Ever since the beginning of mankind war has been commonplace throughout our history. As we have evolved so have our ways of killing one another perhaps the cruelest being the nuclear bomb which took the lives of over 246000 people in its first uses. I come to the argument of why the United Kingdom has a program of these weapons of mass destruction. Is it necessary to protect ourselves or should us no longer keep these deadly weapons.
Many in favor of the trident missile believe that it is necessary to protect ourselves during this turbulent time in which we live in. There is a high risk of new nuclear states developing, for example Iran which continues to defy the international community, and have continued to develop their nuclear program. The same can be said about the highly aggressive dictatorship of North Korea. If hostile states with nuclear capabilities were to launch an nuclear attack, trident would be the best way to defend ourselves, without trident the United Kingdom would be helpless in that kind of incident.
Many opposing the trident missile program believe that the program is no longer useful to the UK. Gone are the days of the Warsaw Pact and the cold war, which caused Brittan to seek the Trident program.
…show more content…
This money could be spent on many other important sectors such as our conventional forces, which has been heavily damaged by recent budget cuts. The cost of replacing trident with a more modern program would be over 100 billion pounds. This money could be better spent on funding A&E services for 40 years, or covering tuition fees for over 4 million students. ‘It is quite frankly unbelievable, that at a time of austerity, when every item of public expenditure has to be justified to the Ninth degree, that the biggest proposed UK investment program has received so little public scrutiny. ‘This shows the extent of which people feel that trident should be
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.
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 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
“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 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.
Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the
This weapon can be used in nuclear terrorism or intimidation. Because of this, various public organizations resist the wide use of nuclear power.
The reason for that matter is because we are over her laid back cogitating that Britain is going to make peace, but in reality they’re not planning for that to happen any time soon. You said yourself, "Gentlemen may cry 'Peace! Peace!'- but there is no peace. "Britain has “call for all accumulation of navies and armies” Why the need for more navies and more army, if they're planning to make peace with us? Britain not worried about making peace with us, that is
One group of people think that governments should have little to no access to WMD. One reason why they think that governments should have little to no access to WMD is because “With their huge, explosive power, nuclear weapons could potentially destroy the planet “(Nuclear Disarmament). If the government was to use a WMD large enough it could cause fatal damage to our planet. Another reason why a WMD should have restricted
The historian Spencer Weart notes "You say 'nuclear bomb ' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world" The escalation of nuclear proliferation in and around the world, especially in the Middle East has led to the fear of nuclear war in the near future. Many countries built nuclear weapons because it felt insecure from the major nuclear states or from their neighbors conventional military or nuclear capabilities. This is the situation with China, India and Pakistan. Many other reasons encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons, but the main reason for acquiring nuclear weapons is the deterrence against any external threat and prevention external offensive that might lead to war. Nuclear weapons make such countries feel more secure, nuclear weapons can prevent war because countries will have the ability to deter any external aggression. At the same time, there is no guarantee that acquiring nuclear weapons may lead to nuclear war.
“There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons…Use them!” (Rush Limbaugh). The world has over 14,900 nuclear weapons 93% of them are owned by The United States of America and Russia. Nuclear weapons were first used in world war two. When they were first used they were very destructive and really put an impact on the world. Nuclear weapons are very deadly and are constantly getting redesigned to be more and more powerful. Not only do nuclear weapons affect people, they also affect the earth, the climate, and animals. Although nuclear weapons affect many things in the world they keep peace too. Nuclear weapons should not be banned worldwide.
This article deals with one of the most debatable discussions of all time. Read on to know more about nuclear weapons pros and cons.
There is a huge expense in maintaining and building the nuclear arms that we use for deterrence. Nuclear information is secret, taking great amounts of money and time, to research and keep it confidential. Power is gained from the research and development, which is definitely worth the expense. The great amounts of money spent on nuclear technology help ensure the security of the people of the United States. It takes huge amounts of money to have the edge in nuclear technology. However, nuclear deterrence is even cheaper than war. The cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear weapons is only $26.7 billion per year (Hellman). "This is significantly less than the cost of the 1991 [Persian Gulf] war, which came to nearly $80 billion" (Dobbs). Deterrence is economically and politically intelligent.
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