Argument For And Against The Use Of Nuclear Weapons

The second half of the 20th Century saw new weapons brought to the theatre of war. These included nuclear weapons s. Nuclear weapons can be defined as explosive ordinances that usually drive their detrimental might from either fission ( the splitting of nucleus in an atom to minute particles) or in other a cases , an amalgamation of both fission and fusion(the merging of nuclei to form nuclei of considerable size with an energy to match the size).

There is only one occasion in history where nuclear weapons were clearly used and this was during the Second World War. Atomic bombs, a uranium-gun type atomic bomb going by the moniker ‘’Little Boy’’ and a plutonium implosion-type bomb given the name “ Fat Man”, were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki consecutively by the United States Army Air Force(USAAF). This attack led to the unconditional surrender of the Empire of Japan on September 2nd 1945.

In essence, proponents of world peace noted the sheer might of nuclear weapons and thus lobbied for the maintenance of nuclear weapons by the Allied powers to create a balance of power and also act as a deterrent of future clashes which serves as an advantage. While some members of the public would want support the presence of nuclear weapons in specific countries, some don’t. Nuclear weapons are very destructive to both human beings and the environment in general due to the radioactive materials they contain.

For supporters of nuclear weapons proliferation around the world, deterrence of is their main reason for why they offer their support .The strategy of nuclear deterrence usually has a policy of a country retaliating to a nuclear weapon. This thus creates a situation of where countries with nuclear weapons avoid conflict by all means possible. It is this strategy that ensured that a thermonuclear war did not break out between the United States of America and the Soviet Union when the Cold War (1947-1991) was at its height. Deterrence has surely been an effective way in preventing the escalation of nuclear weapons and attacks, but it is also important for superpower countries such as the U.S.A to ensure that terrorists do not get a hold of them (Gallucci 52). In addition to this, conflict leads to wanton death and destruction of property and even infrastructure bringing economic nosedives in countries ravaged by war.

On the flipside, the destructive force of these weapons on human beings and the environment is also noteworthy. The effects of the thermal blast that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki obliterated these two cities and survivors were next to nil. Glasstone and Dolan noted that “when a nuclear weapon is detonated over a surface, radiation from the fireball produces a hot layer of air”(53). Those who were lucky enough to survive would often die after some weeks due to complications caused by ionizing radiation from exposure to radioactive material. Moreover, the climatology assumption of the Nuclear winter ,which is soot from various sites that nuclear attacks would happen during a thermonuclear war covering the atmosphere and disrupting life and food chains causing  massive disruption of life as we know it.

Moreover, environmental consequences of an atomic blast would in most occasions include the spread of radioactive materials on the soil, rivers and even animals around that area.

In conclusion, nuclear weapons have their benefits but the destruction these weapons are capable of causing outweighs the few benefits. It is thus important to support the ban on nuclear weapon use and also promote the control of these weapons. International treaties such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)of 1968 and the Threshold Test Treaty Ban (TTPT) of 1984 are supposed to curtail the acquisition bomb grade fissile material and nuclear stockpiles to ensure world peace is maintained.

Order Unique Answer Now

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *