Why do these countries feel the need to posses so many nuclear warheads? Dominance, power and paranoia. Although some of their weapons may simply just be left over from the Cold War, this is not an excuse. They could have easily been destroyed by now. Countries like Russia and the United States crave power. In modern times the most important substance to guarantee power is weapons.
Countries in possession of nuclear weapons use them to scare and intimidate other nations. One day this could backfire and the consequences would be deadly. Take North Korea and America. As soon as that was done North Korea knew they had a major diplomatic issue and rescinded their threat. A major threat to world peace is the potential issue that certain smaller countries are likely to rebel against being manipulated and not having the ability to retaliate.
To ensure that they avoid being bullied by bigger powers they may start to produce their own nuclear warheads. As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States maintain a significant arsenal of 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 potential enemies but practically there is the additional threat that Terrorists could pose if they ever managed to secure or steal some of these weapons. In the beginning of the atomic age atom bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous lives.
By this I mean that arguably, multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese virtually surrendered straight away. In contrast to this, look at what has become of 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?
McNamara stands in favor of eliminating nuclear weapons for good, bringing reassurance of peace for a fearful world. As debates over nuclear weapon use rage on, the threat is still present and must be handled carefully to avoid a man made apocalypse. McNamara and his stance on eliminating nuclear weapons is sensible, primarily due to the common man and woman agreeing with his logic.
While they were an everyday occurrence during the cold war years, concerns with the growth of existing nuclear stockpiles are no longer front page news.
In an era where the security agenda is topped by fighting terrorism, we are more worried that terrorist organizations or rogue regimes might acquire nuclear weapons and inflict unspeakable damage to the targeted countries. In order for complete nuclear disarmament, all cards must be playing the same game. Kenneth Waltz is one of few advocators in favor of nuclear weapons, but he does have a solid argument.
Leading scholars of international relations and policymakers share in the belief that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons prevents them from being used by friends and foes alike. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is rooted in their possession rather than in their use.
Respectively, the question arises: Governments avoid using nuclear warheads in conflicts against their opponents because of the danger that such weapons could be used against themselves in response. From this perspective, it does no matter anymore which country produced the first nuclear warhead. Nowadays, besides the U.
Considering the intense relationships between these participators in geopolitical processes, possessing nuclear weapons can be seen as a reasonable counter-measure against possible violent demarches from them. At the same time, it is unclear why governments strive to produce and maintain such vast amounts of nuclear warheads. Though the idea of storing such numbers of warheads is justified by the necessity to protect said countries and their allies, it still does not make real sense.
Considering the destructive power of weapons produced today, as well as the fact that nuclear warheads are not meant to be used for assault, it seems that 10 times lower amounts would be enough for the proclaimed goals. This would relieve the economy, and besides, prove the peaceful intentions of all countries that own weapons of mass destruction.
In the context of the worldwide proclaimed struggle with terrorism, the issue of possessing nuclear weapons should be also analyzed in terms of the possibility of terrorists gaining access to such weapons.
In the world where defense systems are operated through computer systems, physical control over warheads is not necessary; theoretically, a skilled hacker could break defense systems of a country of their choice, and gain advantage over opponents Shmeller. And though chances of this are low, it still does not speak in favor of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it becomes yet another factor of anxiety.
Nuclear weapons cost the citizens of the United States billions of dollars in taxes each year, the testing and maintenance of these weapons pose serious health risks, and the actual need for these weapons is not and has not been around for years.
Nuclear Weapons - Nuclear weapons are one of the most powerful weapons available to humans in terms of energy released. Only two nuclear weapons have thus far been used for war purposes in human history; detonated by the United States on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
Sample Essay on Nuclear Weapons Introduction The invention and introduction of nuclear weapons into our society was an astronomical find that shaped the way nation states around the world perceived war. The High Cost of Nuclear Weapons Essay. discussion has perhaps been that of nuclear weapons. Some people argue these weapons of mass destruction are vital to the survival of order and decency in the world, while others contend that nuclear weapons will bring an end to civilization as we now know it.
Nuclear Weapons A Nuclear weapon is any weapon that gets its destructive power from the transformation of matter in atoms into energy. They include . Ronald Reagan described nuclear weapons as: “Totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly leading to the destruction of life on Earth and civilisation.” He spoke nothing but the truth.