The Pros And Cons Of Disarmament

“Our challenge is to reconcile, not after the carnage and the mass murder, but instead of the carnage and the mass murder.” Carl Sagan’s speech “On Nuclear Disarmament” is a powerful call to save humanity by putting an end to weapons of mass destruction. Sagan claims that he does not know if we are ever going to come to a complete peace, or if we will kill ourselves in the meantime. The claim made throughout ‘On Nuclear Disarmament’ is both compelling and thoroughly expressed. Sagan presents his claim with rhetorical devices such as parallel structure, hyperbole, and repetition drawing the listener to act upon his plea to prevent senseless carnage.

However the UNSC has also shown to be ineffective in some cases. In 1993 North Korea was referred to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for violating its safeguards. The following year North Korea and the United States signed an ‘Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’. This framework was a non-binding political commitment, noted by the

Ronald Reagan expresses his views by saying, “For the first time in history, the language of ‘arms control’ was replaced by ‘arms reduction’”. President Reagan goes on to declare that the complete elimination of nuclear missiles took conventional wisdom, patience, determination, and commitment. Reagan was thankful for the treaty, and he believed that this treaty would create a working relationship between the Soviets and the United States. He wanted this relationship to take on other urgent issues such as, strategic offensive nuclear weapons, the balance of conventional forces in Europe, the destructive regional conflicts of the world, and the respect for the human and natural rights granted by God to all people. Similarly, General Secretary Gorbachev’s opinion of the treaty was equivalent to Reagan’s. He claimed, “We can be proud of planting this sapling, which may one day grow into a tree of peace.” Gorbachev felt that this treaty was the birth of a relationship between the US and Soviet Union. He thought that they had reached a breakthrough in the Cold War. The General Secretary also states, “...move together toward a nuclear-free world, which holds out for our children and grandchildren and for their children and grandchildren the promise of a fulfilling and

With recent tensions rising between North Korea and the world, it is no surprise that the Japanese citizens are aligning themselves with a nationalist government. Japanese Prime Minister Abe has started to consider revoking the disarmament treaty. Revoking it would let Japan increase spending on the military, which would ultimately result in a much larger and advanced military. Although rearming the Japanese military would improve security in the country, it would only increase the tension, doing damage to not only myself, but future generations of Japanese citizens.

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

The power to destroy a civilization with a single weapon surely should not exist; however, nothing can fully prohibit all nuclear weapons. The high casualties that Japan had encountered were a loud message to the whole rest of the world portraying that exact statement. The diseases and hardships that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had dealt with are situations the world fears; therefore,

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”

President Eisenhower wrote a speech in 1953, titled, “Atoms for Peace”, which used pathos to explain the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including statements that called for protection. He also explained how these weapons are much more powerful than before, and that we should consider the global consequences before destroying an entire city or country. President Eisenhower is speaking against the concept of nuclear

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

Nuclear weapons have been used twice in war – on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. More than 210,000 civilians died, while many more suffered small injuries. Even if a nuclear weapon were never again exploded over a city, there are horrible effects from the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons that are experienced as a personal and community catastrophe by lots of people around the world. This must inform and motivate efforts to get rid of these weapons.

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

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

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.”

The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,