'Nuclear Weapons Persuasive Essay Essay\r'

'Should both country return the castigate to possess thermo thermo thermo thermo atomic weapons?\r\nOn the 6th November 1945, a f only in States zep flew to contendds the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 floper was an atomic break down †ironically nicknamed â€Å" lowly Boy” †that was to be dropped on its target. At 8.15am and at a height of around 2,000ft the bomb set off above Hiroshima, taking 140,000 lives with it. Most of the 140,000 died instantly, horrifyingly the comfort of the innocent civilians that were non in direct allude with the bomb died painful deaths in the four months following. They died from radiation sickness and different types of cancers. Whilst the atomic bomb is considered as one of the greatest inventions of all time, in term of how it could protect a nation, is it really worth having umpteen steps of govern custodyts on edge at the thought of a weapon so powerful? Ronald Reagan described ther monuclear weapons as: â€Å"Totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for cypher but killing, mayhap leading to the destruction of vitality on Earth and civilisation.” He spoke energy but the truth. US President Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist. He believed that the only reason to have nuclear ordnance was to prevent the Soviet Union from utilize theirs. Between them alone the United States and Russia have much than 90% of the earthly concern’s nuclear weapons. why do these countries feel the hire to posses so m either nuclear warheads? Dominance, power and paranoia. Although or so of their weapons may patently just be left over from the wintry War, this is not an exc give. They could have easily been destroyed by now. Countries like Russia and the United States crave power. In mod times the to the highest degree important substance to stock-purchase warrant power is weapons. Countries in possession of nuclear weapons utilise them to sc atomic number 1 8 and intimidate other nations. One twenty-four hour period this could backfire and the consequences would be deadly. Take North Korea and America. When Kim-Jong Un tried and true to invade South Korea, Barack Obama expo readd them with an atomic bomb. As soon as that was done North Korea knew they had a study diplomatic wall socket and rescinded their threat. A major threat to world peace is the latent issue that certain smaller countries are likely to originate against be manipulated and not having the ability to retaliate. To ensure that they neutralise being bullied by big powers they may take in to produce their own nuclear warheads. As antecedently tell, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States uphold a significant arsenal of nuclear weaponry is down to the item that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can convey most of the nuclear warheads in the world and then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is sure enough not the case. B y having so many hazardous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to potential enemies but practically at that place is the additional threat that Terrorists could pose if they ever managed to doctor or steal some of these weapons.\r\nMorally we should also be questioning the validity of nuclear weapons, if the leadership of a country say that it is ok to use an extreme sanction like nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing on a smaller scale? In the beginning of the atomic age atom bombs were created to end the war and to hold back numerous lives. By this I mean that arguably, innumerable lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese virtually surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the goal of extra 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 long bod of people. Rajiv Gandhi said that the â€Å"nuclear war impart not mean the death of one hundred million people. Or even a guanine million. It leave alone mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we contend it on planet earth.” The prospect of a nuclear war is just a horrendous thought, a thought that should never cross our minds. Recently, President Barack Obama and bloom of youth Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a treaty byword that both countries are willing to reduce their amount of nuclear weapons by one third. It is comforting to see that the US and Russia are starting to destroy their atomic bomb s but it is not good enough. They need to law of closure reducing their arsenal of weapons and eliminate them completely. Opponents of this idea arrogate that owning arnaments like atomic bombs mutually assures governments that they both have the potential for ultimate destruction. But is that really a good or virtuous thing? quite a little who appear to be psychopaths run a number of countries. For instance take the ruler of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe. He is at the potentially senile age of 89. His mind is failing. back you begin to comprehend what would happen if he got his pass on on an atomic bomb? The result would be anarchy. Or take the ruler of Syria, President Assad. He has already murdered masses of people by chemical gas attack and has publicly stated that he would destroy the state of Israel. For rulers like these men to possess weapons with such a huge annihilative potential is a simply ludicrous thought. If some unhinged individual were to drop an atomic bomb now it would result in retaliation and possibly the biggest global catastrophe this planet has ever seen.\r\nWe need to think about the consequences. It is a statement of fact that the more of something being produced the easier it is to acquire. Yes, this can concern nuclear weapons also. When more nuclear warheads are being make in that location is a bigger chance of them being stolen or worse being detonated. Therefore, there is a much larger risk of them falling into the aggrieve hands. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there have been 18 cases of loss but most likely theft of uranium and plutonium. These elements are key when constructing a bomb. To make matters worse, there have been 11 whole nuclear bombs lost in the United States. They have never been recovered. If agencies and governments are finding it herculean to keep track of their materials now, think of how impossible it would be if e real country had their own arsenal of nuclear weapons? If these los t bombs are in the hands of terrorists at present I can guarantee that they will currently be considering how best to use them to maximise their effect.\r\nTo conclude, the fact is that if every country were to have the right to possess nuclear weapons we would all be nourishment in constant fear of attack. Our lives would be very different; we would be insecure with regards to our safety and this would concern greatly on how we lived our lives †we would need to be importantly more vigilant. A small example of this is the potential effect that liquid explosives has on air transit where we can’t take any fluids that are more than 100ml into an airport. That is just for liquid explosives, what limits would be inevitable to ensure nuclear components weren’t being fateful? If one country were to drop a bomb it would set off a chain reaction, all it would take is for one rogue state or organisation to detonate a bomb and the world would effectively end through nu clear Armageddon.\r\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\r\nhttp://nonukes.org/cd18_sixarg.htm\r\nhttp://www.abolishnukes.com/short_essays/ten_reasons_krieger.html http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-nuclear-weapons-be-abolished http://debatewise.org/debates/144-eliminate-all-nuclear-weapons/\r\n'