The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

A nuclear weapon is a guidance to show who has the power of the countries but also prevent wars from happening It is highly reliable technology to use by going uninterrupted for more than a year even with dealing with difficult weather conditions . Nuclear weapons can be put in a variety of locations.The energy from a nuclear weapon can provide the foundations for other technologies by being the naval vessel and giving power to hundreds to thousands of homes. Nuclear warfare can be the best thing a nation could have power and can make it where that one nation can have the ultimate weapon . If a nation would want to go to war they can have the best advantage to win with these mass destruction weapons these things can have a negative impact by

Another cause of the danger of nuclear weapons is improper storage and handling. The nuclear weapons could be accidently detonated in there silos or storage facilities. This can be a danger to the entire world. If a nuclear weapon is not stored in a safe matter many types of problems could arise. A perfect example of a nuclear accident was at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine. The Chernobyl accident was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated inadequately by non-properly trained personal. The Chernobyl explosion was a very devastating explosion and only two workers died on the night of the accident. Over the course of a few weeks after the accident 28 people were reported dead from radiation sickness.

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.

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.

On August 6th, 1945, the first atomic bomb to ever be used in the history of the world was dropped on Hiroshima. The result of this bomb killed roughly 80,000 people from the blast itself, and tens of thousands more due to radiation poisoning. After a few days passed, the United States dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, and threatened to drop another if the Japanese did not surrender. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the Japanese surrender to the United States, removing them from the war. While the use of this bomb was likely necessary at the time, was it an ethical decision? The lives that were affected from this blast were not just of those who experienced it, generations later, people who weren’t even alive at the time were faced with trauma as well. With that being said, the dropping of the bomb might have been necessary, but it was an unethical decision, even though the Japanese made it perfectly clear that they will fight until the last civilian.

The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost their lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary?

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

People always wonder if the United States decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan were the right choice. Even though the bombs killed and injured many people, Japanese civilians and Japanese soldiers. The decision to drop the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do at that time.

World War II caused millions of deaths, civilian and otherwise. The death toll could have been much higher if the atomic bombs were not dropped. The United States made the correct decision to drop the atomic bombs. If the U.S. had not dropped these bombs the war could have carried on for years and taken millions more lives. If an invasion of Japan had taken place it would have likely taken years and millions of soldiers to cause surrender. No one wanted to prolong the war or cause more deaths than necessary, if the bombs had not been dropped history would likely be completely different.

The U.S. dropped an A-Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 and another on Nagasaki, Japan 3 days later. The Japanese Army and Government already knew they were going to lose the war, but they didn’t want to surrender immediately because they feared having harsh punishments and reparations like those of the Treaty of Versailles. Sure, there could have been other options that might not have as many deaths, but there is no guarantee that there would be success in ending the war. Historians on the opposing side of this debate say that there were too many Japanese civilian deaths and that the Japanese didn’t kill as many American civilians. This may be true but if the US would have used plan B which could have been a large invasion similar to D-Day, more casualties would have been caused. The U.S. made a great decision to drop the Atomic Bombs to end World War Two.

On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first ever atomic bomb on Japan, which effectively ended World War II. The dropping of this atomic bomb was a momentous event in history. The decision to drop the atomic bomb has been analyzed as to why it was necessary, how it impacted morality, and also a question that had arisen was: if the United States was in a situation to do it again, would they drop more atomic bombs? The governments reason as to why the bombs were dropped was that they were the swiftest way to end the war and save millions of lives that could have been lost if the war raged on, but some think the United States dropped them in large part to intimidate the Soviet Union. Why did the United States build the atomic bomb

The dropping of the atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagaski, ordered by President Harry S. Truman, were completely necessary to ensure a speedy end to the war while saving many lives that would have otherwise been taken, had the battle continued. The atomic bombs, also known as Fat Man and Little Boy, were dropped in Japan in the summer of 1945. To this day, The United States stands as the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon on another nation. A single atomic bomb can reduce a city and its population to dust. Although the bombings were inhumane and had negative effects that were unavoidable, the nature of war is catastrophic and human lives are taken nonetheless. What was to be decided was whether these deaths should be of the Japanese

I disagree with the fact that the USA had dropped the bombs because the scale of the attack on pearl harbour was nothing compared to the atomic bombings.

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

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.