Nuclear Weapons Is Bad

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

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

Ever since 1945, when the first nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshimba and nagaskia, the debate has raged about nuclear weapons. Despite no country using them since then, the tention came to a head in the 1980s, with the cold war and britain puttimg in nuclear defence plans. This panic spawned trident, the programme for procurement of nuclear weapons for the uk, and a programe thst is right next door to js. These weapoms are the barrier between us and the war, and they help us to be seen as a world power. So why would we want to get rid of them? While nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used,they still give us extra saftey and security for he uk, and i feel that that is something thag should not be compromised.

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?

Nuclear weapons are like the latest toys for state actors. It’s something that everyone wants to have because it shows your strength, wealth and power. Trying to deter people away from that will be a very difficult task. However, I believe that it is achievable to prevent future states from nuclear proliferation. I believed that if we get all the nuclear states on board with a campaign for nuclear disbarment policy, it could be achieved. That would entail involving the U.N and the IAEA and of course major funding to start this campaign. In addition to having a campaign for nuclear disarmament, it would also be very important to stress how they’re other ways to protect ones country other than nuclear weapons. Options, which include other technologies similar to nuclear weapons without nuclear waste being involved, biological weapons, chemical weapons and the old fashion

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.

Nuclear weapons were thought to be able to the end war for mankind. But at the same time, people who believe this don’t realize the damage it causes to the many different lives that inhabit this world. A nuclear weapon is a military weapon that was created to go to war and kill. It also has been used as a protection to the nation or country from unknown people that isn’t suppose to be there in the first place(“How Do Nuclear Weapons Work?” 1). Nuclear weapons could never be justified due to the destruction it has created over the past year and century. For example, due to the nuclear weapons chemical fission in it, many organisms die, land brutally got destroyed and made humans greedy for power.

By having a meeting to settle out the conflicts that other countries have with North Korea. In doing that North Korea can testify on why they made nuclear weapons and what they was determined to do with it. Also, we can influence North Korea to reduce or even throw away all of their nuclear components. I combined what others tried to do which didn’t work. I believe my solution will work because it will give North Korea to step up to the plate and explain their reasoning on this issue. In addition, it won't cause any commotion to influence another World War series. Other ideas to solute this issue would have worked it, they won’t only worrying about themselves for the chance. You have to start off small before you end big as what my mother always told

On August 6th, 1945 nearly 80,000 people lost their lives instantly in the bombing of Hiroshima. Three days later more than 70,000 people died instantly with the bombing of Nagasaki (Hall). Those two events remain the only two times in history where nuclear weapons were used in warfare. Less than twenty years later the U.S.S.R tested a nuclear bomb that recorded an explosion 3,333 times as powerful as the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Bennett). The immense amount of destruction that could be caused by these weapons is why the great powers of the world should come together and decided to destroy their nuclear arsenals. Nuclear weapons could easily render the entire race extinct and it is terrifying to think that many countries have the power to cause a nuclear fallout. Nuclear disarmament would not be easy, it would be very expensive, time-consuming and nerve-racking. A nuclear warhead on average costs the government about $55 million. This may seem like a lot but the U.S currently has nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons. If you included production and storing costs of all those nukes the U.S has spent about $5.8 Trillion on its current arsenal (“The Cost of U.S Nuclear Weapons”). That's an insanely large amount of money. You might be wondering if it cost that much just to get and hold on to those nukes it must be incredibly expensive to disarm all those nukes. Not really, it would cost roughly $7 billion a year per decade to begin disarming our current nuclear

Earlier in 2015 president Barack Obama reached an agreement with many other nations in regards to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The agreement will make it to where Iran will not have the ability to acquire the elements needed to create nuclear weapons, specifically uranium and plutonium. If Iran were to try and build a nuclear weapon without the deal it would take 2-3 months to finish the project. But with the agreement in place, the four pathways to creating the bomb are blocked and therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made.

The abolishment of nuclear weapons has been an ongoing argument since the bombing of Hiroshima. Although this motion is strongly agreed on, not all countries have signed a worldwide treaty to ensure the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited. A nuclear weapon can be used to destroy a large are of space with an explosion that is larger than any other bomb on the planet. The splitting of two extremely reactive elements causes a nuclear explosion.

If the nuclear bearing countries recommit themselves to fully embrace the idea of a no first use of their nuclear weapons against another country, then this will be an important step to abolishing the weapons. Although in 1982, the Soviet Union declared its intention of a no first use policy but it did not really stop them from deploying and upgrading their weapons. For this condition to hold, it would entail sweeping and substantial changes to US and Russian nuclear deployments, with each nation needing only to retain a second deterrent strike.

If all countries remove their weapons, the world would be a safer place and relieve the mistrust and fear from other countries without the weapons. Nine countries, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, and North Korea, have at least 15,375 nuclear weapons altogether. The U.S. and Russia have 93% of the weapons. These two countries and the United Kingdom have been decreasing their amount of arms. The amount of nuclear arms has already drastically decreased by about 55,000 from 1986. If this movement keeps going, the world will be safer. In contrast, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea have been increasing their stock of nuclear weapons. The infinite possibilities of danger from the countries with nuclear weapons prove that they should never be used again, and all production of nuclear arms should be stopped

While nuclear warheads can prevent wars, nuclear warheads should be banned throughout the whole world because there are plenty of other ways to settle conflict, radiation given off from the nuclear warheads bring harm to humanity and nature, and nuclear warheads can destroy humanity and possibly Earth.

If one has been following the news, he or she would know about North Korea’s recent nuclear tests. As divulged by John F. Kennedy, "We must abolish nuclear weapons or they will abolish us." One singular “nuke” can output up to 4.18 x 1015 joules of energy. When this amount of energy is multiplied by the sheer number of nukes in the world, which is about fifteen thousand, the product is one tenth of the energy that is outputted by our Sun every minute (Ernest J. Moniz). Nuclear Weapons are detrimental to the environment, causing irreversible damage that kills both flora and fauna. Most casualties caused from atomic blasts occur weeks or days after the initial blast, women and children experience excruciating, prolonged pain as a result of radioactive poisoning that can lead to cancer or organ failure (ICAN). “Nukes” also have a major ethical impact around the world, imposing terror and spreading fear. Furthermore, nuclear weapons use nonrenewable materials such as Uranium-238 that also takes a lot of money to process and mine. This isotope is incredibly rare as it only accounts for under one percent of all Uranium found naturally in the world (World Nuclear Association). We are using the best of Earth’s resources for the worst of actions by the people living on it. Therefore, countries and governments around the world should be encouraged to sign the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons to ban these harmful devices of destruction and instead, invest in finding