Nuclear Weapons Bad Essay

The end of the war was drawing near, and the Pacific was now the United States’ main focus because a quick defeat of the Japanese was needed. Now, new president, Harry S. Truman, was faced with a huge decision. Should we drop the atomic bomb on Japan? Yes, there were other options, but none would end the war as quickly. So, on August 3, 1945 the world’s first atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, and on August 9, 1945 another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. I think it was not only a military necessity, but entirely justifiable, because the Japanese were determined not to surrender, it saved lives, both American and Japanese, in led to a fast end of the war, and was the right thing to do.

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

The use of nuclear weaponry, or threat thereof, in a time of war could be a major aspect in the result of the war. It could either further progress the length and casualty occurrence in the war, or it could result in an immediate halt of conflict due to the amount of casualties and catastrophic damage from the bomb. However, just because the use of such weaponry is potentially necessary, does not mean it is ethical. The chaos caused by a nuclear weapon has the potential to scar the lives

The nuclear bomb has been a weapon in the United States arsenal since the end of world war two, where the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From that day on the way wars were fought has changed forever. Soon after the bomb droppings on the two Japanese cities a race began between the United States and the Soviet Union named the cold war. The two major powers of the world at that time would threaten each other with nuclear war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union could no longer economically support communism. Then latter on the United States invaded Iran under suspicion that they had nuclear weapons. Years later may people have wondered in nuclear weapons are necessity. Is it really beneficial to whatever nation that possess it, or is it a disaster just waiting to happen? Debates continue to this day on whether nuclear weapons should be against the Geneva Convention. Does the possibility of a nuclear winter with the annihilation of all mankind outweigh the reason for keeping them for protection and military dominance?

Nuclear weapons have been a present factor in my lifetime, and in WWII the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused thousands of deaths. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane weapons ever created. Both in the scale of the devastation that they cause, and in their uniquely persistent, genetically damaging radioactive fallout, they are not like any other weapon. A single nuclear bomb detonated over a city could kill millions of people. The use of tens or hundreds of nukes would disrupt the world's climate, causing lots of famine.(Arguments for nuclear abolition)

On December 7, 1941, the United States was unexpectedly attacked by Japan, now known as the Attack on Pearl Harbor. In retaliation to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S President Harry S. Truman ordered the use of atomic weapons on Japan to help fight the war. In my opinion, the decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified.

Ever since the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki there has been arguments about whether the United States should have dropped the atomic bombs on the two cities. The United States used atomic bombs to put an end to World War Two. The United states was justified when dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The issue focused on in this page is why i believe dropping the atomic bombs was not justified for the United States to have done. Such as how the United States could have tried harder for Japan to surrender, they did not want to let the Japanese keep their emperor. Which was like a God-like figure to the Japanese the U.S. should of just let them keep their emperor and Japan would have possibly surrender. Don’t you think that the United States could have picked other places to drop the bomb not in inhabited places with innocent people that had no part in the war. Perhaps the United States could have even explained the potential power of the bombs which could cause fear and also a method of convincing them to surrender.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

It’s 2028 and the two nuclear giants are fighting against each other. Thousands dead, buildings in ashes and many hopes destroyed. Yet the worst is yet to come. The temperature of the world is decreasing to new records and is staying like that for many years to come. This is a nuclear winter that many scientists have predicted for decades. A nuclear weapon uses either uranium or plutonium. They work by using a nuclear reaction which breaks down an atom or nucleus into two pieces. This process produces a significant amount of energy which leads to an explosion. (Chan) A nuclear weapon can also be as big as a refrigerator or as small as a warhead. (Daniel) The first nuclear weapon was made in the 1930s known as the “Manhattan Project” made by the U.S. This project was suspended after Hitler was killed, but the U. S. used the weapon due to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. This attack put the U. S. in a rage, so the U. S had a plan to use the weapon and another nuclear weapon. The U. S dropped a bomb named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, which followed with the biggest explosion ever witnessed. Then the U. S dropped another bomb. (Lemouse) This was the first and last time anyone used a nuclear bomb, for now. While several people in the government and regular citizens argue that nuclear weaponry is stopping from giving any threats, but nuclear weaponry is actually causing an environmental turmoil and a radiation that will affect everyone in the vicinity for many ages to come.

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

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)

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,