The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Bombs

Whether the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II was justified, we will never know. However, the amount of time spent on discussing the use and effect of the bomb seems to be nonexistent. If they talked about the bomb there was no major argument against using the bomb; with that came mystery because they did not understand the bomb. There were factors that they used as an excuse to use the bomb, but these were in the background and later added to make the argument seem more one-sided, in their favor. Whether the use of the atomic bomb proved helpful or not is up to debate. The atomic bomb changed the world, and given the evidence, the use of the bomb was not talked about in detail except for when and where to use it.

July 16, 1939 began as a rather ordinary day for Einstein. Two former students, now colleagues came to visit. Through this visit Einstein learned that nuclear fission was not simply theoretically possible, but a reality. He immediately recognized the repercussions; both good and evil. He realized that if he did nothing, Germany (Hitler) would be able not only to build an atomic bomb, but also to monopolize all known all sources of the precursor materials. Thus, to do nothing, would be to aid the Nazis. To write a letter, use his influence, to make sure the United States would have access to uranium (from Belgium), he was encouraging the development of a device whose sole purpose would be a weapon more devastating than any other ever imagined.

Should it be allowed to have atomic weapons even if they could change the world?

Pro Nuclear warfare should be used when the time is right and a war needs to be ended

The third argument for the absence of nuclear weapons since 1945 is through the concept of deterrence. Deterrence is the measures taken by a state or an alliance of multiple states to prevent hostile action by another, in this case through nuclear weapons. Colin Gray is one theorist who believes

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?

The use of the atomic bomb in world war 2 is probably one of the most controversial and infamous act of war that humanity has committed in its history. The weapon is so deadly that it hasn't been used in any war since. The nuclear weapon has caused so many problems after its creation and use. It has caused a nuclear scare which reached its pinnacle in the cuban missile crisis. Although the sacre is still prevalent today with America's recent involvement in the Syrian crisis. Some countries have even got rid of their nukes and encourage other countries to get rid of theirs to get rid of the fear. Nuclear deterrence is sucha big deal that countries are afraid of nukes, but don't want to get rid of theirs. These nukes can have devastating effects

The United States alone spends billions of dollars a year on nuclear weapons, while other countries do the same. This diverts from more important funds that could be put in effect to help those living in the country. While important human resourcing programs and groups devoted to improving people’s quality of life get less funding, billions of dollars are being used to maintain thousands of deadly weapons not in use. It is not logical for a country to carry thousands of nuclear weapons at a time, because even a couple will have enough effect to destroy countries. One would say that the United States needs to keep this power. The United States alone is the leading country with the largest military expense by a vast margin. Taking away weapons that are able to destroy the planet hundreds of times over will not weaken military power within the country.

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.

Nuclear weapons around the world should be a topic of worry due to them being a security, but should not be made more of. Nuclear weapons are increasing world security just as much as

The UK’s nuclear legacy began with Sellafield in 1947. The main objective was to obtain weapons grade Plutonium from the products of a nuclear fission reaction. Commissioned in 1956, ”Calder Hall” was the first UK reactor designed for the purpose of energy production. It was a Magnox reactor situated at Sellafield. Calder Hall used a natural Uranium source, coated in a Magnesium Oxide alloy, to heat a Carbon Dioxide coolant and generate electricity through the boiling of water outwith the reactor core.

Banning nuclear weapons may sound like a good idea, but what if all nuclear weapons were banned only to have one country secretly develop and launch one? How would the rest of the world fight against them? The bad guys by definition don’t follow the rules. Nuclear weapons can also be good for more than just attacking; they may even save lives by one country having possession of them. They can also give a country more negotiating power. Nuclear weapons were first developed in America because of Albert Einstein’s letter to F.D.R. telling him about the Germans’ attempts to make a missile powerful enough to “destroy an entire port and some of the surrounding territory.” F.D.R. then got together a group of scientists to develop one first. The

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.

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

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.”