Carl Sagan's On Nuclear Disarmament By Carl Sagan

“Our challenge is to reconcile, not after the carnage and the mass murder, but instead of the carnage and the mass murder.” Carl Sagan’s speech “On Nuclear Disarmament” is a powerful call to save humanity by putting an end to weapons of mass destruction. Sagan claims that he does not know if we are ever going to come to a complete peace, or if we will kill ourselves in the meantime. The claim made throughout ‘On Nuclear Disarmament’ is both compelling and thoroughly expressed. Sagan presents his claim with rhetorical devices such as parallel structure, hyperbole, and repetition drawing the listener to act upon his plea to prevent senseless carnage.

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

“There are currently 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world which is enough to destroy the entire human civilization twice” (Time for Change). The United States and Russia own 95% of them. Currently there are nine countries that obtain nukes: (US, Russia, India, China, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea). Before the production of nuclear weapons, war could be fought normally, could be conducted with an acceptable cost to the victor. Since most of the actual war could be fought and won on enemy grounds. After all, with the appearance of nuclear weapons and the dread of mutually assured destruction, wars happening now days are less likely to happen, because they would cause incomprehensible destruction to both the victor and the loser. Any perceived benefits of war are compensated by the possibility of astronomic costs. Serious-mindedness Nuclear weapons have assured our security for some time.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

The seekers of great power are not noted for their rationality. Nor is the vast destructive potential in the present and prospective atomic stockpiles any more of an assured war preventative than was the lesser power of conven-tional weapons prior to World War II. Some major elements of the old plan of atomic energy control now appear to be obsolete. ( ICNW Page 25)

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

As seen in World War II, the nuclear weapon engenders the havoc of humankind. Prior to its usage in wars, many scientists test the bomb on numerous places on earth, creating damage and radiation around these testing sites. Furthermore, death is the core outcome that arises from the usage of nuclear weapons. Sooner or later, the abuse of technology will harm the human race

Lecture 2 talks about nuclear energy and weapons and their impact on society. Overconfidence and too much optimism inhibit clear thinking and allow an avoidance in realizing the negative consequences and unpleasant ideas in the world. Also vital to understand is the concept that science and reality are not identical. Science describes reality, whereas our ideas reality are biased albeit unique. The fusion bomb, first created in 1952, is equal to 10 to 50 megatons of dynamite. It is 500 to 2500 times more powerful than the earlier created fission bomb. The fission bomb, as well as nuclear power plants, split large atoms into smaller atoms in order to create energy. The fusion bomb creates its larger energy by doing the reverse process. The

I have many reasons on why the United States of America should maintain Nuclear Weapons. Out of these many reason there will be three for this paper. The world is in grave danger by Nuclear Weapons, so it needs to be explained what could happen and more.

Soon after the Second World War, the two emerging super powers being the United States and Soviet Union began a 50-yearlong hostility known as the Cold War. The Cold War was simply a state of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union over issues of political influence and economic policy. A big characteristic of the Cold War was the arms race it caused. Initially, after the Second World War, only the United States had atomic bombs. But, in 1949, the Soviets successfully tested a bomb of their own, and the race began. Both sides began making more and more bombs, to the point of absurdity. Many people in the scientific community feared that this proliferation of these weapons could result in a thermonuclear war that could wipe mankind entirely. A noted figure in this fear was Albert Einstein. He was convinced that the only way to stop the risk of war and destruction was the act of nonproliferation and disarmament. He was quoted as saying “The war is won, but the peace is not”, (American Museum of Natural History). Within the context of geopolitical competition and tension, a claim can be made that previous decisions to stockpile nuclear weapons are disastrous in nature, and that these decisions ought to be reversed to protect the world from the risk of

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States long for nuclear weaponry is down to the fact that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can stockpile most of the nuclear warheads in the world then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is certainly not the case. By having so many dangerous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to terrorists but also a huge threat to your countries morality. If the leaders of a country say that it is ok to use nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing to a smaller scale? In the beginning atomic bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous amounts of lives. By this, I mean that multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered then the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of the nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the intention of unnecessary mass murder. What makes the monsters that enforce the use of nuclear weaponry any different from Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin? Even though the atomic bombs are not in use at this moment, anyone or any government in possession of these weapons have the intention to inflict large amounts of pain on vast

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,