...5/3/2016 Should we spend money on the next generation of nuclear weapons or Should we destroy all existing weapons? In my opinion, I think we should spend more money on the next generation of nuclear weapons, but I guess a lot of people will oppose me. They will like to do that, destroy all existing weapons, because they think the world is peace, why country still need to research the nuclear weapons. It is so danger and destroy environment if country use it. But the nuclear weapons really can protect the country. If the country have nuclear weapons, other country will afraid fight with you. Undeniable, nuclear weapons really have harm thing, but i still think it have more benefit. The benefit thing with spend money on the next generation will make the country become stronger. Think about that, if our country or government don’t have nuclear weapons confusion, the country will be weaker and weaker, how can our country fight with some country have nuclear weapons. The enemy country don’t even need to fight, they just need to use nuclear weapons, and we will lose our home. They don’t need to scared our country, because our country can’t do that, we don’t have nuclear weapons. So, somebody will ask that, how about we destroy all nuclear weapons in the world, so the country will not fight. I think the world will become confusion without nuclear, because government will not scared about the nuclear weapons, the developed country can easy to win the developing...
Words: 367 - Pages: 2
...Nuclear Weapons In 1939, scientist Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the United States president of the time, Franklin D. Roosevelt, concerning the research of splitting a uranium atom that could lead to the development of an atomic bomb in Germany. In the letter, Einstein wrote,”It may be possible to set off a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which large amounts of power and new radium like elements would be generated.” He continued,” This new development could lead to the creation of bombs, and as it seems, but less likely, the construction of an even bigger, new type of bomb.” President Roosevelt, although skeptical at first, decided to go through with the research and in 1941 the Manhattan Project was born. Four years later on August 6, the United States Dropped the first nuclear atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima wiping out 90 percent of the city, killing more than 80,000 people, and later tens of thousands more. Then again on August 9, another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki and killing more than 40,000. 6 days later, the Emperor of Japan announced Japan’s official surrender to the United States in World War II. The effects and after effects of the the two bombs dropped shocked the entire world, even those a part of the Manhattan Project. The Japanese Emperor Hirohito described the bombs as the ”new and most cruel bomb.” This research paper will discuss the pros and cons of the use of nuclear weapons among different countries...
Words: 918 - Pages: 4
...A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter. In 1896, Henri Becquerel was investigating phosphorescence in uranium salts when he discovered a new phenomenon which came to be called radioactivity. He,with his fellow scientists began investigating the phenomenon. In the process, they isolated the element radium, which is highly radioactive. They discovered that radioactive materials produce intense, penetrating rays of three distinct sorts, which they labeled alpha, beta, and gamma after the Greek letters. Soon they were declared to be harmful when used in large amounts. All the early researchers received various radiation burns, much like sunburn, and thought little of it. Gradually it was realized that the radiation produced by radioactive decay was ionizing radiation, and that even quantities too small to burn posed a severe long-term hazard. Many of the scientists working on radioactivity died of cancer as a result of their exposure. When discovered on the eve of World War II, this insight led multiple countries to begin programs investigating the possibility of constructing an atomic bomb — a weapon which utilized fission reactions to generate far more energy than could be created with chemical explosives. The Manhattan Project, run by the United States with the help of...
Words: 632 - Pages: 3
...Have nuclear weapons reduced the number of worldwide conflicts? The correlation between nuclear weapons and world stability has been a controversial topic and the subject of heated discussions in recent years – there is a growing widespread belief that nuclear weapons create a more secure world by preventing hostilities from escalating. However, while nuclear weapons certainly do bring positive aspects, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that they might not discourage but actually increase armed conflicts. This report will go over the benefits and downsides of nuclear weapons, and will examine specific examples in order to determine whether they have had a positive or negative effect in the number of worldwide-armed conflicts. Nuclear weapons were first created in the form of a bomb, during World War 2. They were the product of extensive research, known as the Manhattan Project, funded by the United States government and under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the military supervision of General Leslie Groves. Created by means of atomic fusion and fission, they were intended to give the US the upper hand in the war and mark the beginning of American hegemony in the world. The atomic bomb was tested on July 16, 1945 at Trinity site, in New Mexico. After a successful explosion, the bomb was ready to use against Japan and end the war in the Pacific. Officials agreed the attack had to be powerful and shocking so the world would see the United States was in control;...
Words: 2148 - Pages: 9
...rising concern of North Korea and its threat to the world with nuclear tests is apparently in need to meet a new and practical solution. Six countries just sitting down trying to negotitate but ending up nowhere is not the measure the world wants. Over years, United States and South Korea has tried to soothe the temper of North Korea but it never seemed to work. In fact, it only allowed the rogue state to be a bad tempered infant, throwing temper whenever things do not go the way they want. Such provovative acts resulted in actual victims and death of South korean people. For example, the cheon-An crisis took away over 40 soldiers, who were someone's father, son or beloved sibling. Now, North Korea dropped off from the NPT and is trying to throw its temper again, but this time harder. The rising tension between the two Koreas is making citizens feel frustrated, especially those living near the northern end of South Korea. Something must be done, but this time something practical. In this sense, a new meausre to suppress North Korea, not to soothe, is in need. In other words, South Korea must become a nuclear weapon state for the following three reasones: the impossibility of the world changing into a world without nuclear weapons, the need to safeguard against North Korea and lastly the contribution to peace through nuclear paradox. Firstly, the contemporary society cannot be fully disarmed with nuclear weapons and thus a more practical alternative should be seeked for. Although...
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
...Page 1 of 2 ! ! Nuclear Weapons Debate Part. 1 Sagan / Waltz - The Great Debate Assignment Do you think the international community should strive for ‘nuclear zero’ or not? Both authors have strong arguments, the threat of terrorist using the nuclear weapons on the one hand (Sagan), and than nuclear weapons “have caused sixty-five years of peace” (Waltz). But I think that position of Waltz has more logic behind. Sure, terrorists is a big threat, but they do use a lot of different kinds of weapons. Should we ban all weapons? And they for sure use internet to communicate, should we also ban it. In case with terrorism, I think it’s better to concentrate on the problem of how terrorism appears and what drives people to become terrorists and how to stop them or change their mind. Another thing that nuclear weapons are already exist, and they “are small and light”, “easy to hide and easy to move” and “can be placed in small vans or small boats and sent across borders or into harbors” (Waltz). So even if all countries will agree on zero, it will be almost impossible to check it or control it. Another point in which I agree with Waltz is that “nuclear weapons are the only weapons capable of dissuading the United States from working its will on other nations” (Waltz) and that Sagan faces the problem from one specific cite “the most dangerous nuclear threats to the United States today” (Scott D. Sagan). I think that as far as these weapons exist, it possible to...
Words: 475 - Pages: 2
...Should all countries in the world be able to develop their own nuclear weapons? More importantly, if so, can these countries be trusted? Richard Rhodes, the author of the essay entitled “Living with the bomb,” believes that they can. With cooperation and negotiations Rhodes believes nations can secure the deadly materials from which weapons of mass destruction are made of. He also believes that this will help reduce arsenals which will help eliminate possible future risks. The author somehow believes that regardless of the tensions in the Middle East and its surrounding countries, they are worthy of our trust in a matter as great and serious as their development of nuclear weapons. Throughout his essay, Rhodes cites several cases throughout history where there have been direct threats due to the fact that certain countries simply cannot be trusted. Nuclear weapons are an extremely big deal in our world today, especially when it comes to terrorism. The idea of relying only on cooperation to secure the materials required to build nuclear weapons is outrageous, and the only program that would eliminate all threats would be by disarming all countries of their nuclear programs. Although it would be very nice and beneficial to everyone if we could simply trust other nations in believing that they did not have motives in developing a nuclear arsenal, it is simply not possible. Although, Rhodes discusses the reasons why some of these countries cannot be trusted, he still believes that...
Words: 1533 - Pages: 7
...Nuclear weapons are considered to be the deadliest and inhumane weapons ever created. The International Committee of the Red Cross (2010) viewed nuclear weapons in an explicit way. It posited that “Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to the future generation, and indeed to the survival of humanity.” Many other institutions such as the United Nations Organization and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons have seconded this statement. Collectively, they are trying their best to convince people to support nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons have been used twice in warfare, on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. More than 210,000 innocent civilians died, while countless suffered acute injuries. Supposing that a nuclear weapon will never be used again, a tone of uncertainty, there are intolerable effects from production, testing and deployment of nuclear arsenals. In addition to warfare, nuclear power plant disasters pose an equal threat. On Wikipedia (n.d.), one can find a list of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents worldwide. Lists of attacks on nuclear power plant, civilian nuclear...
Words: 945 - Pages: 4
...casual about nuclear arms threat? The Genre is an editorial (January 3,2017). John M. Crisp claims that ,” The message of this period was that nuclear destruction could rain down at any moment”(Crisp 7). The mother earth already suffers from the climate change. Yet we the people still engore it also the past history of that happened to hiroshima and nagasaki all the damages that U.S had made. Also the conflict of every country to possess nuclear arms. Crisp hooks all these claims like climate change, nuclear bombs, and country that possess nuclear arms by logos,pathos and ethos. Crisp uses logic with climate change by saying,”climate change is already making resources scarce in some areas...”(Crisp 14). When the U.S bomb Hiroshima with fat boy and little boy it’s affect the weather with toxic elements that made people who survived die later. Crisp is getting “Institutions and power arrangements that tended to maintain stability for the good or ill have broken down”(Crisp 14 ). As a result the people who survived had nowhere to live Hiroshima was habitable and later had to leave their house where they had grown up and to wait until plant and water to return and than they can go back to Hiroshima. After they returned there were no homes so it was like a new undiscovered place to start over. As a result in the climate change in...
Words: 641 - Pages: 3
...and nuclear weapon war Definitions of Terms: Ethical issues: This can be defined as a problem or conflicts that requires an individual or an organization to choose between alternatives that must be evaluated as right (ethical) or wrong (unethical). An ethical issue is said to bring system of morality and principles into conflicts. Disarmament: This is the process whereby there is a reduction or withdrawal of military forces and weapons. It is also the act of limiting or abolishing weapons. Disarmament is sometimes taken to mean total elimination of weapons of mass extermination, such as nuclear arms. Nuclear weapon: This are bomb or missile which run on nuclear energy to cause...
Words: 1063 - Pages: 5
...Wilson argues that nuclear weapon proliferation and its use is the greatest threat to all humanity. She asserts that the choices over the next decade will impact the future of nuclear abolition or expansion. Furthermore, Wilson provides trends that have characterized recent development of nuclear countries, such as that nuclear nations, like Russia and the US, are pouring funds to develop their nuclear arsenal. Wilson addresses concern that nuclear nations are establishing nuclear alert standpoints, like the ones the US and USSR used in the Cold War, which will reduce the decision period to fire nuclear weapons, increasing the risk of nuclear use through accidents and rogue launches. Tensions between nuclear bearing countries and terrorist...
Words: 271 - Pages: 2
...once a nuclear bomb has exploded the radiation travels in the air for a long time before it settles on the ground? Me neither. Or what about the money spent on nuclear weapons each year by the United States? We spend about $25 billion on nuclear weapons. And that is why we need to have a ban on nuclear weapons. We need the ban against nuclear weapons because we spend too much money on the production, they harm the environment and is a very dangerous threat if in the wrong hands. The United States spend WAY too much money on nuclear weapons. Since the beginning of the production of the weapons, the United States has spent about $15.6 trillion on the weapons. On an average day, the United States spends $300 million on the weapons. You know how much help that money can give to homeless people or hungry people? A lot. If the government used the money to help people in that kind of state the poverty level would be WAY lower than it is now. There wouldn’t be so many people begging for food either. Stealing too. Or other ways the money could go to is education, healthcare, better equipment for jobs, hospitals, or schools. The money could be used in a way better way than on nuclear weapons that get stored away with no use to them....
Words: 506 - Pages: 3
...Iran’s Nuclear Weapons: Realist and Idealist Paradigms Student name: Institution: Course name: Ttor name: Due Date: Iran’s Nuclear Weapons: Realist and Idealist Paradigms This paper will discuss the impending nuclear agreement with Iran reflecting on the realistic and idealistic paradigms in international affairs. Observations of the relationship will firmly accommodate the two paradigms. The aim will be to elaborate clearly the use of international law and organizations on all the paradigms in connection to international security and inter-state relationships. Realist Paradigm Realism is mounted on the notion that, world politics is driven by competitive self-interests and a struggle for power that is aimed at preserving and improving military, security and economic interests. To realists, the presence of war is essential in a state system as it clearly underlines the hypothesis of international conflict. Such states are characterized by chaos and revolutions, which are directly linked to vested national interests, distribution of power and conflict. a. Political realism The Iranian nuclear program has attracted much attention within the international arena due to the interest devoted by nation’s states on their foreign policies (Bowen & Brewer2011). In international relations, realists and idealists paradigms are important as they concern themselves with substantive issues affecting nations and states...
Words: 1772 - Pages: 8
...support the elimination of nuclear weapons from acceptable military arsenal just like poison gas was banned. The author believes that just like chemical weapons were developed, used successfully in war and eventually abandoned so will nuclear weapons. Carroll believes that nuclear weapons are dangerous and can be used for enormous destruction. The author builds his arguments from a historical perspective. At the beginning of the 20th century when scientists were experimenting with new weapon technology, “poisonous weapons” were developed (Carroll 1). The world reacted by outlawing these weapons through the Hague Convention in 1907. However, this did not stop countries from developing and using chemical weapons in war. Germany and Britain used asphyxiating gas in World War I. While there were less than 100,000 casualties fewer than the millions cause by conventional military weapons, the chemical weapons still cause great concern in Europe. The author identifies a group of people he terms as “realists”. They represent strong opposition against the banning of effective military weapons. The realists were opposed to the abolition of the use of military weapons in the 1900s and are also against the abandonment of nuclear armament. The realists’ main argument is that nowhere in history have effective weapons been abandoned because the ultimate goal of armament is to have the most lethal weapons. Therefore disarmament of chemical or nuclear weapons is not realistic. Carroll...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
...the fact that opposition did sometimes limit Britain's nuclear policy) and the least important factor which is cost and that is not important as the more Britain spent, public opposition didn't grow. The perceived 'MAD' threat was the most important because as the Cold War became more dangerous towards Britain, they spent more on developing/buying nuclear weapons. Firstly, CND was established in 1958 out of concerns of the escalating arms race of the Cold War especially given that the Russians had just launched Sputnik and Britain had tested her own H bomb. An example of showing how CND gaining lots of support was that 150,000 people took part in the Aldermaston marches in 1960-61. Secondly, the Greenham's Women's Peace Camp protest that lasted from 1981-2000 shows that there was a clear illustration of mass public opposition to the threat posed by nuclear weapons as the peace camp was established to protest that nuclear weapons were being sited by RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire. Thirdly, there was an encircling of the base which occurred in December 1983, with 50,000 women attending and cutting sections of the fence, indicating the lengths the protestors were prepared to go to signify the strength of their opposition.. On the other hand, even when the threat of the Cold War escalated, Britain sometimes carried on their nuclear policy. This can be shown by governments throughout 1945-90 continued with a nuclear weapons policy even despite key moments of public pressure during...
Words: 675 - Pages: 3
