two major nuclear weapons nations see one another as a reason and a justification for spending an enormo... ... middle of paper ... ... more on foreign policy and foreign relation to reduce further tension between nations. Everything will work out through communication and understanding. Violence has never been a good solution to a problem. The bigger the fireworks, the bigger the show but who will be left after the show?