The Nuclear Paradox

1533 Words7 Pages
The Nuclear Paradox
By Elizabeth Maybury

60 years and some 23,000 nuclear warheads later, since the bombing of Hiroshima, the question that faces the U.S and their allies alike “is less how a nation might array its nuclear forces and more how to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons from spinning out of control”. The very nuclear weapons created to deter attack and ultimately bring about peace are also the cause for ambiguity among world nations, the hole in which millions of tax payers dollars are cast, and the heart of unease felt worldwide by those who fear their amazing destructive power in the wrong hands. The national vision of peace has been misconstrued and wrapped the Americas in a paradoxical ideology of safety that has
…show more content…
Barack Obama elected amidst the Iraq War on January 20, 2009 said these words At one of the biggest gathering of world leaders led by an American president since the end of the Second World War “The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.” There have been as little as 15 cases of smuggling nuclear materials since 1993. In efforts to subside the ever growing threat of nuclear terrorism, Obama stands firm behind his theme of non-proliferation and working on “concentrating other governments' minds on the nitty-gritty of how to control global stocks of separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the two materials that can be used for nuclear explosives.”

As for the lowering of American nuclear weapons arsenals two main juxtaposing yet viable arguments have come to a head. On one side the leverage of nuclear power must be maintained by the U.S above those who would abuse their power of nuclear superiority if given the opportunity; On the other lies the argument that with the end of the Cold War “these weapons are of sharply reduced utility” and the financial, moral and economical cons far
Get Access