Nuclear Weapons Be Abolished

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.

In the hopes of keeping us safe we’ve developed stronger, better weapons. Whether it’s to protect us from each other or from others, safety has always been the number one concern. Yet, with the use of nuclear weapons our safety is no longer ensured. “A thousand times a thousand, times a thousand is a billion; in less than a century, our most fearful weapon has become a billion times more deadly” (Sagan 656). As said by Sagan, our weapons have become exponentially stronger in such a short amount of time. We’ve done this under the belief that it’ll make us safer when, in fact, we don’t really possess the knowledge to use such a destructive force. When it comes to nuclear weapons there is no going back. After the damage has been dealt it can’t be undone. “Some of them had an explosive yield equivalent to ten million tons of TNT; enough to kill a few million”(Sagan 656). We hold the power to kill a few million people, when less than a century ago we only had enough power

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?

Be it resolved that no country has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons damage the environment greatly. The damage can be long lasting. One may argue that the damage to the environment can be justified by the fact that they can end wars quickly and reduce the number of deaths, but when they are used to end wars quickly, they will still kill many civilians indiscriminately. Radiation can kill many innocent people. However, the people most likely to be harmed by the radiation are the enemy country’s people, so therefore they are not innocent. But many civilians who die from radiation may not agree with what their government is doing and just because they live in an enemy country, doesn’t mean they are enemies or pose any

“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.

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.

Throughout history, one of the most prominent competitions between countries revolves around the creation or acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, most countries don’t realize that in doing so they create a greater problem. This problem is that as more countries acquire these weapons they are more likely to use them. The use of nuclear weapons is unethical and wrong whether that country is in a state of war or not. The first utilization of a nuclear weapon was in World War 2 by the United States when they dropped an atomic bomb on Japan in an effort to end the war. The use of nuclear weapons during World War II was unethical because these weapons were developed for the sole purpose of acting as a deterrent, there were other

Having adopted the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, as well as keeping in mind the New START treaty in the Obama administration, the leaders of America and leaders around the world has come to the consensus that it is best to ban the use of nuclear weapons. As the public opinion of nuclear technology is usually negative, many would agree that a nuclear war could be dangerously fatal for lives world wide, therefore our group agrees that it is wise to be wary of powerful nations in possession of such hazardous and forceful arm, including our very nation, the United

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

Today, it is known everywhere that if a nuclear war is waged, it could mean the destruction of our world as we know it. Nuclear weapons were used to end World War II, and they could very well be used if WWIII occurred, it may end also using nuclear weapons, which could destroy us. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones” (“I know not…”Einstein, Albert). Einstein was implying that WWIII would set humanity to the Stone Age. Our country and the rest of the countries with nuclear weapons need to get rid of them before one of us start a war.

Our world may be considered a such a dangerous place with nuclear weapons stocked in most strong powers across the map, But would it be so much better when they are removed? The fact that nuclear weapons are capable of ending the world with the press of a few buttons, a spin of a key, and a code punched into the keyboard has frightened millions of years. Any given moment could be the end. Countries such as North korea are spending most of

When scientists discovered the power of nuclear fission, the new technology was applied to invent the atomic bomb in the early 1940’s. Only a few years later, it was utilized in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6, 1945. Due to the immense destruction it caused, there has been no use of nuclear warfare ever since. Though it seems that nuclear weapons are things of the past, “the threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the severest tests facing the international system in the early twenty-first century” (“Nuclear Weapons” 1898). The effects and strength of nuclear weapons are more powerful now than they were before.

Jonathan Schell’s book The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger gives an in depth look at how the world has been shaped seven decades after the creation of the nuclear bomb. In this book Schell provides a brief history of how the bomb came to be, argues how having the bomb changed the geopolitical landscape of the world, and how the current non-proliferation treaties, and recent government administrations are reviving a danger that has not been seen since the cold war. Schell doesn’t stop there he also provides alternatives ways of how to lower the risk of nuclear war, and a possible world without 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.”

Our world is in the tip of nuclear proliferation and a growing risk on nuclear terrorism. President Barack Obama position for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of these weapons is his commitment to the world that is yet to been seen. But I strongly support President Obama’s plan as a requirement for survival, peace, economics, and health of our nation and future generations. Nuclear weapons cannot be used for military presence and deterrence that will violate international human rights. Also, accepting the use of nuclear weapons is tantamount to the willingness to accept the incineration of human mankind with the radioactive devastation effect, which is immoral.