Doomsday: The Rebuttal Essay

There are many ideas on how the world will end. Some say with the rapture, or a zombie apocalypse, or a super-virus. William Golding, author of Lord of the flies, believed that the world was doomed. He expresses this idea through his book when he shows that hope ultimately fails us, when he gives the boys pure things and they tarnish them, and when he has evil triumph good.

Physicist Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein delivered a speech called The Menace of Mass Destruction during the Second Annual Dinner of the Foreign Press Association on November 11, 1947. The speech was given to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. The General Assembly of the United Nations is responsible for deliberating, making policies and representing the UN. The Security Council of the United Nations has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. On August 2, 1939, Einstein wrote a vital letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt stating his knowledge of a possible atomic bomb being developed by the German government with

He compares and contrast on how environmentalists have mislead society into thinking that we as a race are doomed. He states that environmentalists argue that Earth is currently facing lot of environmental concerns and that our raw materials are becoming more and more scarce. Environmental problems like global warming, animal extinction, air and water pollution, waste buildup, and many more affect mankind. And also the degrading of our planet has increased at an alarming rate over a small time span. As a result, our actions have not been in favor of protecting the planet, so natural disasters are hitting us on a bigger than before.

Stephen Gould’s essay “Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs” completely agrees with Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb’s essay “Argument, Critical Thinking, and Rationality.” Gould’s essay deals with three theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs, two of which he argues are entirely invalid because they are not in accordance with the basic rules of argument laid out by Williams and Colomb in their essay. Gould also states that the third theory of dinosaur extinction, natural disaster, follows all the rules that Williams and Colomb espouse, and thus is a sound argument. Gould, Williams, and Colomb all state that the world has a problem with irrational arguments being shoved down people’s throats, and call for a

I have always enjoyed movies. But at some point I started to think of movies as more than just entertainment. I began to view them as a movie critic would, rather than just a casual viewer. Because of this perspective, I think of "Apocalypse Now" as one of the best American made movies I have ever seen. As a student of and an active participant in the late twentieth century media age, I feel justified in making this statement. In my lifetime of observation of American media, including fourteen months of intense movie watching in conjunction with my employment at a local video store, I have had an opportunity to observe a broad sampling of the films, and feel more than qualified to make this statement. By referring to

Why are so many people fascinated by end-of-the-world prophecies? Why do so many people believe in them? This is because people are curious- they want to know when the world will end. They want to be prepared for the end of this world. Everybody has this instinct of wanting to know what will happen in the future. The future is unpredictable and nobody wants to travel towards this unpredictable, thus unstable future. We want to travel to a future that it already predicted.

America's decision to drop two nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a profound effect on millions of lives of both Americans and the Japanese. Not only did it carry a significant amount of casualties but many American lives were spared. By entering into WWII, there were so many innocent lives that were lost including millions of civilians so when this monstrous war was coming to an end in 1945, I believe that President Harry S. Truman acted on a prompt decision in order to spare many more American lives. As stated in U.S. History in Context, Historians writing closer to 1945 tended to accept President Harry S Truman’s interpretation of events, that an invasion of Japan, which had been badly wounded but was hardly defeated in August 1945, would have cost over one million American lives and many more Japanese (History in dispute, 2000). The same article advises that the atomic bomb, a new weapon developed in such secrecy that Truman, who succeeded to the office on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in April, knew

Between 1944 and 1945, the Allies attacked Germany and the U.S. advanced across the Pacific to the doorsteps of Japan. In these last two years of war, Americans also created a new form of weapon that changed both warfare and global politics. With advances in technology, the Allied and Axis scientists were able to construct the most deadly, crucial weapon, the atomic bomb. Its creation started in 1942, when President Roosevelt presented the Manhattan Project as a priority in the development of the atomic bomb. However, the decision to use this mortal weapon fell into the hands of the new president, Harry Truman. He had to decide whether to save the lives of millions of Americans or to kill thousands of innocent Japanese families.

In the article “Is Nuclear Armageddon More Likely than Ever,” I found the passage “Could terrorists acquire a nuke,” very interesting. After reading this passage, I feel very concerned for the U.S safety. There are many known possibilities that terrorists could use nuclear weapons on the U.S. Thankfully, there are agencies in place to control and monitor Uranium and other explosives. The International Atomic Energy Agency is an agency that makes sure that nuclear weapons are not used for military purposes. According to the passage, “The International Atomic Energy Agency catalogued 2,200 attempts to steal or smuggle uranium.” Could these be attempts of ISIS?

In today’s society, many discussions of issues concerning the end of the world come forth; some, such as war, are avoidable through communication and reconciliation. Other problems, such as climate change are inevitable because the environment is heavily damaged to a point of no return. Climate change is exactly as it sounds like; that is to say, the world is changing. Necessities such as food and water are running low, sea level has risen by two meters, and many refugees have no where to go. In his book, Tropic of Chaos, Christian Parenti discusses climate change and possible planning to prepare for something so immense that he goes so far as to call it Armageddon. He also draws from other sources in his book such as a report by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, and a report by James Woolsey. Although each commentator on the issue of climate change has a clear image of the approaching predicament, none of them

No two accounts of World War II are the same. Most everyone that was involved in this complicated world war has a different opinion of this massive landmark in history based on events in the war that shaped their thinking. Kurt Vonnegut was an American writer who, in his younger years, served in the US military during World War II and was captured and held as a prisoner of war. Vonnegut is an example of an individual that has a very interesting take on the war, and his personal accounts even sculpted the way in which he acted, thought, and worshiped in the future after the war was over. While most people are very one-sided and bias with who they stand by (and against) from World War II, Kurt Vonnegut remains more open-minded and almost neutral as to which country he agrees made the best decisions in the war. In discussion with the opinions of George Takei, Hannah Arendt, Elie Wiesel, and the accounts of Desmond Doss, we can interpret from Kurt Vonnegut's book of short stories, Armageddon in Retrospect, that he has some very similar, yet very different opinions, perspectives and interpretations of World War II, (and war in general), and the concept of secular humanism that were shaped by his experience of serving in the military.

In 1998, Touchstone Pictures released Armaggedon, the most recent in a premillenial barrage of films focused on the end of the world. The film included a trendy Hollywood cast, headlined by Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, and Ben Affleck, and was directed by Michael Bay, whose previous film credits included the 1996 top ten hit, The Rock. Although Armageddon received nods from the Academy of Motion Pictures for Best Effects (Sound Effects Editing and Visual Effects), Best Music (Song), and Best Sound, film critics were not so enthusiastic. On average, Armageddon received 1½ to two stars. The American public, on the other hand, made Armageddon the second most profitable film of 1998, exceeding its "sister" film, Deep

In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a