The World Is A Dangerous Place

"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society - shrunk into one community with a common fate - finds itself, but only a few acts accordingly. Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragicomedy this is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world. But on that stage, on which the actors under the floodlights play their ordained parts, our fate of tomorrow, life or death of the nations, is being decided. It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by man himself, such as the atomic bomb and other means of mass destruction equally

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future.

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

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.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 to foreshadow the end of a long and bloody war. It killed an estimation of eighty thousand people with its detonation; one of the finest instruments of murder humanity has managed even to this day. Its presence was a catalyst. Decades after its first showing, World Powers across the globe continue the escalating stockpilation of their nuclear arsenals. In 1978 however, Canada came to an executive decision to rid itself of its nuclear weaponry. Canada acknowledged the mounting tensions of the nuclear competition and its potential to lead to war, as well as what the ramifications of such a war could mean for earth’s inhabitants—extinction—and decided, with its reputation and connections,

Three days later, after Japan failed to heed our cry for surrender, we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki, killing another 40,000. This was quite possibly one of the most questionable acts during World War II, if not during the modern era.While on one hand, Japan wasn’t going to surrender without one hell of a fight and this act saved millions of young american lives, it also negatively affected that many japanese in one way or another. However this ethical dilemma wasn’t the driving force behind this essay. Rather it was astounding success of the Manhattan project. Scientists from all over the globe came together against a common enemy and managed something spectacular. Before the war, nuclear anything was in its infancy. However, together these physicists and engineers and rocket scientists managed to break down a new frontier. While it would be immoral to condone the creation of such a destructive device, one can’t deny its purpose. It saved lives and brought to an end a war that had gone on too

Inherent politics in technologies makes us hold the belief that some technologies are by nature political in a specific way. With these technologies, intractable properties of certain kinds of technology are strongly linked to institutionalized patterns of power and authority (p. 134, Winner, 1980). According to Winner, it does not matter how these technologies are shaped or arranged in order for them to serve their political goal. An example such as the atom bomb can be called an inherently political artifact. Due to its lethal properties the atom bomb demands control by a centralized, secure hierarchical chain of command closed to all influences. However, this chain of command might make its workings unpredictable. According to Winner, the

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

Sirens wail, a baby cries in the background and the sky starts falling...DUCK AND COVER. Nuclear revolution is approaching and the time to prepare is now. As nuclear weapons should be feared, the should be an immediate caution but also should be regarded as a fact of security. This will be examined through the numerous nuclear weapons that the world owns; the acceptance that revolution is upon us, and finally an example pain that has striked perseverance in nations.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

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.”

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

It’s 2028 and the two nuclear giants are fighting against each other. Thousands dead, buildings in ashes and many hopes destroyed. Yet the worst is yet to come. The temperature of the world is decreasing to new records and is staying like that for many years to come. This is a nuclear winter that many scientists have predicted for decades. A nuclear weapon uses either uranium or plutonium. They work by using a nuclear reaction which breaks down an atom or nucleus into two pieces. This process produces a significant amount of energy which leads to an explosion. (Chan) A nuclear weapon can also be as big as a refrigerator or as small as a warhead. (Daniel) The first nuclear weapon was made in the 1930s known as the “Manhattan Project” made by the U.S. This project was suspended after Hitler was killed, but the U. S. used the weapon due to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. This attack put the U. S. in a rage, so the U. S had a plan to use the weapon and another nuclear weapon. The U. S dropped a bomb named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, which followed with the biggest explosion ever witnessed. Then the U. S dropped another bomb. (Lemouse) This was the first and last time anyone used a nuclear bomb, for now. While several people in the government and regular citizens argue that nuclear weaponry is stopping from giving any threats, but nuclear weaponry is actually causing an environmental turmoil and a radiation that will affect everyone in the vicinity for many ages to come.