Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Weapons

Of course the creation of the nuclear bomb was a watershed event of World War II in which more that 60 million people died. The United States thought that with the creation of the bomb and having such a weapon, they would no longer have to get involved in wars and would have peace. But the creations of the nuclear weapon led to other results. Nuclear power stations were being created that were able to give cheap energy and allowed progress. But, nuclear power stations were also very dangerous. In 1986 in the USSR, there was an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Due to this accident, a lot of people became sick from the radiation and that radiation was very bad for the environment and everything living around that area. But even due to the dangers, people cannot let go of nuclear energy.

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.

Nuclear weapons are like the latest toys for state actors. It’s something that everyone wants to have because it shows your strength, wealth and power. Trying to deter people away from that will be a very difficult task. However, I believe that it is achievable to prevent future states from nuclear proliferation. I believed that if we get all the nuclear states on board with a campaign for nuclear disbarment policy, it could be achieved. That would entail involving the U.N and the IAEA and of course major funding to start this campaign. In addition to having a campaign for nuclear disarmament, it would also be very important to stress how they’re other ways to protect ones country other than nuclear weapons. Options, which include other technologies similar to nuclear weapons without nuclear waste being involved, biological weapons, chemical weapons and the old fashion

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?

I agree with Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, she points out how volatile our world would be with out nuclear weapons. Preserving life on earth comes down to a couple of things, uphold the sanctity of nations’ independence, improve the safety on

Furthermore, without the use of nuclear weapons, the war would have continued and more lives would have been lost. The atomic bomb results were grotesque and horrible, causing many deaths and injuries, and they should not be used unless absolutely necessary, but in this case, it was necessary to stop a war that would have continued inevitably. The United States had to use it to terminate WW2. Condonement of nuclear weapons is foolish, but if used, they can be advantageous in the right situations.

“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.

Nuclear weapons should be abolished due to their destructive nature and the fact that nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people everywhere. All nuclear weapons accomplish is destruction and mistrust between countries, therefore they should be

The atomic bomb results were grotesque and horrible, causing many deaths and injuries, and they should not be used unless absolutely necessary, but in this case, it was necessary to stop a war that would have continued inevitably. The United States had to use it to terminate WW2. Condonement of nuclear weapons is foolish, but if used, they can be advantageous in the right situations.

The development and use of nuclear weapons in 1945 changed not only warfare, but how countries approach warfare as a whole. As Andrew Heywood notes in his book, Global Politics, says that there’s a tendency “for any weapons to proliferate” or spread. With that knowledge it should be assumed that many nations would want to obtain nuclear weapons after seeing what the power that they hold. A state being in possession of a nuclear weapon can deter potential enemies and make them a power on the global scale. The Cold War era and post- Cold War era both saw an in increase in the spread of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, after the US first used a nuclear weapon in 1945, states that gained nuclear capabilities were the France, the UK, China and the Soviet Union. Post – Cold War era India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all gained nuclear weapons and shows the problem with proliferation of them. India and Pakistan are neighboring states and rivals which can lead to the possibility that they could be used at any moment. North Korea is a dangerous militaristic state that constantly threatens other states. This illustrates that the spread of nuclear weapons is a global problem because nuclear proliferation can possibly put WMDS, weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of rival states or extremely dangerous nations. There’s also the possibility of them falling into the hands of non state actors such as terrorists groups. Nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament/arms

Ever since 1945, when the first nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshimba and nagaskia, the debate has raged about nuclear weapons. Despite no country using them since then, the tention came to a head in the 1980s, with the cold war and britain puttimg in nuclear defence plans. This panic spawned trident, the programme for procurement of nuclear weapons for the uk, and a programe thst is right next door to js. These weapoms are the barrier between us and the war, and they help us to be seen as a world power. So why would we want to get rid of them? While nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used,they still give us extra saftey and security for he uk, and i feel that that is something thag should not be compromised.

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

Disadvantages: Use of nuclear weapons is immoral. We should try to prevent their growth. More the number of nuclear weapons made, more are the risks it poses to human life. Maintaining a nuclear bomb is very expensive. It takes a large share of the country's defense budget. Countries are more likely to have a civil war in which they can use nuclear weapons against each other, which could prove disastrous to the entire globe. Possession of nuclear weapons is an outdated manly symbol. Countries like Germany, Spain and Australia don't have any nuclear weapons, but are still popular as the US and UK.

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

Art, Robert J and Waltz, Kenneth N“Technology, Strategy and Uses of Force” (University Press of America, 1983)