The Pros And Cons Of The Abolishment Of Nuclear Weapons

1860 Words4 Pages

Nuclear weapons are universally seen as destructive weapons and ever since its creation, this has been the case. The atomic bomb was a weapon unlike any other and its concept alone was enough for competitions between countries. This is in reference to a letter sent to the president of the United States by the famous physicist, Albert Einstein. The letter stated that Nazi Germany was planning on building an atomic bomb and he wanted the U.S to be the first to develop the nuclear weapon. With this, the U.S would eventually make the weapon before the Nazis and use it in the war against the Japanese (Nobelprize). The atomic bombs creation was made in fear of the nazis dominating the war and the U.S had now hoped to use that fear on the Japanese. …show more content…

Not only is it the right thing to do, but most people would most likely want to get rid of the weapons. A reason for doing this would be that nuclear bombs of today are much more stronger than the bombs detonated in 1945. As a result of they cause much more destruction and are much more of a threat to humankind. To show how destructive nuclear bombs are the campaign for nuclear disarmament says “The heart of a nuclear explosion reaches a temperature of several million degrees centigrade. Over a wide area the resulting heat flash literally vaporizes all human tissue”. This means that a nuclear bomb can melt human skin away due to extremely hot temperatures and the person will very likely die a gruesome death. Another way nuclear bombs are destructive is how they affect the environment. It is stated that “It would take less than 0.1% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal to bring about devastating agricultural collapse and widespread famine” (“Arguments for nuclear abolition”). Not only would nuclear weapons be able to destroy all of humanity, but it would also be able to destroy the environment as well hurting the people the bomb was dropped on but also the …show more content…

These efforts include the Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Both of these treaties have been proposed to countries with nuclear weapons but have not made enough changes to the countries and their stance on having the weapons. As the Nuclear Threat Intiative states “The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits its non-nuclear weapon state parties from developing nuclear weapons. The treaty, however, exempts five de jure nuclear weapon states (NWS) (France, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from this ban.” This is signifigant because these countries hold the most nuclear weapons among the others. Another example of the treaties not doing enough is shown by how the current president of the United States wants to increase the nuclear arsenal. He states that “ We’re never going to fall behind any country even if it’s a friendly country, we’re never going to fall behind on nuclear power”(qtd in Trump: US must lead in nuclear weapons capacity) . This proves that the U.S has no intent on getting rid of their nuclear weapons despite treaties and its precautions. It can also mean that because the U.S is increasing their arsenal, other countries may also follow resulting in something like a second cold

Open Document