Persuasive Essay On Nuclear Disarmament

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.

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.

In 1945, two atomic bombs were dropped over Japan on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and a detrimental impact on the environment.

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

Good evening ladies and gentlemen tonight we are here to debate the topic that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America was ethically justified in the course of history.

During the early morning of August 6, 1945, after numerous years of conflict between the US and Japan in the Pacific, the Enola Gay, an American B-29 bomber, loaded with a new and destructive weapon, soared across the sky over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Seconds later, that new weapon- an atomic bomb that released its destructive energy by the splitting of uranium atoms- lit up the sky, killing nearly 80,000 Japanese civilians instantly. Three days later, the United States dropped a second bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, which resulted in about 40,000 more instant deaths. Thousands of more Japanese civilians died over time due to radiation sickness, leukemia, and other types of cancer. After losing thousands of people,

The two atomics bombings dropping on Japan are forever remembered today as a changing moment in history. The US dropped the atomic bomb called “Little Boy” on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. Only three days later on August 9th, 1945, the second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki. This has been the only time that nuclear weapons have been used in war. These bombs have been questioned through history if it was moral or immoral correct. However, the bombs were definitely a moral decision, which helped the country immeasurably. The atomic bombing of Japan was a military success, and a moral decision because it was less harmful than the fire bombings and it helped the country immeasurably.

Imagine that you are John F. Kennedy in 1962, and you find out that your ally, Cuba, has your enemy, Soviet Union, has ICBMS (intermediate- range ballistic missiles) & Ilyushin Il-28 light bombers, that could reach the United States and aimed toward the United States. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a thirteen-day confrontation between the United States, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Cuba had the missiles there for like three months before one of the U.S had a spy plane that figured out that Cuba had the Soviets Missiles. For a while, the U.S had Intel that Cuba had the missiles but JFK did not believe that Cuba was betraying them. These missiles were only ninety miles away from Florida the U.S. issued a military blockade to prevent further missiles from reaching Cuba. When all the offensive missiles and light bombers were taken from Cuba the blockade was initially ended on November 21, 1962. Although the Cuban Missile Crisis ruined relations with the United States of America and Cuba, it impacted the blockade between the United States of America and Cuba, the respect for the United States of America, and the Bay of the Pigs.

Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience that nuclear energy is a viable power solution to the United States.

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

As for second-strike deterrence, Waltz states that there are two necessities: survival of a first attack and the ability to inflict sufficient damage. Without absolute certainty of destruction of the opposition’s arsenal, a country would be less likely to attack. Because of uncertainty about the size of another country’s arsenal size, nations would not take the risk of retaliation; “Even the largest states recoil from taking adventurous steps if the price of failure is the possible loss of a city or two”1.

The historian Spencer Weart notes "You say 'nuclear bomb ' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world" The escalation of nuclear proliferation in and around the world, especially in the Middle East has led to the fear of nuclear war in the near future. Many countries built nuclear weapons because it felt insecure from the major nuclear states or from their neighbors conventional military or nuclear capabilities. This is the situation with China, India and Pakistan. Many other reasons encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons, but the main reason for acquiring nuclear weapons is the deterrence against any external threat and prevention external offensive that might lead to war. Nuclear weapons make such countries feel more secure, nuclear weapons can prevent war because countries will have the ability to deter any external aggression. At the same time, there is no guarantee that acquiring nuclear weapons may lead to nuclear war.

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.”

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

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