Are Nuclear Weapons Helping or Hurting?

February 1, 2011
The use of nuclear weapons is a very controversial topic. On one hand, nuclear weapons are useful; and some would even say they are necessary. Nuclear weapons can be used to stop a war. They are extremely powerful, and no country wants all of their people to be completely annihilated. If nuclear weapons are kept in good hands they can actually be used for good. Just the threat of the weapons may be enough to stop a war. Nuclear weapons are also very important for the purpose of self defense. Large countries with strong militaries already have more power over small countries with lesser militaries, and if you add nuclear weapons to the picture; it is necessary for countries to have nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves.

However, my opinion is not in favor of nuclear weapons Yes, they can be used to stop a war; but the consequences far outweigh the benefits. Even with the precautions taken to prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands, there is still much room for loopholes to be found. There are more than 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, which is enough to completely wipe out the entire planet’s population. 2,500 of these weapons are on High Alert, which means they can be launched at any time with little notice. The United States, France, India, China, United Kingdom, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia all possess nuclear weapons. They all have the power to cause considerable damage and kill large numbers of people, including civilians. People do not have the right to take another person’s life away, much less to take the lives of thousands of innocent people.

Another con to nuclear weapons is how expensive they are. The U.S. alone spends 52 billion dollars each year on nuclear weapons. 13 billion more dollars are spent on nuclear weapons than on foreign assistance and diplomacy. The U.S. is one of the more prosperous nations, and it is in so much debt. Think of what would become of the poorer countries if all their resources were spent on nuclear weapons. If no one had/used these weapons, there would be no need for nuclear self defense. More money and time could be invested in education, which holds a far more valuable type of power. Think of how improved the world could be if even half of the money that it spends on nuclear weapons was spent on those who are suffering!

We live in a time where peace is not a choice, but the choice. Peace can not become reality until we all come together in search of a better world; which in my opinion, does not include nuclear weapons.





Join the Discussion

This article has 2 comments. Post your own now!

Treefiddy said...
Feb. 8, 2011 at 12:03 am

Before WWII, the British Labour Party voted consistantly against defense spending. The intellectual argument has always been that peace lies not in armament, but disarmament. That fallacy has been exhausted throughout human history.

Also, as it turns out, the evidence shows that nuclear weapons are a war deterrant. I see no problem in free nations possessing nuclear weapons. What can not be abided is a nuclear Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan. If we are serious about creating an envionme... (more »)

 
Treefiddy replied...
Feb. 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm

Let me put it this way: if Iran, Palastine and all the nations hostile to the J.ewish state of Israel, were to lay down their arms tomorrow, there would be peace in the Middle-East. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide.

As for Iraq, the international intelligence was that he had wmds, which he have to inflict massive casualties on the Kurds. Hussein rejected an ultimatum to leave Iraq, which he later stated that he thought it was a bluff. Iraq is now in... (more »)

 
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback